The Impact of Foreign Control on National Data Systems: A Case Study of Sri Lanka's National ID Card Decision

Author : Jihan Hameed is a Sri Lankan Nationalist & A political analyst known for her in-depth reporting on national security and sovereignty issues. She frequently addresses the implications of government policies on Sri Lanka's independence.

In a recent and contentious move, the Sri Lankan Cabinet, led by President Ranil Wickremesinghe, has approved an Indian-funded system for the country’s national ID cards. This decision has ignited significant debate and concern over issues of national sovereignty and data security. The central question revolves around whether any country should permit another nation to access its most critical and sensitive data. This development is being closely examined in the context of international alliances and the associated risks.

Consider the alliance between the United States and India under the Quad Security Agreement. Despite their strong partnership, it is inconceivable that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, known for his patriotic stance, would agree to provide the US with access to India’s national ID data. If such an unprecedented action were taken, it would likely lead to severe political and legal repercussions in India, potentially including charges of treason against those responsible. This comparison underscores the significant risks and implications of Sri Lanka’s decision.

The approval of this Indian-funded system follows the Sri Lankan government’s earlier decision to grant two Indian companies, along with VFS, control over visa arrival and departure information. This previous decision was made at a substantial cost and bypassed an already effective and economical Sri Lankan software system. This pattern of decisions raises concerns about the government’s autonomy and the motivations behind these choices.

Critics argue that the policy direction of the United National Party (UNP) and the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) coalition government, led by President Wickremesinghe and Prime Minister Dinesh Gunawardena, is systematically undermining Sri Lanka’s independence and integrity. They suggest that these actions reflect a broader strategy that prioritizes political expediency and personal gains over national sovereignty.

The silence from major opposition parties, such as the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP) and the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB), further complicates the issue. These parties, while positioning themselves as alternatives for the upcoming Presidential Election, seem reluctant to criticize the government’s actions robustly. Their muted response appears to be a strategic decision to avoid offending India, which they view as essential to their electoral success. This political calculus only deepens concerns about the erosion of Sri Lanka’s sovereignty.

The current state of Sri Lanka is described as the weakest since gaining independence. The actions of the present leadership are seen as compromising the country’s core interests and jeopardizing its future. President Wickremesinghe, renowned for his deep knowledge of Sri Lankan history, including figures like Ehelepola, faces accusations of betraying the very principles he often lectures about. Similarly, Mahinda Rajapaksa, once celebrated for his leadership in the war against terrorism—a conflict in which thousands of young Sri Lankans sacrificed their lives—is now viewed as complicit in decisions that could reduce Sri Lanka to a vassal state of India.

The decision to implement an Indian-funded system for national ID cards extends beyond technology or efficiency concerns; it touches on issues of control and influence. National ID systems contain highly sensitive personal data, and control over this data is a significant aspect of national security. Allowing a foreign entity, even an ally, to control this data can have profound implications. It raises the specter of potential misuse of data, loss of privacy for citizens, and erosion of national sovereignty.

Moreover, this decision carries economic implications. Implementing an Indian-funded system, as opposed to a locally developed solution, might incur higher costs, adding financial strain to the country. Additionally, the economic argument includes the potential loss of opportunities for local technology firms that could have developed and managed the system, thereby contributing to the local economy and technological advancement.

The geopolitical implications are also significant. Sri Lanka’s strategic location in the Indian Ocean makes it a vital player in regional politics. Allowing India such deep access could alter the balance of power and influence in the region. It could also affect Sri Lanka’s relationships with other key players, such as China and the United States, who might view this move with suspicion.

In conclusion, the decision to approve an Indian-funded system for Sri Lanka’s national ID cards represents a critical juncture for the country. It raises profound questions about sovereignty, national security, and economic independence. The apparent lack of robust opposition and the strategic silence of political parties highlight the complexity of the situation. Sri Lanka’s leadership must reconsider this decision and prioritize the country’s sovereignty and the interests of its citizens. It is not too late to act if there is a genuine commitment to protecting the nation’s core values and independence. The future of Sri Lanka depends on the decisions made today, and it is imperative to safeguard the country’s sovereignty against any compromises.

Triumph for Democracy: Supreme Court Safeguards Constitutional Integrity in Public Finance Management Bill

By Jihan Hameed
The Attorney General's role in presenting bills to Parliament is crucial as it represents the first line of filtering potential constitutional inconsistencies. The fact that these issues were identified and challenged in court is a testament to the vigilance required to prevent dangerous legislative enactments. Had the public not challenged these provisions, the Bill could have been enacted without addressing these critical issues, posing serious risks to the constitutional framework and public interest.

In a landmark decision that underscores the judiciary's role in upholding the Constitution, the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka has delivered a significant verdict on the Public Finance Management Bill, striking down several provisions for their inconsistency with the Constitution. This ruling is a clear victory for the people of Sri Lanka, affirming the necessity for legislative scrutiny and adherence to constitutional principles.

Nationalists and vigilant citizens have once again demonstrated their crucial role in safeguarding the nation's legislative integrity. Their scrutiny and proactive stance against suspicious bills ensure that government actions remain transparent and accountable. This challenge to the Public Finance Management Bill is a prime example of the essential role public vigilance plays in a healthy democracy.

Key elements of the Court's judgment are summarized as follows:

1. *Exclusion of Financial Institutions*:

   The exclusion of financial institutions, including insurance and lending companies, from the Bill's provisions was deemed arbitrary and inconsistent with Articles 12(1) and 148 of the Constitution. The Court mandated that the definition of 'State-Owned Enterprises' in Clause 71 must be amended for the Bill to pass with a special majority.

2. *Judicial Service Definition*:

   Clause 3(2)(b)(iv) and the definition of 'members of the judicial service' were found to be inconsistent with Articles 4(c), 3, 12(1), and 108. Amendments were required to rectify these inconsistencies.

3. *Clause 5(2)(f)*:

   This clause violated Articles 12(1), 43(1), and 52(2). The Court stipulated that it could only be passed with a special majority, subject to necessary amendments.

4. *National Procurement Commission Guidelines*:

   Clauses 32(3) and 32(4) were found to be inconsistent with various constitutional articles. The Court required these clauses to be amended to allow the National Procurement Commission to publish specific guidelines as necessary.

5. *Treasury Single Account*:

   Clause 34(2) was inconsistent with Article 149. It needed to be amended to establish a treasury single account for consolidated management of public funds.

6. *Supervision of Statutory Funds*:

   Clause 39(1) was inconsistent with Article 12(1) and required amendments to clarify the Treasury Secretary's supervisory role over statutory funds.

7. *Cadre Management Responsibilities*:

   Clause 63 violated multiple constitutional articles. Amendments were necessary to align cadre management responsibilities with constitutional provisions.

8. *Treasury Directives*:

   Clause 68 was inconsistent with Article 12(1) and required amendments to clarify the Treasury Secretary's directive authority.

9. *Overall Constitutionality*:

   Clause 69 and the definition of 'State-Owned Enterprise' were inconsistent with several constitutional articles. These provisions required significant amendments for the Bill to pass with a special majority and potentially a Referendum.

This victory is a testament to the importance of judicial oversight and public vigilance. Special appreciation is extended to the petitioners' legal counsel, Dharshana Weraduwage, who played a pivotal role in challenging the Bill. Their efforts have ensured that the Bill aligns with constitutional principles, safeguarding the rights and interests of the Sri Lankan people.

This decision not only reinforces the importance of constitutional compliance in legislative processes but also highlights the critical role of public participation in upholding democratic values. The vigilant nationalist spirit has once again proven to be the guardian of our democracy, ensuring that suspicious bills are thoroughly examined and challenged for the greater good of the nation.