Shakeel nears century after 96-run stand with Ghori extends Pakistan’s dominance
India hold on to series lead after washout as New Zealand’s winning streak ends
Lahiru creates history with Youth Olympic silver
Sri Lanka fall for the green top trap
The infrastructure crisis at state universities
Sri Lanka’s rapid march toward digital government is often celebrated as a long-overdue modernization of public service delivery. Online platforms for welfare benefits, pensions, healthcare, banking, and identity verification promise efficiency, transparency, and convenience. Yet beneath this progress lies an underlying risk: as public services go digital-first, a growing segment of the population—senior citizens—is at risk of being left behind.
Access to government services, once guaranteed through physical counters and face-to-face interactions, is increasingly becoming conditional on digital access and digital skills. For many older Lankans, this shift threatens autonomy, dignity, and even basic access to essential services.
Sri Lanka is ageing rapidly. Nearly one in five citizens is now aged 60 and above, and this proportion will continue to rise in the coming decades. At the same time, the country is expanding digital identity systems, e-government portals, online pension services, digital welfare platforms, and cashless payment mechanisms. In principle, these developments are progressive. In practice, however, they assume a level of digital readiness that does not exist among large sections of the elderly population.
National data reveal a stark “grey digital divide”. While overall digital literacy in Sri Lanka exceeds 70 per cent, digital literacy among those aged 60–69 is below 30 per cent, and computer literacy falls to single digits. Internet usage among older adults remains extremely limited, especially outside urban centres. Most senior citizens live in rural areas, where digital infrastructure, support services, and access points are weaker. Older women, those with low educational attainment, and estate-sector elders face compounded disadvantages.
As a result, digitalization—when poorly implemented—can transform from a convenience into a barrier. When pension verification moves online, when welfare applications require app-based authentication, or when healthcare appointments depend on digital platforms, many older adults are forced into dependence on family members or informal intermediaries. For seniors who live alone or lack reliable support, digital systems can become sources of stress, confusion, and exclusion and even result in exploitation by unscrupulous “helpers”
The impact is not merely technical. It is deeply human. Loss of independent access to pensions, banking, or welfare undermines dignity. Reliance on others for digital transactions increases vulnerability to errors, fraud, and misuse. For some, inability to navigate digital platforms leads to loss benefits, delayed healthcare, or complete disengagement from services they are entitled to receive.
Crucially, the problem is not digitalization itself. Digital systems can be enormously beneficial for senior citizens—reducing travel, waiting times, and physical strain, and enabling access to services while ageing at home. Telemedicine, digital pension access, and online payments can enhance independence when adequately supported. The failure lies in implementation that treats digital access as universal and replaces physical services too quickly.
Across the world, evidence shows that inclusive digital governance depends on choice. Digital channels must complement—not eliminate—traditional service delivery. When online platforms replace physical counters without transition mechanisms, vulnerable groups are the first to be excluded.
Sri Lanka is not short of solutions. The country already has strong foundations to pursue inclusive digitalization. Mobile phone penetration is high, community-level institutions are trusted, and public sector capacity exists at divisional and local levels. What is needed is intentional design and coordinated policy action.
First, hybrid service delivery must be protected. Essential services—pensions, welfare, healthcare, and identity verification—should always offer physical or assisted access alongside digital platforms, particularly for older citizens.
Second, digital systems must be age-friendly. Large fonts, simple navigation, clear language in Sinhala and Tamil, minimal steps, and reduced reliance on frequent one-time passwords can significantly improve usability for seniors.
Third, assisted digital access should be institutionalized. Divisional Secretariats, Grama Niladhari offices, public libraries, and elders’ committees can serve as trusted support points where trained staff help older adults use digital services without stripping them of agency.
Fourth, digital literacy programmes must specifically target senior citizens. Generic ICT training is insufficient. Older learners require slower pacing, hands-on guidance, and practical, service-oriented instruction—focused on pensions, banking, healthcare, and identity use.
Sri Lanka’s digital transformation is both necessary and inevitable. But progress should not be measured only by the number of platforms launched or services digitized. It must also be judged by who can use them—and who cannot.
A truly modern digital state is not one that moves fastest, but one that moves equitably. As Sri Lanka builds its digital future, senior citizens should not be treated as an afterthought. They are not resisting progress; they are navigating it with limited tools.
Digitalization should continue—but inclusion must be intentional. If designed with care, Sri Lanka can achieve a digital government that is efficient, humane, and worthy of all its citizens, young and old alike.
By Kinkini Udalamaththa – Marga Institute
My experience in turning around the Merchant Bank of Sri Lanka (MBSL) – Episode 4
Hanoi’s most popular street could kill you
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
The government’s determination to tackle corruption, drug trafficking and organised crime is one of the most important challenges it has taken upon itself. The scale of the problem is evident from recent seizures of drugs at sea and at the airport, which indicate the enormous dimensions of the illicit drug trade. The street value of some consignments has reportedly approached staggering sums, running into hundreds of millions of dollars. The financial resources available to those involved in this trade must be immense. Their ability to corrupt individuals and institutions cannot be underestimated. The revelations of the involvement of persons connected with previous governments, their families and even members of the security forces in the drug trade are particularly disturbing. This is not simply a problem of law enforcement. It is a threat to the integrity of the State itself. The government appears to be approaching this challenge more systematically and seriously than any government in the past.
In two public engagements this past week, the President explained the government’s position. The first was a gathering of Buddhist monks and members of other religious communities, at Temple Trees to mark the first anniversary of Ratama Ekata, the national anti-drug programme. The purpose was to brief religious leaders on progress and enlist their support in carrying the message to communities throughout the country. The second was a trade union conference in Colombo, where the President responded to concerns about the proposed anti-terrorism and anti-crime legislation. At both, the President drew a distinction between two groups opposing the proposed laws. One consisted of criminal groups and those who give them patronage and protection. The other consisted of civil society organisations and human rights groups raising concerns from the perspective of democracy, fundamental rights and the rule of law. The President said the government was prepared to listen to this second group and discuss the legislation with them, and that these were issues on which discussion and consensus needed to be obtained.
The Protection of the State from Terrorism Bill (PSTB) would replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) of 1979, while the Prevention of Organised Crime Bill (POC Bill) would give the authorities new powers against organised crime. President Anura Kumara Dissanayake has personally taken up the task of answering criticism from opposition parties, civil society and international human rights organisations. This shows that the two bills form central pillars of the government’s programme to restore the integrity of the State. However, concerns expressed regarding these two draft laws are substantial. In a 31-page communication made public this week, five United Nations human rights mandates warned that the POC Bill could increase the risk of torture and arbitrary detention. They pointed to police custody of 72 hours before a Magistrate’s review and detention for up to a year in police stations on ministerial authorisation. They also cited the admissibility of confessions to senior police officers, police access to phone records without court approval, surveillance of encrypted communications, and the possibility that trade unionists and protesters could fall within the law.
The President’s offer to reduce the 72-hour period to 48 hours, made in the course of a public speech, is a welcome sign of flexibility. The better test is whether the final text reaches the 24-hour norm of ordinary criminal procedure, or whether detention beyond it requires judicial approval. Sri Lanka’s experience under the PTA shows why this matters. Laws meant for exceptional threats can acquire a much wider application in practice. Bitter experience over nearly four decades has shown that people can spend years in detention without being charged, only eventually to be released without any charges being brought against them. The years they lose in detention can never be returned. They may lose the best and most productive years of their lives, their livelihoods and family relationships, without ever being found guilty of an offence. No subsequent release can compensate them for such a loss. This is precisely the kind of injustice that laws must be designed to prevent, rather than create the conditions in which it can occur.
There is a fundamental principle at stake. The liberty of individuals cannot be entrusted to the unfettered discretion of public officials or security forces. Whenever the State seeks to deprive a person of liberty, the judiciary must have an effective and decisive role. This is not a question of showing leniency towards those suspected of serious crimes. It is recognition that the power to arrest, detain and restrict the liberty of individuals is among the most important powers exercised by the State, and therefore requires the strongest safeguards. Law enforcement authorities must have the powers necessary to investigate and prosecute crime, but they cannot be the sole judges of how long a person may be deprived of liberty. That responsibility must remain firmly anchored in an independent judiciary. The State has a duty to protect society from criminals, but it also has an equally important duty to protect the innocent from the misuse of State power. The credibility of its efforts to combat crime depends on its ability to do both.
The role of the courts therefore needs to be strengthened in both bills. Decisions concerning prolonged detention, access to legal representation, the admissibility of confessions and restrictions on personal liberty should be subject to meaningful judicial scrutiny. The courts must have the authority to examine the necessity and proportionality of measures taken by the police and executive authorities, rather than merely endorse decisions already made by them. The breadth of certain definitions also raises questions about whether individuals could be brought within the ambit of the law on the basis of their associations or other characteristics rather than evidence of criminal conduct. A system in which members of the security establishment can exercise extensive powers while judicial officers have limited ability to intervene would weaken the constitutional safeguards that protect all citizens.
The President’s willingness to engage with civil society and human rights critics is a positive indicator. So is his assurance that the bills will not be rushed through Parliament, but considered only after comprehensive discussion and wider consensus. He has directed the Minister of Justice to engage with stakeholders. The fact that the Supreme Court is considering the PSTB, and that both bills have been challenged on constitutional grounds, provides another important avenue for scrutiny. The government has indicated that it will consider the Court’s determination and proposals for amendment. These developments offer a chance to improve the legislation rather than turn the debate into a confrontation between the government and its critics. The test of the government’s commitment to good governance will be whether it incorporates reasonable criticism into the final laws, including changes to provisions it originally thought necessary.
An aspect of good governance is to bring about changes that will stand the test of time. The government needs to demonstrate that it has effective mechanisms for ensuring that future legislation is subjected to independent scrutiny, meaningful consultation with the Bar Association, trade unions, media bodies, civil society and opposition parties, and rigorous human rights assessment before it reaches Parliament. The credibility of a government is measured not only by its determination to combat crime or its willingness to listen to criticism, but also by the care with which it exercises its legislative powers. Legislation should be built on sound legal foundations, informed public consultation and democratic consensus, rather than corrected only after its weaknesses have become matters of public controversy. Consensus may take longer to build, but the resulting changes are more likely to be accepted, respected and sustained. The challenge is not simply to enact laws that are strong enough to confront organised crime today, but to establish laws and institutions that will protect society and individual liberty under governments of the future.
I honestly thought our legendary singer / entertainer, Sohan Weerasinghe, was playing around with AI and projecting a new image of himself on social media, especially on Facebook.
Although in his… (that’s a secret where his age is concerned) what was seen on social media was a ‘forties look Sohan.’
Believe me, in reality Sohan has given himself a new look and he quite rightly says as long as he is on stage he believes he should look like a star.
To achieve his new, trendy look, Sohan says he went on a diet, adding that sugar was the culprit.
“Four months of serious dieting, 30 minutes of daily walking, low salt diet, and absolutely no sugar, has given me this new look. And walking has got to be brisk – a speed where you can talk but not sing!”
The forties look star is still very much top of the pops in the entertainment scene.
The big event, before the year is out, is ‘Dancing Through The Decades,’ where the legendary artiste will usher in 2027, along with Corrine, Rukshan, Annesley and Damian, and the band AROH.
A true legend of Sri Lankan music, Sohan has won the hearts of all music lovers, here and abroad.
By profession, he is a lawyer! He practiced law for a short while and then decided music would be his full-time career — what a brave, legendary jump!
When he stepped into The X-Periments scene, he made it a household name as Sohan & The X’Periments.
Sohan belongs to that rare breed who made music a living narrative of culture and heritage, taking Sri Lankan music from modest halls to grand stages in Oman, Australia, Europe, Toronto and beyond.
Versatile, with a captivating voice and magnetic stage presence, and with performances all over the world, Sohan continues to ride the crest of the wave.
And, of course, what is Sohan without his lady fans! From his early days to now, the ladies absolutely adore his presence on stage — his smooth voice, his charming smile, his gentlemanly charisma, and that twinkle in his eye when he sings a love ballad!
He has sung with almost all the leading ladies of Sri Lanka’s music industry, and the audience, especially the ladies, just swoon!
That’s the Sohan magic — a true heartthrob entertainer! A legend, forever young!
The entertainment scene, in Dubai, is getting back to normal, they say, with a calendar of concerts, festivals and family events, and with the SEVEN NOTES Live Band, made up of Sri Lankans who work by day (doing full-time jobs in Dubai), and, at night, producing high quality music on stage.
Yes, they do have a busy itinerary and will be seen in action at Mathaka Yathra, Christmas Baila Fiesta, Mathakayata Mage, and Sudu Araliya Mala over the next few weeks.
In the meanwhile, Niluk Uswaththa, of SEVEN NOTES fame, is working on some originals.
He says he has done two original and is planning to release another original soon.
The two originals are ‘Malak Se Oba,’ with Niluk handling the lyrics, music, and vocals, and ‘Mathakada.’
The lyrics for ‘Mathakada’ were penned by Buddhika Athapaththu, while Niluk did the music and vocals.
However, one is only hoping that the current Middle East crisis wouldn’t suddenly escalate and change the setup in Dubai.
Searching for leadership: Can we bring back qualities of our golden years?
Wins for Dialog Axiata and Green Miracle Grand on Wednesday
Mendis and Udara steady ship with warm-up fifties
Prospect of ‘spaceport’ on Sri Lanka’s east coast
Batting frailties give Sri Lanka food for thought
Sri Lankan Airlines loss amplified to Rs35Bn by monetary debasement
Why the Jaffna Man Eats So Much Murunga
Copyright © 2020 Upali Newspapers (Pvt) Ltd. Solution by LankaCom Privacy Policy
Loading comments…