No Presidential Candidate Has Pledged to Repeal the Online Safety Act
Photo courtesy of Factum
The presidential election is just six days away. It is said that three candidates are leading among the contenders – Anura Dissanayake, Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sajith Premadasa. All three claim that they will win the upcoming presidential election. This is a characteristic of an election. The results of these efforts are determined by the will of the people. This will can be enacted in two ways. The first is to use one’s vote within a true civic reading/political idea about one’s own and social life. The second is through artificially producing the voter’s will through communication activities, especially media, including social media. The second is extremely cruel. It does not bring anything good to society. However, at present, both of these methods are operating within the Sri Lankan political landscape relative to the financial and other power structures of the candidates.
However, this article is not written to make predictions or prophecies about election results. It is to draw attention to a significantsituation that people will have to face regardless of which candidate wins because of the policy stated in the election manifestos of Anura Dissanayake and Sajith Premadasa regarding the repressive Online Safety Act (OSA), which was passed by the Ranil Wickremesinghe government amid strong domestic and international criticism and opposition, and their secret desire to maintain it. Although Ranil Wickremesinghe has not spoken about it, he is the father of this repressive act.
Sajith Premadasa and the Online Safety Act
This is what Sajith Premadasa has stated about the OSA in his election manifesto: “A priority of the new government will be to introduce a bill that removes the provisions against freedom of expression in the Online Safety Act No. 9 of 2024 and allows internet service providers to operate their enterprises without hindrance.”
The SJB has clearly stated in its election manifesto that it will not abolish the OSA. It has also emphasised that it will introduce a new bill by removing “provisions against freedom of expression”.
Anura Kumara Dissanayake and the Online Safety Act
This is what Anura Kumara Dissanayake has stated about the OSA in his election manifesto: “Amending the Online Safety Act No. 09 of 2024 by removing clauses that hinder freedom of expression” (Page 60 – NPP Manifestos)
Here too the NPP has stated that it will amend the act by “removing clauses that hinder freedom of expression”.
Difference between NPP and SJB
The SJB has proposed to introduce a “bill” by removing clauses against freedom of expression. The NPP’s policy statement has stated “amending the act” by “removing clauses that hinder freedom of expression”.
Although the NPP and the SJB have shown sensitivity to “freedom of expression”, the SJB proposes to introduce a bill, while the NPP proposes to amend the act passed by the Ranil Wickremesinghe government, which has now been submitted for amendment again.
What the SJB is proposing is nothing new. It is already being carried out by the current government. That is, considering the amendments given by the Supreme Court and amending the relevant act again. The Sri Lanka Professional Journalists’ Association has again filed a petition in the Supreme Court regarding the act that the current government is going to amend, stating that this violates their fundamental rights.
The problem is with the basic law. That is, the very foundation, the very purpose of the act is based on punishment. Its essence is flawed. It is flawed to the point where it cannot be reworked. It is in such a bad state that it cannot be reworked. A statement by Minister of Public Security Tiran Alles, a minister of the Wickremesinghe government that passed the act and who introduced the act to parliament, is more than enough. He said that this act is being introduced for the protection of women and children to prevent abuses against women and children in the online space. Listen to the speeches made by the majority of MPs present in parliament when the act was passed and it is clear that its main purpose is to suppress dissenting ideas.
No presidential candidate is committed to abolishing the OSA.
Although all candidates talk at length about their democratic reforms, no candidate has put forward a proposal to abolish this repressive act. This shows the contradiction in all of their democratic reforms.
The policy of the NPP on the OSA is completely contrary to their policy on protecting and promoting freedom of expression, which they discuss in great depth in other sections of their policy statement. A main reason is that the basic principles and proposed functioning of the OSA suppress human rights including the right to privacy, peaceful assembly, freedom of expression.
On June 18, 2024, Dr Harini Amarasuriya, MP of the NPP, expressed her views on the OSA while participating in a HARITV interview.
HariTV: If an NPP government comes, will the Online Safety Bill be withdrawn?
Dr Harini: “This one. Definitely, yes. We think this is not something that should be maintained. Because this is not an act that came to protect women or children or those things. It’s completely an act that came to control freedom of expression and the political opponent. Our legal team is studying what our position should be. Accordingly, I will be able to tell you in the future what acts we should remove, what should be changed in our election manifesto. Because this is not just one act. And we expect to bring a new constitution, right? We can give you a definite idea in the future about how these will be included in that new constitution. Some have to be repealed. I think the online one is one. The Anti-Terrorism Act is the other.”
She states that the OSA and the Anti-Terrorism Act should be abolished. This is a progressive idea. However, two months after this, the election policy statement of the NPP’s presidential candidate Anura Kumara Dissanayake contains a policy on the OSAthat is completely contrary to Dr Harini’s statement.
Is Ranil different?
This repressive act was introduced by President Wickremesinghe. Although his policy statement extensively discusses subjects including the digital economy and artificial intelligence, there is no mention of the OSA because he has no intention of changing or abolishing it. What he wants is to continue to maintain this repressive act if he becomes president and create the context necessary to suppress dissenting ideas. Therefore, the digital policies he has stated and the OSA he introduced represent a contradiction. Another implication that emerges from this contradiction is nothing but politically deceiving citizens.
Why is this happening?
At a global level and in Sri Lanka, social media and other online platforms play a vital role, especially during elections and other crucial times. With the rapid development of generative AI, the situation has become even more complex and advanced. Therefore, the role of online platforms has become indispensable. For example, consider how social media is being used to conduct election campaigns in Sri Lanka.
From June 14, 2024 to September 11, 2024, the expenses incurred by three candidates for their election campaign advertisements on social media platforms belonging to META company are Ranil Wickremesinghe: Rs. 33,230,360.00, Sajith Premadasa: Rs. 32,514,220.00 and Anura Kumara Dissanayake: Rs. 7,142,795.00.
This shows how much weight the candidates are giving to social media and other online platforms. Citizens are increasingly using social media and other online platforms to present ideas, ideologies or dissenting ideas and criticism. Therefore, rulers or individuals, groups of people who do not have a taste for tolerating dissent support controlling or controlling this mode of communication. The OSA is an act brought to control people’s ideas or dissenting ideas. Any candidate who will not abolish the OSA believes that it will be useful to suppress criticism and dissenting ideas and to maintain political power.
It is clear that no candidate has any desire to repeal the repressive OSA. Whatever the result of the presidential election, this situation will have a severe impact on fundamental rights, especially freedom of expression. A primary task of civil society is to organise citizens against the repressive acts that will occur under the OSA because freedom of expression is the foundation of other human rights.
