Friday Nov 08, 2024
FT
Friday Nov 08, 2024
Thursday, 25 January 2024 01:12 - - {{hitsCtrl.values.hits}}
The contentious Online Safety Bill was approved hastily in Parliament yesterday without undergoing a vote or a third reading. Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena announced that the Bill had been read for the third time and was passed with amendments, a statement contested by opposition MPs.
While National People’s Party (NPP) MP Vijitha Herath objected to the Bill and urged the Speaker to conduct a vote, however, Abeywardena declined the request, citing the expiration of the allotted time for opposing the Bill. “It has been approved,” the Speaker repeated despite Herath insisting he had been expressing his disapproval for a while.
Amidst the uproar in Parliament, the Speaker claimed no MP had requested for a third reading or a vote and the time had lapsed to make a request.
Earlier in the day, a vote was conducted following the second reading of the Bill at the request of the opposition. The Bill received 108 votes in favour, with only 62 MPs in opposition. Subsequently, the Select Committee stage commenced, during which amendments were introduced to the Bill.
However, the opposition raised objections to the amendments at this stage, asserting that the Government had put forward amendments not recommended by the Supreme Court in its determination on the Bill.
Addressing the Parliament, opposition MP Dayasiri Jayasekara said that the amendments put forth by the Government contradict those recommended by the Supreme Court.
Providing an example, Jayasekara pointed out that one amendment empowers the President to dismiss a member of the Online Safety Commission during an investigation process. “If, during an investigation, a member of the Online Safety Commission is conducting themselves justly but is permitted to be removed, this is not right,” emphasised the MP.
Tamil National Alliance (TNA) MP M.A Sumanthiran expressed his agreement with Jayasekara and said S.7 of the legislation now included contravenes the determination of the Supreme Court. “The Supreme Court has clearly said the new additional S.7 provision is against its determination. You have included this recently,” he alleged.
Elaborating further, Sumanthiran emphasised page 56 of the Supreme Court’s determination on the bill, specifically addressing instances where the law cannot be applied. He pointed out that these considerations were not incorporated into the amendments during the Select Committee stage. Sumanthiran highlighted that although SMS messages were mentioned in the Supreme Court’s determination, this specific content exclusion had not been included in the amendments, despite the Supreme Court stating that the law cannot be applied to such material. According to him, 13 provisions of the bill contravene the determination of the Supreme Court. “This is a grave matter. Even if it is passed, it cannot be a law” he said.
Addressing the parliament, MP Chandima Weerakkody, who is also a member of the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Media, Youth, Heritage, and New Citizen, emphasised that it was for this reason they insisted on the Sectoral Oversight Committee carefully considering each paragraph of the bill. He expressed concern that the lack of careful consideration was the reason why a report from the Sectoral Oversight Committee was not issued. Weerakkody emphasised, “This is why we are saying this cannot be passed.”
Expressing his views MP Rauff Hakeem noted it was due to these reasons that the opposition had requested the debate to be postponed. He questioned the Government’s haste in passing the bill and said it should have acted in a more humane manner.
Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa appealed to the Speaker, urging him not to allow the bill to progress, as proceeding against the Supreme Court determination would be unconstitutional. He further requested the Speaker to adjourn the parliament.
However, Minister of Education, Susil Premajayantha insisted the amendments were made in accordance with the determination of the Supreme Court and accused the opposition of colluding to block the passage of the bill. ”Let them proceed with whatever actions they want; we just need to get this passed,” he commented.
Government MPs, including Deputy Speaker Ajith Rajapakse and MP Rohitha Abeygunawardena, pointed out personal attacks against them on social media. They urged Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles to proceed with passing the bill on the same day without any further amendments.
Minister of Power and Energy Kanchana Wijesekara, urged Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles to introduce a process that ensures the law is implemented to its fullest extent following its enactment.
However, Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa continued to press the Government, urging them to withdraw the bill. He argued that without social media, many unscrupulous acts would go unnoticed, citing the recent example of a function held by Government MPs aboard a ship at the Colombo Port. He emphasised that the bill would impact the country’s economy if social media and tech companies decide to exit Sri Lanka following its enactment.
Government MP Wajira Abeywardana insisted Sri Lanka is merely following in the steps of other countries especially those in Asia which have enacted similar laws to protect their culture and future.
Commenting on the legislation, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (MP) Harsha de Silva said holding social media platforms accountable was not appropriate. “This legislation is a threat to our democracy. This will have a severe negative impact on expanding e-commerce in Sri Lanka, providing jobs to our youth and aiding our economy, which is in desperate need of growth,” he said.
De Silva said the wrongdoer must be the person who uploads abusive content to social media and not the platform itself.
The Government however dismissed the objections raised by the opposition regarding the amendments and proceeded to make its own amendments. Additionally, the Government also neglected to consider the amendments proposed by the opposition.
Despite facing significant opposition from various civil society groups and activists in the lead-up to the debate, they have yet to release any statements regarding the passage of the bill. Nevertheless, numerous activists were observed expressing their views on social media in defiance of the bill’s approval. Additionally, a protest was held yesterday near the parliament, where activists chanted slogans against the bill.
