The Hon. Namal Rajapaksa, Attorney-at-Law

¶ 01 Madam Deputy Chairperson, it is good to bring amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act. The Data Protection Agency should have been appointed years ago. Unfortunately, it did not happen. Today the President also says staffing is needed. Yes, staff are needed. But I do not accept that the delay in recruitment justifies delaying the country’s digitization. If you think recruiting is extremely difficult and therefore must be postponed, that is different. You speak of a digital economy and digitizing the country, but you have neither built the basic legal system nor recruited the necessary staff.

¶ 02 I am, however, pleased that your government, centred on the NPP, is now speaking on this law, because when I brought the original Bill to Parliament, your party was highly critical of the Data Protection Agency and the Bill. Today you are amending it. Do you have the moral right to speak on privacy and protecting privacy? In past election campaigns you politicized and exposed personal matters of politicians, officials, their children, even pets, and ordinary people. We saw this even over the President’s Fund and in the incident involving a schoolgirl’s private medical records—raised here and on campaign stages. Still, I welcome efforts to protect privacy.

¶ 03 I firmly believe we must protect people’s privacy and regulate the use of personal data. Data cannot be used arbitrarily by public or private institutions; there must be regulation, and the Data Protection Agency must be appointed swiftly. Lamenting about recruitment will not help.

¶ 04 On the Unique Digital ID, we received an USD 80 million grant from India. Tendering was underway. Governments changed; eight months have passed. The President even discussed it with the Indian Prime Minister. But you do not state the progress or how it will be implemented.

¶ 05 You speak of a digital economy but impose 15% tax on creator economy income. You allocated Rs. 3 billion for digitization in the Budget. How much of that was actually spent to digitize key institutions? Allowing credit card payments on expressways is not novel technology. You say the Prime Minister received a death threat via email—that is the extent of “digital” you exhibit. With those three billion rupees, which major institution did you digitize?

¶ 06 You mention court automation—what steps are being followed?

¶ 07 [Interjections]

¶ 08 Minister, do not take my time. I have more questions.

¶ 09 [Further exchanges with the Hon. Harshana Nanayakkara omitted as procedural back-and-forth]

¶ 10 You came to power thinking with your 159 you can do anything. If the Minister of Justice makes a statement implying a court decision came because your government came, that must be corrected. As Justice Minister, set it right. We have a duty to remind if ministerial remarks do not suit the country. He is an Attorney-at-Law, served in the Attorney General’s Department, and the judiciary must not be politicized.

¶ 11 Madam Deputy Chairperson, regarding digitalization: the Act is here, fine. Where will the Data Centres be? Who is the custodian? Who aggregates the data? You talk without a plan.

¶ 12 [Intervention by the Hon. Eranga Weeraratne, Deputy Minister of Digital Economy, and exchanges follow]

¶ 13 Deputy Minister, do not say India can access our systems. The Data Protection Agency and the Act were brought to prevent such concerns. Assume responsibility as government, and do not make statements that create diplomatic issues. We will help digitization. But do not lie; otherwise the Foreign Minister will be in difficulty.

¶ 14 We wish you well to implement. Provide the technology for court proceedings via Zoom and video conferencing as per the law we passed. Laws alone are insufficient without technology. Do not make false statements on international agreements; otherwise the Foreign Minister will face trouble. We wish you success—also please allow me speaking time in the morning as well.