Friday May 17, 2024
Friday May 17, 2024
Wednesday, 24 January 2024 00:25 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
In defiance of claims from Opposition lawmakers contending that the parliamentary debate on the Online Safety Bill was unlawful due to its violation of parliamentary standing orders, the parliament proceeded with the debate yesterday following a majority vote in favour of considering the contentious bill for discussion.
Addressing the parliament, Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M.A. Sumanthiran maintained that the ongoing debate was illegal and in violation of the Standing Orders. He emphasised that the Standing Orders explicitly specify that a report from the relevant Sectoral Oversight Committee must be provided before any proceedings in parliament can take place.
“What has been tabled today as a report is not a report. This insults the basic intelligence of all the members of this house, and even worse, it insults the intelligence of all the people of this country,” he said.
The MP went on to note that the document submitted by the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Media, Youth, Heritage and New Citizen merely noted it has agreed to the bill subject to amendments proposed by the Supreme Court and that the committee’s report thereon will be presented. “It says the report should be presented and there is no report,” he stressed.
Sumanthiran compared the report submitted with a previous report by the Committee on Public Finance (CoPF). “The report submitted by the Committee on Public Finance is an actual report. It deals with observations and recommendations made by the Committee on the commodity levy,” he said. The MP highlighted that the activities of the Committee on Public Finance (CoPF) regarding the discussed matter have been systematically listed, and ultimately, the decision has also been clearly outlined.
With 83 votes in favour of proceeding with the debate and 50 against, the TNA MP remarked that this outcome simply indicates a lack of literacy among the majority of the country’s Government faction lawmakers. “It merely shows that the Government members cannot read. A piece of paper that says a report will be submitted by the Chairman is considered to be the report,” the MP said.
The matter was also raised by the Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa and Opposition MP Gajendrakumar Ponnambalam during the proceedings.
Meanwhile, Sumanthiran also accused the Government of attempting to bulldoze the bill even after admitting it is defective.
The MP said the Committee appointed by the relevant Minister put forth recommendations concerning the bill and during the Sectoral Oversight Committee meeting, both Government and Opposition members concurred that these recommendations must be incorporated.
“The Attorney General has said that cannot be done as it changes the nature of the bill. Then the bill must be withdrawn, re-gazetted according to the consensus which has been reached by both sides that the recommendations of the experts must be incorporated and then have the bill passed without a division,” he said.
The MP said however once a consensus has been reached also the Government is bulldozing the bill despite it being defective as admitted by the subject Minister. “He assured the party leaders that he will bring amendments to it. So then why pass it?” he asked. The TNA MP alleged the entire process is flawed. He said while the bill can be passed with the consensus of the house the Government has chosen the wrongful path of bulldozing through. “This is the characteristic of the Government. Using the false majority that they have they are bulldozing through a draconian and oppressive piece of legislation through the house,” he accused.
Nevertheless, during the debate’s commencement, Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles persisted in defending the proposed bill. He noted that the Supreme Court had recommended amendments to the bill, and assured that they would be incorporated after the bill is approved in parliament on the second day of the debate.
He said in 2023 the Police had received over 8,000 complaints regarding crimes committed online including 669 complaints of online sexual harassment. “There were another 506 complaints regarding the dissemination of nude images,” he said, adding that he was informed that in fact over 100,000 such images were shared.
The Minister clarified that the Online Safety Bill exclusively addresses online crimes such as sexual harassment, financial fraud, and provocations that could potentially incite insurgencies or disrupt religious and ethnic harmony among others. He emphasised that the intention is not to victimise anyone including the media and political opponents through the Online Safety Bill. “All of these measures are being implemented to safeguard the women and children of this country,” he maintained.
The Minister also reassured that proposed amendments to the Bill from civil movements, the UN Resident Representative, and the Asian Internet Coalition would be taken into consideration at a later stage.
“I engaged in discussions with these organisations, and they proposed certain amendments to the Bill. However, the Attorney General has conveyed that some of these amendments cannot be accommodated at this moment. Therefore, I will present those amendments to the Cabinet in our next meeting and subsequently bring them before Parliament. Nonetheless, for the time being, we will only incorporate the amendments recommended by the Supreme Court. We will proceed with approving the Bill now and introduce additional amendments later,” he assured.
More Government MPs rallied around the Minister to support the bill. Minister of Livestock Development, D.B. Herath maintained that the proposed bill would address hate speech and claimed that the attacks on Government MPs’ houses in 2022 were orchestrated through social media. Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) MP Madhura Withanage claimed there is a risk of social media superseding Parliament which has been elected by the sovereignty of the people, within the next five years.
While the debate continued, activists and members of the public held a protest against the proposed bill near the parliament. They accused the Government of attempting to curb the freedom of speech and censor the expression of public opinion through social media.
Meanwhile members of the opposition who joined the debate called for further deliberations on the bill before it was passed and questioned the Government’s haste to pass the bill.
Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP Eran Wickramaratne contradicted Alles’s assertion that social media companies were ready to endorse the Online Safety Bill if the suggested amendments from these companies were included.
“In reality, these institutions are not in consensus, and an official statement on their stance will be released shortly. The Supreme Court’s interpretation indicates that 55-60% of the proposed bill is in violation of the Constitution. Questions arise as to why there is a rush to pass this bill without engaging in meaningful dialogue,” he noted.
Opposition MP Rauff Hakeem also expressed concern that the Government’s efforts are aimed at suppressing freedom of speech in Sri Lanka. He added that such actions could lead to the creation of a highly oppressive environment. According to Hakeem, this represents a Government endeavour to dismantle the few remaining safeguards for freedom of expression in the country and undermine democracy.
Opposition MP Wimal Weerawansa characterised the proposed bill as a tool that could be wielded either to cause harm or for benign purposes, comparing it to a knife that could be used to sever a neck or spread butter. He questioned the necessity of such a tool and suggested the use of an alternative, like a rod. Weerawansa emphasised that the real concern lies not in having a fake account but in using it to tarnish the reputation of others. He shared his personal experience as a former journalist and Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) member, acknowledging the use of several aliases during that time.
The proposed bill seeks to establish an Online Safety Commission and includes provisions to prohibit the online communication of specific factual statements in Sri Lanka. Additionally, it aims to prevent the utilisation of online accounts, particularly inauthentic ones, for restricted purposes. The bill further outlines measures to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes within the nation, as well as to curb the financing and other support for the dissemination of false statements of fact.
The debate will continue today and the vote on the proposed bill is set to take place later in the day.
