5/24/22, 8:02 PM 66(d): The defamation menace | Frontier Myanmar Steve Tickner / Frontier One high profile example came in 2012, when the Ministry of Mines sued The Voice journal over an article that quoted parliamentarians as saying that misappropriation of funds and graft had been uncovered by the Auditor General’s Office at six ministries, including the Ministry of Mines. The case was withdrawn in January 2013 following negotiations between the ministry, publication and press council. Most cases involving civilian defendants and complainants continue to be submitted under section 499, Kyi Myint told Frontier. However, he noted that because of the exceptions the cases were usually more complex and took longer to reach a verdict. Any sentences handed down also tended to be more lenient than those under 66(d) cases, he said. There’s also the Electronics Transactions Law, which forbids “creating, modifying or altering of information or distributing of information created, modified or altered by electronic technology to be detrimental to the interest of or to lower the dignity of any organization or any person.” This was a favourite of the military junta – it was used against activists, including Nay Phone Latt, who sent “detrimental” emails – until it was amended in 2013 to remove prison time as a punishment. It’s not clear exactly why section 66(d) was deemed necessary given that all of the offences listed in 66(d) are already covered in the Penal Code: extortion (383-389); coercion (147, 349, 350, 362); wrongful restraint (340, 341); defamation (499-501); disturbing (268); and threatening (189, 388, 503). One argument put forward is that 66(d) is needed so that action can be taken when these offences are committed using a telecoms network. However, in 2015, the 1872 Evidence Act was amended to expand the definition of “document” to cover electronic records or information. Mr Daniel Aguirre, an international legal adviser with the International Commission of Jurists, said the amendment “should adequately cover telecommunications documents as evidence for crimes listed in the Penal Code”. Nevertheless, Aung Kyi Nyunt from the NLD insisted that 499/500 and 66(d) were both needed to cover different types of defamation. “Section 66(d) only focuses on those who want to defame someone using the internet and 499/500 applies when people defame each other in person [or in print], so these two sections are different,” he said. No end in sight Media freedom and human rights groups have lobbied for Myanmar to reform laws that criminalise freedom of expression, including those related to defamation. The United Nations special rapporteur on freedom of expression has called for all criminal defamation acts to be revised to remove criminal sanctions, and for civil proceedings to be the sole form of redress for complaints of damage to reputation. https://www.frontiermyanmar.net/en/66d-the-defamation-menace/ 6/10