Where is Public Engagement, Awareness and Trust in Sri Lanka’s Digitalisation Drive?

Photo courtesy of McKinsey

This article is based on a generative AI based translation and capture of a public presentation in Sinhala I made over Zoom on November 21 at the invitation of Sampath Samarakoon.

My foundational argument is that we are standing at a critical crossroads around citizenship and the exercise of human rights. This digitalisation initiative, particularly following the substantial allocation of over Rs. 30 billion in the 2026 Budget, is an immensely significant matter. While many view digitalisation merely as a technical undertaking, or something that is “good if done, but not a problem if not done,” I stressed that this is incorrect.

Digitalisation is absolutely necessary; I am not against it nor am I attempting to hinder it. However, my central concern is that the current project lacks a crucial human rights framework. The angle from which we must view these digital projects is how far they protect people’s rights and uphold democratic values in society and the country. If digitalisation proceeds grounded in human rights, its chances of success are significantly higher.

I articulated five fundamental concerns regarding the current digital initiative:

1. Lack of contextual understanding: The project is being presented without any understanding of the Sri Lankan context. The individuals proposing this seem to be designing it for an imaginary Sri Lanka. They lack comprehension of issues faced by Tamil speaking communities, communities in the North and East or diverse demographics like gender. These groups have distinct histories and current contexts, vastly different from the majority Sinhala society residing in the South.
2. Absence of public dialogue: There is virtually no public or media discussion regarding this critical project. This lack of dialogue, which is quite astonishing, is extremely dangerous. Public trust in digitalisation is weak and without discussion this lack of trust will persist.
3. No human rights framework: Despite the importance of this foundational work, the national framework documents, including those from the previous Wickremesinghe administration concerning Artificial Intelligence (AI) and the current digital proposals, contain no formal or robust human rights framework. This is astonishing and very dangerous. I have previously submitted written advice to the government, including on the Online Safety Act (OSA) and the proposed sovereign cloud strategy, insisting on a strong human rights framework.
4. Inadequate communication and transparency: There is no communication framework to educate the public about digitalisation. Information is mostly limited to reports of speeches given by officials like Dr Hans Wijayasuriya or the p The government has not published details nor has it engaged in direct dialogue with civil society or journalists. This lack of transparency and accountability raises serious questions about potential corruption in procurement and management of the Rs. 30 billion budget.
5. Severe language barrier: The content of the government’s digital project is almost exclusively in English. This excludes the vast majority of citizens who speak Sinhala and Tamil, preventing them from understanding or debating the initiative. I noted that even the official government website for the Ministry of Digital Economy, which falls under the president’s purview, does not adhere to the 2022 ICTA standard requiring Sinhala and Tamil options on government websites. This makes vital information virtually invisible to the populace.

I also highlighted deep-seated issues that threaten the success and democratic integrity of the project:

1. Legal chaos and militarisation: The current legal landscape in Sri Lanka presents a major risk. There is a conflict between the Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA), which should strengthen rights, and other legislation like the OSA and the forthcoming Cyber Security Bill and Anti-Terror Bill, which often prioritise militarisation and security over rights. This means that while the PDPA aims to protect data, other acts allow for the potential erosion or exploitation of human rights. I noted that the culture inherited from decades of conflict, where security concerns often trump human rights, is still prevalent.
2. The risk of personalised trust (parasocial trust): Currently, the project relies too heavily on individuals, such as Dr Hans Wijayasuriya and the president, rather than policy. I labelled this reliance on personal charisma or affection as “parasocial trust”. Just as audiences develop affection for actors in TV dramas or cinema stars, the public grants trust to these leaders based on personal feeling or promise rather than concrete policy. This is extremely dangerous for governance because principled policymaking is absent or believed to be unnecessary.
3. The Hans Wijayasuriya case study: I raised the specific historical track record of Dr Hans Wijayasuriya, who currently serves as the president’s chief advisor for digitalisation. He was the CEO of Dialog during the war in 2006 when the company terminated cell phone connections and data services for over 200,000 people/families without any legal basis, accountability or court order simply because the government or Ministry of Defence requested it. I questioned how the public or media can now trust this individual’s promises that digitalisation will strengthen democracy given this history of undermining citizen rights.
4. “Vapourware” and infrastructure: Because there are no publicly available policy documents in Sinhala or Tamil and the project is based almost entirely on promises, it risks becoming “vapourware”, a term used in computing for software that is widely promised but fails to deliver functional results. Furthermore, our existing technological infrastructure is highly fragile as evidenced by major security breaches and collapses of the government cloud (LGC) and cyberattacks on departments like p It is highly questionable whether a revolutionary digital project can succeed on such a weak foundation.

I asserted that Sri Lanka does not need to reinvent the wheel regarding human rights frameworks. I referenced two critical international initiatives:

1. Freedom Online Coalition (FOC): This network recently released a document signed by 26 countries, stating that any digitalisation work must be grounded in a human rights framework. Sri Lanka could easily adopt this model.
2. Global Network Initiative(GNI): GNI issued a document outlining principles for governments undertaking AI, and digital projects, including legality, fairness, proportionality and privacy/data protection. Ignoring these frameworks means Sri Lanka risks becoming a digital island, isolated from other nations (such as the US, the EU, India, and Australia) who are adopting rights-based approaches to digitalisation. This isolation will severely affect our ability to transact or integrate with the global economy.

Finally, I discussed the political dimensions, noting that the digitalisation project is intrinsically linked to strengthening bilateral ties between the president/government and India, specifically relying on India’s technology stack. Historically, the JVP/NPP has been antagonistic towards India, especially concerning their initial emergence. I urged the JVP/NPP to be transparent and explain the shift in policy, clarifying why they are choosing India’s technological assistance over others and detailing the agreements, contracts, and transparency mechanisms.

Crucially, the current vacuum in communication allows groups with racist or anti-India sentiments to gain ground and sow distrust against the digital project. I highlighted that the lack of strategic communication and failure to build public trust creates the fertile ground for these tribalist groups to thrive, leading to legal challenges against digitalisation.

Ultimately, the failure of journalists, civil society and opposition MPs to ask deep, policy-based, human rights-rooted questions is allowing the government to proceed with an unaccountable and potentially dangerous project. This mirrors the failed experience in Brazil, where a technical-only approach, lacking dialogue and human rights considerations, led to the collapse of public trust and significant challenges to digitalisation programmes,and projects. We must learn from this to avoid the same outcome.