High drama and controversy in debate over new online bill
The hurriedly rushed passage of the controversial Online Safety Bill, which was passed on Wednesday with a majority vote, saw some government MPs, in a move to justify the passage of the flawed bill, lamenting how they were being vilified and abused on digital platforms.
However, behind-the-scenes activity in Parliament this week indicated how determined the government was to ensure that the bill was passed before Parliament was prorogued on Friday by President Ranil Wickremesinghe.
On Monday, when the Sectoral Oversight Committee on Media, Youth, Heritage and New Citizen convened to consider the bill, opposition MPs requested further time to propose amendments to the bill. But the Committee, led by parliamentarian Lalith Warnakumara, decided to go ahead with amendments proposed by the Supreme Court.
Considering the inputs from the Public Security Ministryappointed Committee, which held multi-stakeholder discussions, opposition MPs urged the government to withdraw the bill and publish a new one with the proposed amendments. They were told that the current bill could be passed, and later, amendments could be incorporated. Significantly, both government and opposition MPs agreed on the principle that there should be legislation on the matter, irrespective of party lines.
Parliamentary sessions had to be postponed for ten minutes to convene a party leaders' meeting. The opposition requested to postpone the debate, but the government refused.
It was Jaffna District Tamil National Alliance parliamentarian M.A. Sumanthiran who raised the issue that some of the clauses in the new amendments did not comply with the Supreme Court's determination on the bill. He came up with thirteen instances where the amendment was against the Court's direction.
He did not stop there but proceeded to the Officials' Box, where the Attorney General’s Department's senior officials, led by the Additional Solicitor General, were observing the sessions. He was told that the issues raised by him were addressed in a new set of amendments.
However, several Parliamentarians pointed out that those last-minute amendments introduced at the Second Reading of the bill were not available on the MPs' tables even by noon on the voting day, as required by Parliamentary regulations.
At the end of the debate on the Second Reading of the bill on Wednesday, Chief Opposition Whip Lakshman Kiriella called for a division. Accordingly, during the voting held, 108 votes were cast in favour of the bill and 62 against. The Second Reading was passed by a majority of 46 votes. A division was also taken during the Committee Stage when Chandima Weerakkody proposed an amendment to Clause 36 of the Bill. That amendment was defeated by 51 votes to 92.
Several government MPs, including ministers, were absent during the voting. The main opposition, Samagi Jana Balawegaya's (SJB) General Secretary, Ranjith Madduma Bandara, was also absent.
Following the vote, several MPs are to request the Speaker not to sign the bill immediately in a move to delay it becoming applicable law until the confusion over the amendments was cleared.