Sajith says govt.’s impending electoral defeat cannot be reversed through constitutional means

By Shamindra Ferdinando

The National Movement for Social Justice (NMSJ) has urged the Wickremesinghe-Rajapaksa government to put off the two-day debate on the proposed Online Safety Bill scheduled for January 23 and 24th.

The NMSJ, led by former Yahapalana speaker Karu Jayasuriya, has warned that the Bill, if enacted, will severely hinder freedom of expression and have a negative impact on the digital as well as the overall economy.

On behalf of the NMSJ, its General Secretary Sunil Jayasekera issued the warning on Monday (15) in the wake of the Committee on Parliamentary Business announcing that the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill is on January 23 and 24.

Secretary General of Parliament Kushani Rohanadeera said that the Committee on Parliamentary Business met on January 12, under the leadership of Speaker Mahinda Yapa Abeywardena.

Public Security Minister Tiran Alles presented the Online Safety Bill to Parliament on Oct 03, 2023. The Bill seeks to “establish the Online Safety Commission; to make provisions to prohibit online communication of certain statements in Sri Lanka; to prevent the use of online accounts and inauthentic online accounts for prohibited purposes; to make provisions to identify and declare online locations used for prohibited purposes in Sri Lanka; to suppress the financing and other support of communication of false statements of fact and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.”

Referring to a spate of statements issued by local and foreign organizations, in respect of the controversial Bill, Jayasekera alleged that the new law would suppress freedom of expression.

Declaring that the Supreme Court determination of the Bill was solely based on the examination of its constitutionality, Jayasekera said that the Online Safety Bill, or its provisions, weren’t inconsistent with the Constitution and could be passed by a simple majority, following committee stage amendments on certain clauses.

Speaker Abeywardena announced the Supreme Court determination on the Bill on Nov 07, 2023. The Speaker said that the Supreme Court determined that a series of clauses must be passed by a special majority, but if those clauses were amended in the committee stage, the Bill could be passed by a simple majority.

Jayasekera said that the government should consult relevant experts, other stakeholders, and the public, regarding the proposed Bill though the Supreme Court gave its conditional consent.

Dissident SLPP lawmaker Prof. G. L. Peiris said that the Online Safety Bill and the Anti-Terrorism Bill seemed to be key segments of the overall government political strategy in view of the impending national polls.

The former External Affairs Minister said that the government was bent on overwhelming the Opposition in the run-up to the scheduled elections. The world renowned academic said that all members of Parliament, regardless of their party affiliations, should recognize the threat posed by the two laws.

“Obviously, government strategists view social media platforms as quite a threat and sought to reverse their deteriorating popularity by suppressing the democratic Opposition. Bringing the media, particularly the social media, under government control, is one of their primary objectives,” Prof. Peiris said.

Referring to statements issued by various parties opposed to the Online Safety Bill, Prof. Peiris warned the government that the growing public resentment couldn’t be crushed by enactment of repressive laws.

Samagi Jana Balwegaya (SJB) and Opposition Leader Sajith Premadasa said that his party would vote against the hotly disputed Bill.

The former UNP deputy leader said that the government was in a bind and the recent increase in almost all consumer goods, in the wake of the Value-Added Tax (VAT) increase, intensified the protest campaign. Declaring that the Online Safety Bill, a seriously flawed law, lawmaker Premadasa said that the impending defeat at the presidential and parliamentary polls couldn’t be reversed through constitutional means.