If measures taken by implementing bodies were to go beyond the social, and invoke the power of the State to prevent the exercise of freedom of expression, that would be problematical. Given that the Directive is unclear as to what measures it envisages, which are left entirely to the implementing ministries and governments, this is a risk. And this risk is exacerbated by the call, in the Directive, for implementing bodies to “prevent”, as well as “denounce” hate speech. Prevention measures could easily take on the characteristics of prohibitions on speech rather than social measures to combat racist speech. To help prevent this, we recommend that implementing bodies make public their reporting on the measures they have taken to implement the Directive. It would also be useful for central authorities, such as the President’s Office which issued it, to provide guidance on the specific measures which ministries and region/state governments are expected to take to combat racist speech and to affirm that the policy should be implemented in a manner that accords with international freedom of expression standards. Meanwhile, draft legislation on hate speech is reportedly still moving forward, although it is not clear whether a draft is actively under consideration in parliament and a recent draft has not been shared publicly.22 Public review of any draft hate speech legislation is vital, given that this sort of law represents a restriction on freedom of expression and the challenges inherent in striking an appropriate balance between prohibiting hate speech legislation while still respecting freedom of expression. Amendment to the Law on Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens On 28 August 2020, parliament amended the Law on Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens. The Law prohibits a range of actions if they are taken absent authorisation by an existing law or an order or permission from a Union government body. These offences are punishable by between six months’ and three years’ imprisonment and a fine.23 The prohibited acts include slandering or harming the reputation of others. It may be noted that there are several other rules in Myanmar prohibiting defamation (i.e. slander or harming reputations), so that there is simply no need for another rule on this. Furthermore, criminal penalties for defamation are not appropriate according to international human rights guarantees and any defamation rules should be accompanied by various defences, such as truth, which is not present here. Previously, the prohibitions in the Privacy Law applied to everyone but, pursuant to the August amendments, they now only apply to a “competent authority who possesses official powers and ARTICLE 19, Myanmar Briefing Paper: Countering ‘Hate Speech’, 4 February 2020. Available at: https://www.article19.org/resources/myanmar-briefing-paper-countering-hate-speech/ (describing a 2019 draft law on hate speech which had been shared with ARTICLE 19 but not released publicly). 23 Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens, 8 March 2017, sections 8 and 11. Available in English at: https://www.myanmar-responsiblebusiness.org/pdf/Law-Protecting-Privacy-and-Security-ofCitizens_en_unofficial.pdf. 22 -8-