In a similar vein, we steer away from an in-depth analysis of the legal frameworks. Although many studies on Myanmar have scrutinised these legal instruments, our observations suggest their deployment as political instruments is highly arbitrary—as new regulations can be introduced ad hoc, and prior regulations ignored, to justify repression. Oppressive legal measures are not always necessary for arrests, as evidenced by our interviews with journalists. 1 This prevalent focus on legal analysis often reflects Western legalistic traditions, which might not fully grasp what Rebecca Tapscott (2021) termed as “institutionalised arbitrariness” observed in the Global South: the “unpredictable assertions and denials of authority that fragment and weaken civil society and local public authorities.” Drawing parallels with our previous research in Indonesia (2022), we take that such a legal positivist approach may not be adequate in a non-Western context as in Myanmar. Throughout this research, we adopt a cautious stance towards claims of the military junta’s high-tech “digital authoritarianism.” While not discounting the junta’s potential use of sophisticated surveillance technologies—an investigation that falls outside our research scope—and still being cognisant that the situation may change at any time, we observed that journalists frequently face low-tech surveillance and related threats. Looking at other threats as primary and the digital as secondary is vital in reinterpreting the broader security challenges confronting Myanmar journalists, as it alters our approach to problematising the situation. If we consider the efforts to intervene in the security situations of journalists as a part of a broader set of development interventions, our study aligns with the critiques of scholars like James Ferguson (1994), Tania Li (2011), and Evgeny Morozov (2013), who have highlighted the development field’s inclination to “render technical” in proposing solutions. This overly positivistic approach may overlook key risks by attributing issues to individual shortcomings or improper use of devices and tools. We aim to avoid this pitfall. 1. See also the limited publication material by International Media Support (2022), “2022 Q4 and Annual Report on Journalism and Media Safety in Myanmar: Judicial Persecution Persists, More Repression Ahead.” 10