The much-contested Online Safety Bill (OSB) passed in Parliament last week, amidst allegations of a breach of parliamentary procedure and serious concerns regarding its implications on Sri Lanka’s digital economy and freedom of speech.
A violation of procedure?
Speaking to The Sunday Morning, Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) MP Eran Wickramaratne, who was present at the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Media, Youth, Heritage, and New Citizens meeting on Monday (22), alleged that the committee had not perused or discussed the amendments to the Online Safety Bill in detail.
“Usually, the committee goes through the bill that has come to Parliament and gives its recommendations. There were officials from the Public Security Ministry, representatives from the Attorney General’s Department, and Police officials at the meeting. When it was taken up, we were given some amendments. The committee Chairman did not go clause by clause to make sure that the amendments were in line with the Supreme Court (SC) determination.”
Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) MP Chandima Weerakkody, who was also present at the meeting, told The Sunday Morning that Opposition MPs had pointed out the need to take some time to bring in amendments in order to make the bill a productive one. Weerakkody said that Public Security Ministry Secretary Viyani Gunathilaka had also agreed, but had said that the bill, with some amendments, would be passed for the time being, with other amendments being introduced at a later date.
“We said that this was a joke as the public already perceived Parliament as a place where money was wasted. They were clearly about to engage in a wasteful act again.”
Weerakkody further said that the next day, when they had met the Speaker, the latter had not even received a copy of the report from the Sectoral Oversight Committee.
“The Sectoral Oversight Committee is supposed to give a report but they only gave the minutes of the meeting. They couldn’t see the distinction between the two; they were saying it had been done for other bills. I am sure it has been, but that can’t be the argument for something as serious as this,” noted Wickramaratne.
Ultimately, following a Party Leaders’ meeting, the Speaker referred the matter to the House, which then voted with a majority to hold the debate on the bill.
Wickramaratne said: “After the second reading on Wednesday (24), at the committee stage when amendments were brought to Parliament, the Leader of the House was skimming through the amendments, mostly related to constitutionality. MPs objected because we said we had to look at the amendments, because even if the SC had suggested them, we needed to look at the final draft.
“In the end, for the final vote after the committee stage, we wanted a vote by name but the Speaker ignored that; he said the bill had been passed by voice.”
The Opposition’s 13 amendments, which were tabled by MP Weerakkody, were not passed.
“The process was not complete and it was rushed. Unfortunately, the Government was determined to go through with it. There were amendments that were given, but there was no way the MPs could study the amendments within that short period of time. That is why they should have been considered in detail at the Sectoral Oversight Committee and the committee should have gone through several rounds of discussions before the bill was presented for debate,” said Wickramaratne.
Responding to allegations about the violations of procedure, Public Security Minister Tiran Alles said that the Opposition had merely been trying to delay the bill.
“That is all nonsense. The committee met and the committee report was presented. Then they talked about the format of the committee. I told everyone to draw up a format for future bills, not for this, since in the past, the format had been different from one bill to another. It was only at this point that they were trying to use it to cause a delay,” Alles told The Sunday Morning.
During the debate on Tuesday (23), Alles had said in Parliament that some amendments that had been considered following stakeholder consultations could not be accommodated at the present time and would thus be brought in at a later time through the Cabinet.
Commenting on when the additional amendments to the bill would be introduced, Alles said: “We have to wait until the Speaker signs the bill.”
Threats to freedom of speech, digital economy
In an open letter to Public Security Minister Alles, local and international organisations, including Access Now, the Centre for Investigative Reporting (CIR), and the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ), raised concerns about the bill, noting its “chilling effect” on free speech and its “detrimental impact” on Sri Lanka’s digital economy.
The letter said that the bill sought to establish an Online Safety Commission with no independence from the Executive and which would have wide-ranging powers to restrict free speech.
“The commission also has the power to require intermediaries to disclose the identity of an individual who shared impermissible content. This may require platforms to collect and reveal sensitive information and implement proactive monitoring. For platforms with end-to-end encryption, which is crucial for privacy and free expression, it would be impossible to comply without fundamentally altering their architecture in a way that undermines people’s privacy and safety,” the letter read.
The organisations therefore said that the bill would have a detrimental impact on the country’s digital economy as it would inhibit online employment and investment opportunities.
Furthermore, the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC), consisting of tech giants such as Google and Meta, wrote to Alles earlier this month, underscoring their concerns over various areas of the bill, including criminal liabilities, safe harbour provisions, turnaround times, and user data access.
“The criminalisation of illegal content, such as false statements, is a disproportionate restriction on freedom of expression. The bill criminalises all forms of prohibited statements regardless of whether they are likely to result in harm, and does not provide sufficient defence to individuals or intermediaries accused of the offence. Further, criminal penalties on intermediaries creates a hostile environment for business and would deter Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). Therefore, criminal liability should be removed from the bill.”
Meanwhile, responding to the Minister’s comments during the debate on stakeholder consultations with the AIC, the AIC on Tuesday stated: “Despite our commitment to constructive collaboration, the AIC has not been privy to proposed amendments to the bill. We unequivocally stand by our position that the Online Safety Bill, in its current form, is unworkable and would undermine potential growth and FDI into Sri Lanka’s digital economy. We firmly believe that for the bill to align with global best practices, extensive revisions are imperative.”
The Sunday Morning’s numerous attempts to contact Telecommunications Regulatory Commission of Sri Lanka (TRCSL) Director General D.M.M. Dissanayake on whether tech giants had already terminated goodwill agreements they had with the TRCSL due to the Online Safety Bill proved futile.
However, a high-level official at the Technology Ministry told The Sunday Morning that the ministry had not engaged in any discussions regarding the bill this month.
When contacted, Google’s Government Affairs and Public Policy Lead – South Asia and Malaysia Kyle Gardner requested The Sunday Morning to email queries to Google’s Press Division. However, the division was yet to respond to the questions posed at the time of going to print.
Meanwhile, speaking to The Sunday Morning, media analyst Nalaka Gunawardena said: “Speeches by ruling party parliamentarians during the two days of debate revealed exactly whose safety they are far more concerned with: their own. Some MPs didn’t mince words when they spoke about being criticised, ridiculed, and vilified by citizens in online spaces, especially on social media. Clearly politicians see this new law – with its vast array of offences, high penalties, and overbroad definitions – as another tool to suppress citizens’ criticism, dissent, and calls for accountability.”
OSB and the election year
International human rights watchdog organisations have raised concerns about passing the controversial Online Safety Bill ahead of an upcoming crucial election year for Sri Lanka.
Human Rights Watch Asia Division Deputy Director Meenakshi Ganguly stated that the law would seriously threaten the right to freedom of expression as Sri Lanka prepares for Parliamentary and Presidential Elections later this year.
Meanwhile, Amnesty International South Asia Regional Researcher Thyagi Ruwanpathirana said that the Sri Lankan authorities must demonstrate the political will to uphold their international human rights obligations and commitments by guaranteeing and ensuring respect for human rights before, during, and after elections.
