The Centre for Law and Democracy has carefully studied the recent changes to Myanmar’s Broadcast Law.

In the following interview with Mizzima, CLD Executive Director Toby Mendel assesses the importance and scope of these changes.

Who should be concerned about the changes to the Broadcasting Law, in other words, how wide a net has been cast?

This is one of the really challenging issues because the language of the amendments leave it really unclear as to how wide its scope is. And given that the courts are today very unlikely to challenge a claim by the government, it really depends on how wide the government wants the net to be. What the new rules say is that it covers any technology by which people directly access television and radio programmes. It is very clear this covers online dissemination. But neither television nor radio are defined. So, this could be considered to apply to any audio or video programme online (eg a clip uploaded to social media), anyone or any business which has a website which hosts such content, anyone whose website has news (and audio/video clips), like Mizzima or a blogger, or just entities which look more like traditional radio and television.

It would be pretty dramatic if they applied it to social media, because that would effectively make it illegal for anyone in Myanmar to use social media (or at least to post audio or video content there). This would be pretty extreme, but it is possible that they could apply it selectively to social media content/users they did not like (ie those who are critical of the government). And now it is a criminal offence, with imprisonment, to operate without a licence. I would certainly say that anyone who posts news, again with audio or video clips, should be worried. And, of course, the online community radio stations will almost certainly be covered.

What would you say are the crucial differences between the old Broadcasting Law and this amended version?

There are two main differences. The first is who is covered, as discussed above. Just to be clear, this has numerous implications. Once you are deemed to be engaging in broadcasting under the new definition, the first issue is that you need a licence to operate, failing which you are committing a criminal offence (ie broadcasting without a licence). But the Broadcasting Law places a lot of other obligations on broadcasters, as outlined in our longer analysis. The second main feature is that now key offences, mainly operating without a licence or once the licence is suspended, but also in breach of any regulation

that might be passed under the law, are criminal in nature with minimum prison sentences ranging from six months to three years (and maximum of up to five years). So that is a really harsh penalty for anyone deemed to be in breach of the law.

Why does CLD believe this is happening now?

It is hard to know exactly because we have not seen any justification or rationale from the government. However, looking at its behaviour over the last 10+ months, it seems likely that this is a way for the government to crack down even further on criticism. Since they have already taken measures against most if not all independent media (like Mizzima), one can only assume that they will use this to expand that, perhaps to bloggers or potentially even activists posting on social media. In terms of the timing, it is hard to say. Perhaps they are just slowly expanding the net of repression. Perhaps they are just further consolidating their power as time goes on. Perhaps they feel they need to exert further controls over free speech due to the level of criticism they are receiving. Or perhaps something has emboldened them to do this right now.

Have you noticed any responses to these changes from governments or international organizations?

Not so far, at least not publicly. But hopefully this has started to enter into the diplomatic dialogue. Although the primary human rights breach of the military regime was to overthrow a perfectly legitimate election, and nothing else they do can really compare in terms of severity with that, it is also important for the international community to keep criticising them each time they do something which further violates human rights, which this certainly does.

From your knowledge, how does this amended Broadcasting Law compare to laws other countries in Southeast Asia or Asia?

The funny thing is that before these amendments, Myanmar’s Broadcasting Law was actually one of the more progressive in Southeast Asia and even Asia as a whole. However, some of the very rules that made it progressive - such as requiring broadcasters to broadcast programmes by independent producers, to produce programmes for special audiences, to correct mistakes and to respect the code of conduct - are exactly what make it unreasonable if applied too broadly.

It is one thing to require an actual radio or television station to respect professional rules and quite another to impose that obligation on a social media user. Also, one of the key protections against abuse of these sorts of rules is having an independent regulator to apply them, which the Broadcasting Law formally provides for. But, of course, under the current regime the idea of an independent regulator is impossible, so that key protection is lost.

Compared to other laws in the region, we will have to see how broadly this gets applied. If they actually do apply it to social media, then they will be going much further than other countries. And the minimum terms of imprisonment (as well as the fact of imprisonment at all for these offences) are also very severe compared to other countries.

How do you view the overall state of Myanmar's media today in the wake of the February coup?

While we had always been advocating for better conditions for the media in Myanmar, and there were certainly problems in the legal environment, those have of course become much worse both through amendments in some key cases (like this) but also in the way these rules have been applied. The fate of

Mizzima is a good, if very unfortunate, reflection of this. You have been banned as a media outlet and you have journalists in jail. So, media freedom has been very, very seriously undermined in the country. Indeed, Myanmar is now among the worst countries in the world for media freedom, and this will start to show up on comparative press freedom rankings once they are updated.

Is there anything else you would like to add?

I would like to salute the brave journalists working for Mizzima and other media outlets, who are continuing to report on what is happening in the country despite the often incredible risks to them and the difficulties they face. And I would extend that to the many others who in different ways are resisting the military regime. I think the bravery and suffering of these people is an inspiration to everyone around the world who values democracy. And we, in turn, need to stand in solidarity with them.