Seven parliamentarians argued that section 66 (d) of the existing Telecommunications Law should be discarded at the July 25 Amyotha Hluttaw (House of Nationalities) session during which a total of 14 legislators debated a bill amending that law.
Section 66 (d) of the 2013 Telecommunications Law reads “Whoever commits any of the following acts shall, on conviction, be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years or to a fine or to both – Extorting, coercing, restraining wrongfully, defaming, disturbing, causing undue influence or threatening to any person by using any Telecommunications Network”.
Among the parliamentarians who debated the draft amendment are Ye Htut from Sagaing Region constituency (5) representing the ruling National League for Democracy (NLD) party. “At present, section 66 (d) is a notorious provision. The Telecommunications Law was enacted in 2013. There are 67 cases filed under this section since its entry into force. Out of those, ten cases are against media and a total of 18 journalists have been charged. All of them are libel cases. Also in this amendment, defamation clause is contained. Without scrapping section 66 (d) that undergoes a uniform objection from the media community and various organisations, it is observed that just the wordings ‘thre-aten, obstruct, inappropriately influence’ are erased. In fact, those are the offences already found in the Penal Code. So, section 66 (d) is not necessary. It should get abolished” discussed Ye Htut.
Twelve representatives from the NLD, a military personnel representative and a representative from the Arakan National Party (ANC) discussed the draft law.
“Since this is the time moving forward to a democratic Myanmar, it needs to scrap all oppressive legislations over time. Thus, I want to request to exterminate all provisions included in section 66 (d). If we do not urgently terminate all oppressive laws and leave it at that, it is worried to encounter democracy getting backwards” said Ye Htut.
Provisions in subsections 66 (c) and (d) deal with the concerns already imposed in the Penal Code to action wrongdoings. Those are unnecessary provisions because the concerns already addressed in the Penal Code are further incorporated in a special act – the Telecommunications Law. Moreover, it differs from the purpose of the adoption of the Telecommunications Law” argued Tin Aung Htun, who is from Magway Region constituency (5) also representing the NLD.
“As legal proceedings taken by the application of section 66 (d) pose a hindrance to the free expression of critical suggestion over administrative actions and can end the public criticism of authorities over their corruptions, injustices and weaknesses, it could delay the rule of law and democracy culture. If subsections 66 (c) and (d) of the Telecommunications Law are abolished, subsections (c) and (d) of section (80) of article (4) in the amending bill are no more necessary to substitute the original provisions. Therefore, the subsections (c) and (d) of section 66 of the Telecommunications Law should be erased to manifest the Parliament’s commitment to the voice of the people and media, the desire of the people and media, the hope of the people and media” Tin Aung Htun continued.
Original Purpose
The purpose of the adoption of the Telecommunications Law was to develop the telecommunications sector of the country by facilitating the opening up of the telecom market while regulating people’s use of telecommunication means, paving the way for incoming international telcos. But later, the whole legislation becomes ill-famed when those in power exploit section 66 (d) to seek legal action against members of the general public provided their online postings somehow offend the governing elite. Some ordinary netizens, activists and journalists confront arrests, prosecutions or prison sentences because of this requirement.
Connection with Section (80)
Section (80) of the Telecommunications Law, which requires all violations embodied in the legislation deemed to be cognisable offence, confirms the arbitrary practice of section 66 (d) as the office holders in law enforcement handle the complaints at discretion – i.e., their response to a complaint is largely dependent on the fact that a plaintiff is speaking for a State leader or not. It is normal to see the police’s action is not immediate and active enough when an ordinary citizen files a lawsuit against someone under 66 (d).
The provision of section (80) reads “(a) Offences under this Law shall be deemed to be cognisable offence. (b) In prosecution under this Law, prior sanction of the Ministry shall be obtained”. Thus, not only law enforcement personnel but also officials at the Ministry of Home Affairs would have a chance to pursue discretional decision when it comes to complaints made under section 66 (d).
In reality, the latter dictate of section (80) is not abided if the accused is an ordinary citizen, directly apprehended by the police to be brought to trial without the step of obtaining the sanction from the Ministry, according to the observers. The noticeable difference between the number of individuals reported with 66 (d) and the number of those brought to court or placed in custody with the same is the best proof of discretionary conduct by office holders.
Facebook Affiliation
In Myanmar, legal proceedings taken under 66 (d) are mainly associated with Facebook use, since the worldleading social network platform predominates in society ever since the nascent stage of the rise in social media use among the populace. While the stipulation is plausible by its purpose,the application of it substantially constitutes the infringement of free speech, turning into a government’s tool to action the public reproach.
Amendment
Notoriety, miseries and anxiety concerned with section 66 (d) among the public and media finally prompts the parliamentary action to amend the Telecommunications Law, which was enacted on October 8, 2013. Deputy Minister for Transport and Communications Kyaw Myo submitted a bill to amend the Telecommunications Law to Amyotha Hluttaw on July 13. Prior to that, a draft bill including the remarks and additions of the Office of the Union Attorney-General was submitted to the Union Government’s meeting on July 6 by the Security, Stability and Rules of Law Committee of the Amyotha Hluttaw. The meeting decided to submit the bill to Pyidaungsu Hluttaw (Assembly of the Union), the national-level bicameral legislature of Myanmar.
Prior to that, Pyidaungsu Hluttaw’s Commission for the Assessment of Legal Affairs and Special Issues reviewed the law following the presentation of a report on the legislation by a group that had researched into it. Officials also invited the interested activists, rights groups, civil society organisations, media organisations and professionals to participate in the discussion of the bill amending the Telecommunications Law.
Vague Wording
No rules were promulgated to properly exercise the provisions of the Telecommunications Law, and so controversy arises when interpreting 66 (d) which is vaguely phrased and bears no clear-cut meaning. Lawyers and observers argue that this sort of stipulation should be incorporated in a Cyber Law, and a specific Cyber Law is recommended to control all forms of cybercrime. Myanmar has yet to enact a Cyber Law.
