The Government is currently discussing a monitoring system to complement the recently introduced fingerprint attendance machines in State institutions, according to Deputy Minister of Public Administration, Provincial Councils, and Local Government Prabha Ruwan Senarath. 

The Deputy Minister noted that the fingerprint initiative marked only the beginning of a broader programme aimed at reshaping accountability and performance standards across Sri Lanka’s public sector. 

“We are discussing a monitoring mechanism that will go hand in hand with the fingerprint system,” he explained. “This will ensure that attendance is not just recorded but linked to real performance. Our aim is to build a system where accountability cannot be compromised.”

This statement sets the stage for a sweeping debate in Sri Lanka about the role of technology in governance, the balance between efficiency and fairness, and the future of State sector reform. 

The controversy over biometric attendance machines is not merely about the mechanics of clocking in and out. It has evolved into a high-stakes national conversation on modernisation, corruption, workers’ rights, and the political will to transform a system long plagued by inefficiency.

A strike that tested the Govt.’s resolve

The debate over fingerprinting first erupted into public view during this month’s postal strike, which lasted a full week and disrupted mail services across the island. 

Although the strike began with grievances over revised overtime payments, it quickly became a referendum on the Government’s determination to implement biometric monitoring. Postal workers argued that the machines not only undermined their ability to claim fair overtime but also ignored chronic staffing shortages and low base salaries.

The Government, however, refused to budge. 

Minister of Health and Mass Media Dr. Nalinda Jayatissa was blunt in his remarks on 19 August: “The demands to remove fingerprint machines and change overtime rates are unacceptable and will not be entertained.” 

His statement left little room for negotiation. He stressed that discussions could only proceed if unions first accepted the biometric system as a permanent fixture of State administration.

When the strike ended last week, the Government reiterated its position. Dr. Jayatissa declared that the machines would be implemented immediately at the Central Mail Exchange, underscoring the administration’s readiness to withstand prolonged resistance. The message was clear: the biometric system was not negotiable.

Technology as a tool of reform

Senarath framed the fingerprint policy as part of Sri Lanka’s broader effort to modernise its public sector. For him, the issue is not about restricting workers’ freedoms but about embedding discipline and transparency into an institution that has long struggled with corruption and absenteeism.

“This is not about punishing workers,” he explained. “It is about building a disciplined and transparent culture. Nobody can play around with the digital record. That is the strength of this system. It is a tool to fight corruption and bribery which have damaged the State sector for too long.”

Senarath acknowledged that practical difficulties were inevitable at the initial stage. Cases where employees sign in but then leave the premises, for example, are already on record. But he dismissed such issues as teething problems that could be corrected with experience and new safeguards.

“We are already studying these problems, and in the future we will be able to provide solutions. But abandoning the system is not an option,” he insisted. “We must accept change and improve as we go.”

One of the strongest criticisms being levelled against the fingerprint system is its impact on overtime. Postal staff complained that the system made it harder to claim extra pay, especially when they were required to remain on site without meaningful work.

Senarath’s response was straightforward: “The point is that overtime must be for genuine work. If the public is paying for services, they deserve accountability in return.”

The monitoring regime

What makes Senarath’s position particularly significant is that fingerprinting is not intended to stand alone. He emphasised that the Government was already working on a parallel monitoring system that would integrate attendance data with actual performance metrics. The vision is to create a digital accountability framework that links presence to productivity, ensuring that reforms do not stall at the superficial level of clocking in.

Although no final decision has been announced, Senarath has signalled that the Government wants this monitoring system rolled out across all State institutions. “If one department is accountable and another is not, then the public service as a whole cannot progress,” he argued. In his view, piecemeal reform will only perpetuate inequalities between different sectors of government.

For critics, this raises questions about surveillance and worker autonomy. For supporters, it represents an overdue modernisation of a bloated system that has failed to keep up with public expectations. Either way, the proposal for a monitoring regime suggests that the Government is not simply reacting to union resistance but laying the foundation for a structural overhaul.

Resistance and vandalism

The rollout of biometric machines has not been smooth. Incidents of vandalism have been reported, with some machines deliberately damaged in what officials describe as acts of sabotage. 

For Senarath, these acts symbolise a deeper cultural resistance to accountability. “We must move away from the broken system of the past,” he said. “Breaking things which are beneficial is not acceptable. If we want to reach 2050 as a modern country, we cannot look back. We must move forward with confidence.”

While the Government has promised legal action against those who vandalise State property, Senarath stressed that the real challenge lay in changing mindsets. “The fingerprinting system is only one mechanism to enhance efficiency, but before we improve other things, we need to change this culture of breaking things which are beneficial,” he remarked.

Realities on the ground

For unions, however, the biometric mandate represents less of a reform than a pay cut. 

Sri Lanka Postal Services Association Chairman Jagath Mahinda argues that the Government is ignoring fundamental realities: staff shortages, low wages, and the exploitative reliance on overtime.

“We are short of nearly 1,700 workers,” Mahinda said. “The existing staff are already doing the work of two or three people. Now, with the fingerprint machines, they are forced to stay an extra three or four hours just to mark overtime, even though much of the extra work is being completed during regular hours. This is not fair.”

The end of the practice where supervisors approve overtime without strict verification has particularly inflamed workers. While the Government condemns this practice as abuse, Mahinda defended it as a survival mechanism.

“Our base salary is very low,” he explained. “Without overtime, it is impossible to live. A worker would have to do nearly 240 hours of overtime a month just to earn a decent wage. The fingerprint system, combined with the new circular, has destroyed that.”

For Mahinda, the introduction of machines is a distraction from the real issues. “You cannot solve problems of understaffing and low pay by putting machines in front of workers. The fingerprint does not deliver letters. The fingerprint does not process parcels. What we need are more staff and fair wages, not machines that punish workers for the failures of the system.”

A clash of visions

The postal strike highlighted the stark contrast between two visions for Sri Lanka’s public administration. On one hand, the Government sees technology as the only viable tool to instil discipline, eliminate waste, and rebuild public trust in State institutions. On the other hand, unions argue that reforms imposed without addressing low pay and staff shortages amount to cruelty disguised as modernisation.

For the Government, yielding on fingerprinting would unravel its broader reform agenda and set a precedent of weakness. For unions, accepting the system without concessions would mean condemning workers to economic insecurity. 

The biometric mandate is now a test case for the Government’s broader ambition to modernise the State sector. Its success will depend on whether it delivers measurable improvements in service delivery and accountability, or whether it becomes another example of reforms implemented without regard for those on the frontlines.