The Government announced last week that it plans to issue a new ‘nomad’ tourist visa for digital entrepreneurs and online workers to stay and work from Sri Lanka. However, by next week, the same Government is to bring in what it calls the Online Safety Bill (OSB), which, in the opinion of many including the world’s big tech companies, is a not-so-subtle attempt to piggyback on legitimate concerns over internet misuse to regulate and censor social media. 

The big tech companies coming under the umbrella of the Asia Internet Coalition (AIC), including heavyweights like Google, Amazon, Meta, etc., are reportedly said to have had multiple meetings with the relevant authorities over the past few weeks on the proposed draft bill but the outcome appears to be negative, with the coalition issuing a harsh statement on the perils of the proposed legislation.

It will be recalled that this is the second attempt being made by the Government to push through this bill, with the first attempt being still-born, being challenged in the Supreme Court over violation of fundamental rights, and the court in turn ordering no less than 55 amendments to the bill. It is left to be seen whether the amendments ordered in the court ruling have been incorporated in the latest avatar of the proposed bill, but even so the internet giants are up in arms and have warned of calamitous consequences if the bill is passed in its present form.

The AIC has stated that “the proposed legislation, in its present form, poses significant challenges that, if not addressed comprehensively, could undermine the potential growth of Sri Lanka’s digital economy”. For a government that is more or less begging for foreign investment and has earmarked IT as a key growth sector targeting forex earnings upwards of $ 5 billion in the short term, this bill amounts to shooting itself in the foot – and not for the first time either. It makes a mockery of the pronouncements of the leadership on the need to develop the IT sector, including Artificial Intelligence, blockchain, etc., and makes one wonder whether they have any understanding of the subject and the ecosystem it requires to perform at the desired level.

The internet giants working through the AIC believe that “without extensive revisions, the proposed legislation will be unworkable,” adding in its statement that “the economic implications of the proposed Online Safety Bill cannot be overstated. Sri Lanka’s digital ecosystem stands at the threshold of substantial growth, and it is essential to foster an environment that encourages innovation and investment.” As far as the industry and AIC is concerned, the bill obviously does the opposite.

Given the critical state of the economy and zero margin for error, why is it that the regime is persisting with this obnoxious piece of legislation despite the red flags being waved in its face? That is not to say that internet abuse should not be regulated; it should, but there is a way to do it and stakeholder consultation should be right at the top. Significantly, however, those most impacted by the proposed legislation, the business community and notably the business chambers, appear to be maintaining a deafening silence, preferring to barter the future for the present.

The draconian nature of the legislation has been further highlighted by the AIC, which warns through its statement that the bill, in its current form, poses several critical threats, including the definition of ‘prohibited statements,’ which in its opinion “is too broad, potentially criminalising legitimate online discourse. This raises concerns about censorship and suppression of dissent; several offences covered by the bill already exist in existing laws, creating legal uncertainty and redundancy; and criminalising online content deemed ‘false’ or ‘harmful’ is a harsh and unnecessary restriction on freedom of expression.”

However, the biggest area of concern and what raises questions over both credibility and ethicality of the bill is that the final arbiter of the ‘truth’ and what is ‘not false’ and ‘not harmful’ will be a panel of individuals exclusively appointed by the President. The Minister of Public Security who appears to be the foster father of the bill has already gone on record that he intends to secure its passage and that concerns can be addressed at the Committee Stage of the debate on the bill in Parliament on the 24th of this month. With reports of Parliament being prorogued on the same day, its promoters must be eyeing a fait accompli.

The issue here is that hardly anyone among the governing party MPs has adequate knowledge on what is essentially a defining piece of legislation that can potentially inflict serious long-term economic harm based on the warnings of the AIC. To put such a fate in the hands of 113 plus clueless MPs while effectively shutting out public and professional discourse is tantamount to abuse of the democratic process. Besides, there is a serious question of ethics here, as to how a Parliament that has clearly lost its mandate is presiding over legislation that will have a profound impact on the future of this nation. 

Legislation enacted with noble intentions in the past, such as adoption of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Prevention of Terrorism Act, among others, have for the most part been used in the breach to stifle dissent. Therefore, the palpable phobia over the OSB is justified and it is up to the leadership to choose between temporary gain that will not last beyond 2024, being a watershed election year, and a more economically- and democratically-secure Sri Lanka. 

Meanwhile the main Opposition Samagi Jana Balawegaya has already gone on record stating it will revoke the legislation as a priority should it form the next government – a sentiment echoed by other Opposition parties. The Public Security Minister’s public assertions that he will see through the legislation is yet another classic example of the penny wise, pound foolish approach of the regime, if not rank unprofessionalism and lack of due diligence.

The fact that the biggest casualty of the intended legislation could in fact be the tourism trade, on which the regime is depending on for survival, appears to have escaped the attention of those espousing its passage. If, as a consequence, the AIC decides to scale down its operations in the territory of Sri Lanka as it has already done in Pakistan in response to similar curtailment of the operational space, it is the tourism sector that will have to face the brunt of the impact, because, unlike in the past, it is social media that is driving the sector through platforms such as Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram – all of which is owned by Meta, a member of the AIC. 

One does not need to look beyond the current status of the tourism sector to notice the clear lack of focus. While the regime is busy singing hosannas on the ‘revival’ of the industry, the ground reality is that the trade is earning far less from each tourist than it did five years ago despite unprecedented inflation in the intermediary period. According to data, 1.9 million tourists spent $ 3.5 billion in 2019, translating to a yield of $ 1,842 per visitor. However, last year, 1.4 million tourists spent $ 2 billion, translating to a yield of just $ 1,351 per visitor; a drastic drop of 26% in spending per visitor.

While tourism is by all means a low-hanging fruit in terms of forex harvesting, legislation such as the OSB by ostrich-like politicians content with burying their faces in the sand and staying oblivious to the complex consequences of their actions has the potential to push the tourism fruit higher up the tree, unnecessarily making life even more difficult for Sri Lanka.