2018 without any real consultation, leaving all anti-FoEI provisions, such as State control over the broadcast regulatory body, intact.23 Despite adopting the amendment, the State still has not enforced the Broadcasting Law,24 preferring to maintain direct control over all television and radio channels.25 11. Criminalisation of journalism has increased year-on-year since 2015, with most threats coming from the executive and military.26 Although they were later pardoned,27 the show-trial and conviction of Reuters journalists,28 as well as other journalists under national security laws, have significantly encouraged media self-censorship,29 particularly on topics relating to conflict or other issues that the State finds “sensitive” such as the military, mismanagement, or corruption.30 12. Criminal defamation laws are the greatest legal threat to FoEI in Myanmar,31 and most journalists and HRDs remain fearful of them.32 None of the six criminal defamation laws conforms to basic FoEI standards.33 The laws do not define defamation, defences are lacking, and sanctions are unnecessary and disproportionate.34 The laws protect feelings rather than reputations, are used to punish criticism or mockery of politicians and public officials, are based on minimal and unreliable evidence, and attract a 100% conviction rate of punitive imprisonment.35 In response to FEM’s decriminalisation campaign and public pressure,36 the State superficially amended two of the five laws,37 but then continued to adopt a sixth criminal defamation law without proper consultation.38 During the legislative processes, the State reacted to public pressure by effectively excluding civil society,39 as well as limiting MPs’ ability to consult, prepare, or participate.40 13. 1 country:41 “Ensure the independence of the Myanmar Press Council” – No implementation. No change. The Council continues to be dependent on the State primarily because the State selects and dismisses Councillors. Most journalists believe the Council has a low level of success in defending media, and in some so-called “hot” cases the Council has avoided actively supporting the journalists involved.42 Digital rights 14. 1 country:43 “Ensure internet regulation complies with human rights standards” – No implementation. Regression. Since 2015, the State has attempted to further restrict FoEI in the digital space.44 Following FEM’s campaign in partnership with civil society, the Telecommunications Law was superficially amended without proper consultation and the amended law continues to interfere with FoEI.45 A proposed amendment to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens would if adopted add yet more criminal FoEI restrictions.46 The proposed amendment is in opaque limbo. The State has initiated the development of a “cyber-crimes framework” although it is as yet unclear whether this will include further criminal interference in FoEI, via for example a seventh criminal defamation provision. No attempt to amend the Electronic Transactions Law, which interferes in FoEI, has been made or promised.47 Despite the proposed amendment to the Law Protecting the Privacy and Security of Citizens, the State has not attempted to legislate to protect online privacy or personal data, or to regulate communications interception, all of which lack a legal framework.48 www.FreeExpressionMyanmar.org – www.facebook.com/FreeExpressionMyanmar - coordinator@FreeExpressionMyanmar.org - page 3