by SALIYA WEERAKOON
and Prof. ALEX LIN CHEE LOK
In 1914, Cambridge-educated D. R Wijewardena, arguably one of the most recognised entrepreneurs in the country, bought the Sinhala daily Dinamina. History also records that he purchased the English daily, Ceylon Daily News, in 1917. Consequently, Wijewardena is known as the press baron of the pre-independence of Ceylon. He fought for Independence from the colonial masters and was an early mover of the organised press. His son-in-law, Esmond Wickremesinghe, often referred to as one of the best political strategists in the recent history of Sri Lanka, masterminded the editorials of Lake House, the D. R. Wijewardena newspaper group.
Due to one person, even in 2023, the above names are still relevant in the media. He is Ranil Wickremesinghe, the eighth executive president of Sri Lanka. The grandson of DRW and son of EW has a deep understanding of the media business. It is, therefore, an irony that under his presidency, a new online security bill has surfaced. There is an uproar against the bill as, on the face of it, it is Draconian. There is little or no defence for the bill.
No doubt, the bill is lengthy and well-crafted. However, it is less than pragmatic, given how the internet and online world operate. Our view is that it is one-sided. Much more should be factored in if the government earnestly and with good-faith wishes to implement a bill of this nature that affects society so broadly.
Since he entered parliamentary politics in 1977, President Wickremesinghe has held all conceivable positions to have a rounded perspective of the country at large. Since 1994, he has received continuous attacks from politicians, civil society and the media. Even his family newspapers mercilessly attacked him without a pause. A man who withstood all these attacks does not have to be in a hurry to implement such a significant bill, especially when a presidential election is on the horizon. This bill seeks to grant a five-member committee appointed by the President sweeping powers to decide what is wrong and right. In a country known for gossip, lies, manipulation, corruption and nepotism, it is a recipe for disaster to enforce a bill of this nature. Imagine an executive president like President Maithripala Sirisena, whose character, integrity, and intelligence were doubtful to begin with, deciding right from wrong. President Wickremesinghe should know this better than most. If Mahinda Rajapaksa had been given the power to determine what’s right or wrong, many would have been in jail by now!
Will President Wickremesinghe sanction this bill? Or, will he use this opportunity to emerge as the champion of free speech? He is capable of both, as he plays his cards close to the chest all the time.
There are many defences for an online security bill. National security, pornography, blackmailing, character assassination, corporate espionage, media ethics, Ponzi schemes, and the list goes on. Sri Lanka has a history of all of the above. The recent pyramid schemes were promoted and activated online. Thousands of people lost billions in total. Given the country’s problems pertaining to national security, it is essential to keep a tab of the online space. Sri Lanka has earned notoriety for fake news. Sri Lankans love gossip, rumours, half-truths and lies. What most of the Sri Lankans don’t like is hearing the truth.
Forget the online activity, and consider how much mainstream media has propagated lies and fake news. Word of mouth is still the most terrific news tool in the country. There are many cases of fake news that end up in character assassination against not only political leaders but also ordinary citizens. In a country that has seen so much bloodshed, especially over the last 40 years, many have damaged minds. Suicide rate is at an all-time high, and the recent economic downfall has made people extremely vulnerable.
Understanding the digital media landscape in Sri Lanka is difficult. National security is of utmost importance. Providing a safe place for the public is essential. This could have been the underlying factor for this bill unless the government had a sinister plan to switch off public opinion. The country’s Constitution protects the freedom of expression under Chapter 3, section 14. The online security bill can be contested easily in the Supreme Court, and indeed, interested parties will move the courts to stand against this bill.
Online media, in one form, is an outlet to let go of frustration and anger. Why wouldn’t people be frustrated and angry, given how this country has been run since 1948? As one of the oldest democracies, Sri Lanka should allow decent public discourse. The public should have an opinion. The proposed online bill will fail even in a developed country with strict application of laws. However, we are confident that this bill will not be able to be implemented in the present form. If the existing system and regulations have been flawed over the years, we don’t see how this bill can be enforced. There are practical and technical issues of the proposed legislation as well. The global digital platforms cannot understand what is right or wrong. Right or wrong is highly subjective and all based on individual agendas or intelligence levels and life experiences.
Bills of this nature appear everywhere for governments that want to control the conversations. It is inevitable as the media proliferates.
George Orwell in 1949 wrote the book ‘1984’. He was talking about Big Brother watching all, and it was prophetic. It was a science fiction but now a reality. The proposed online security bill goes way beyond Big Brother watching. In a country which lacks transparency and integrity, the system should not try extreme measures of this. The context is essential, and the government should open up public discourse and defend this case if they are accurate to the course.
Politically, such bills are often used to suppress online voices. It advantages the ruling group often but is disguised as protection for the weak (who usually are not online).
If a country has a workable criminal law, and the government understands the technology, then all such “crimes” can be prosecuted under the existing legal framework. There is no need for additional bills or bureaucracies.
Of course, the ability to investigate (i.e., understand the technology and access the data from the Telco) is critical to the policing of the online space.
Since the media is what the population usually trusts, by applying the law to an alleged online falsehood violator, the plaintiff or prosecutor can quickly start a “trial by media,” which can put the person at a credibility disadvantage for whatever he may say later.
Knowing such bills will be violently pushed back in a democracy that enjoys the freedom of speech, one has to be careful about the intention of instigating an uproar. If the government does not communicate clearly and gradually introduce the bill, as people need time and coaxing to understand and accept “what is in it for me”, it will undoubtedly add to the unsettled state of the nation.
Sri Lanka is at a crossroads. The last couple of years have been painful, and people are suffering. With the next presidential election on the horizon in 2024, it will be politically suicidal to anger further a 6 million voter base of people between the ages of 18 and 40. Civil society leaders and a few political leaders have voiced against the proposed bill, and many will join the bandwagon. The public discourse on this will be nasty, unless the government’s objective is to distract the public with the initiative. So why take a risk? What’s the end game?
With the AI revolution upon us, no one can understand the digital world. It’s evolving daily and changing the way we live, work and behave. The deep fake is reality, and the dark web is powerful. Today, without anyone’s knowledge, your pictures are being captured. The surveillance of humans is beyond anyone’s imagination. The un-erasable digital footprints and extreme eyeballing levels are enough to catch any wrongdoers, provided there is a robust legal system and laws. The punishment for wrongdoers should be visible, but importantly, it should be fair. Fairness is not something Sri Lanka is accustomed to.
The government authorities should start by enforcing the existing law. If acted upon with fairness and equality, people will recognise the gravity of fake news. However, fake news cannot be eliminated. It is a losing proposition to assume what people think, grasp, say, and share can be controlled. The only way to combat fake news is to tell the truth. Told correctly, the truth will always win.
President Wickremesinghe has a grand vision for the digital economy. Sri Lanka should move with the world, not against it. The global corporate giants are too big to adhere to local regulations. No one understands where the world is moving, therefore, Sri Lanka should be open to learn from other case studies. No doubt, online security is important, but not in the proposed form.
(Alex is active in the Digital Government, Fintech, Trade Logistics, and Decentralisation industries. In addition, he held exco positions in regional think tanks and working groups with international organizations. He obtained his Electrical & Computer Engineering degree at the University of Wisconsin (Madison) and a Doctorate at Stanford University. Saliya and Alex, together advise governments, corporates and leaders.)
