Columns

Never in the history of independent Sri Lanka has a single government with such a short history and a dubious mandate, drawn up such a battery of obnoxious bills in such a short time to turn so many millions of people against it.

That, friends, Sri Lankans and countrymen—to make a minor change to Mark Antony’s words—is not the end of this sordid story, written and scripted by a bunch of unknowns whose competence in legal drafting has raised questions among those qualified to judge.

Never in recent memory—certainly mine—has a single piece of intended legislation drawn so much justifiable flak from such a wide cross-section—and a terribly cross section too—at this buffoonery called the “Online Safety Bill”.

As the President of the Supreme Court Bench Justice Priyantha Jayawardena is cited as saying in open court, it had received nearly 50 petitions challenging this Bill.

I cannot say whether this sets a record for recent legislative endeavours which are turning out to be increasingly abhorrent and increasingly dictatorial, besides the poor title of this piece of abomination.

Some cynic might well ask whether the collective of masterminds responsible for putting together this battery of would-be laws are gleefully drawing inspiration from satanic statute books.

The Attorney General’s representative who appeared in court the other day pulled back from the brink of Hades by stating that the government intended to amend certain objectional provisions in the Online Safety Bill at the committee stage in Parliament. But then amendments introduced at the committee stage have a certain questionable history as those acquainted with Parliament’s procedural history would recall how certain amendments were surreptitiously introduced at the third reading raising the ire of some MPs.

As it is Justice Minister Wijeyadasa Rajapakshe can at least pin himself a medal for having had a hand in producing some of the most malodorous laws to have contaminated the civic nostril. Some might claim he deserves a national padakkama at next year’s Independence Day which is bound to be all spit and polish and song and dance with more money spent to shock even the IMF.

At least Justice Minister Rajapakshe can be thankful that he belongs to a government that is so concerned about a people already burdened with malnutrition and deepening poverty that it is loathe to worsen their plight by making them queue up at polling stations to vote at elections.

Surely such a heartfelt understanding of the condition of the citizenry should be reciprocated by an equally concerned people. A readiness to sacrifice a fundamental right here and another there and a freedom or two elsewhere in appreciation of a government’s efforts, would not only be welcome but applauded by a fading bunch of pohottuwas.

It is true—by government accounts themselves—that it would take another 25 years for this nation to rise and be ready to mingle with the world’s best. By then, of course, most of today’s ageing population would be gathering ‘dust’ in some cemetery, unless that land too has been bequeathed to a next-door neighbour, thanks to the munificence of an island nation hurtling towards Indianisation of its assets after years of what some have labelled “kowtowing” to Beijing.

For all that, the simple fact that almost 50 persons or entities have filed petitions against this latest venture into legalising further constrictions on the constitutional and other rights of the people as has been publicly denounced, is indicative of a government in a hurry to crush hard-achieved personal and labour rights for political gain and possibly personal.

Much has already been spoken and written about previous pieces of intended legislation which have only blackened Sri Lanka’s image as one of Asia’s earliest democracies and perhaps the first to gain universal franchise several years before its independence.

How could already harassed peaceful protestors forget a handful of politicians and bureaucrats extricating a law dating back to colonial times called the Official Secrets Act and gazetting several buildings/offices/residences as being prohibited entry to the public and even its approaches banned to the people.

It happened when President Wickremesinghe was away on one of his global travels. Fortunately, those guilty could not get away with it as the president on his return quickly withdrew this nonsensical gazette that went far beyond the boundaries of the Act.

Nor could a people forget that other monstrosity called the “Rehabilitation” Bill which was nothing but a thin veneer to camouflage a much more serious intent. That was to incarcerate those considered a political nuisance—the so-called extremist groups and other groups/persons who hold dissenting views—in the guise of ‘de-radicalising’ them under the supervision of the military and not experts in the field of rehabilitation.

It came as little surprise when the Supreme Court struck down some of the dangerous provisions of that bill, limiting its application to drug users and those in need of rehabilitation as assessed by those competent to do so and not those in uniform.

Despite threats to the independence of the judiciary coming from two directions of the separation of powers troika, as important sections of the legal fraternity and others have stated, the judiciary still stands as the only branch to which the citizenry could turn to safeguard their rights guaranteed by the constitution.

But if we hark back to the times when Uncle Dicky also known as Junius Richard Jayewardene held power, the Judiciary had a rough ride. During his reign stones rained on the residences of some Supreme Court justices for giving judgements unacceptable to the government.

Those were the days when a referendum replaced a national election extending the life of parliament and Junius the First held the signed but undated letters of resignation from parliament of his own MPs. Several swords of Damocles were in his armoury.

These recent pieces of proposed legislation which have raised major concerns not only at home but abroad among internationally respected legal and human rights bodies, have been closely analysed and written about in the mainstream media and commented on by professional associations.

The Sunday Times commentator on legal affairs Kishali Pinto Jayawardena has in several of her recent weekly columns elaborated on the recurring piles of absurdities that pass off as clear and specific legal terms contained in most of these bills which make a mockery of acceptable and receptable legal drafting.

So pinpointing the plethora of obnoxious terms and clauses does not need reiteration.

However, a recent comment by Prof GL Peiris, an internationally known legal academic and former minister, is worthy of consideration. He said the government is bent on ensuring that the people have no access to truthful information by the time of the presidential election next year.

Prof. Peiris is not the only one who thinks so as conversations in social media and comments in mass media show.

Marx (Karl that is not Groucho) said history repeats itself first as a tragedy and then as a farce. This here is a tragedy through and through. The farce is created by those who author these grand illusions.

(Neville de Silva is a veteran Sri Lankan journalist who was Assistant Editor of the Hong Kong Standard and worked for Gemini News Service in London. Later, he was Deputy Chief-of-Mission in Bangkok and Deputy High Commissioner in London.)