Features
The World after Gorbachev and Sri Lanka after JR Jayewardene
Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev who died last Tuesday was hardly known outside the Soviet Union when JR Jayewardene made himself Sri Lanka’s President in 1978. Seven years later, on March 11, 1985, Gorbachev would be become the General Secretary of the Soviet Communist Party. He was 54 years old and was the first leader of the Soviet Union born after the October 1917 Bolshevik Revolution that turned Tsarist Russia into the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics (USSR).
He was also the one to preside over the dissolution of both the Communist Party and the Soviet Union. He announced his resignation as Soviet President and Commander Chief on Christmas Day 1991. The changes he unleashed in little over six years are still reverberating throughout the world and more so in the attritive war between Russia and the Ukraine, the two largest republics of the old USSR.
Sri Lankans have had a split attitude towards the October revolution and the Soviet Union thereafter. There were those who were fascinated and inspired by the October revolution, and others who felt threatened and were fearful of its ripples reaching the shores of feudal Sri Lanka. Such fears were not unwarranted.
The Sri Lankan Left movement that emerged in the 1930s was both inspired by the example of the Soviet Union and also vigorously carried into Sri Lanka the bitter ideological disputes among Russian Bolsheviks. The UNP governments after independence were markedly pro-western and anti-Soviet in their foreign policy. The SLFP governments after 1956 took a much friendlier attitude towards the Soviet Union as part of their non-aligned approach to international relations.
The Third World exuberance over global decolonization in the 1960s further augmented the Soviet-Sri Lankan relationship. The Soviet Union and other East European socialist countries became new destinations and scholarship sources for young Sri Lankan students and professionals seeking university education and qualifications.
New cross-sections of Sri Lankan society benefited from the new foreign openings, which until then had been limited to students from traditional elite circles going to western, mostly British, universities. Literary connections were established through translations of writings between the Russian and Sinhala and Tamil languages.
The economic nationalism of the era led to the opening of several industrial corporations directly based on Soviet financial and technological support, in areas where import substitution had become necessary and for which there has been no private sector interest despite years of trying. What no one remembers now is that state industrial corporations were first established by GG Ponnambalam, the self-acknowledged “unrepentant opponent of socialism,” but a brilliant Minister (of Industries) in the DS Senanayake (UNP) government after independence.
Some of them were against the recommendations of World Bank experts, which were equally expertly rejected by Ponnambalam. Ponnambalam’s ministry even delicensed failing private industries, so much so that Pieter Keuneman, a young Communist MP at that time, mockingly called Ponnambalam the “vitriolic minister” for ‘dissolving’ small private industries.
The highpoint of Sri Lankan economic nationalism in the 1960s was the nationalization of the petroleum industry and the setting up of the Ceylon Petroleum Corporation (CPC) to take over what was then the monopoly of three global multinationals, Shell, Esso and Caltex. Interestingly, it was the UNP government (1965-70) of Dudley Senanayake that built the oil refinery in Sapugaskanda for the state petroleum corporation to refine crude oil from Iran for local consumption and potential exports.
Through all the economic crisis and shortcomings of industrial corporations that marked the 1970-77 United Front government, the CPC’s performance at Sapugaskanda was steady and even a new urea plant was built next door (by the State Fertilizer Manufacturing Corporation) to produce urea (for fertilizer for domestic agriculture) using naphtha, a byproduct from the refinery.
However, the economic changes after 1977 hugely increased the demand for petroleum products, and for electricity, and the CPC and CEB were stretched virtually overnight beyond their production capacities. The UNP government decided to export naphtha, shut down the new fertilizer factory, and hand it over to a private business for producing nails!
As I wrote a few weeks ago, it is now poetic justice for Ranil Wickremesinghe to be called upon as President to put Sri Lanka’s petroleum and electricity houses in order after they were neglected and mismanaged over 17 years (1977-94) by the UNP government of JR Jayewardene in which he (RW) was a cabinet apprentice.
From Gorbachev to Putin
It was during the same 17 years that President Jayewardene introduced fundamental changes to Sri Lanka’s political and economic systems. And over six years (1985-91) midway through that period, General Secretary Gorbachev launched far reaching changes within the Soviet Communist Party on the then famous planks of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), hoping for the inner-party changes to spill over into the broader Soviet society and institutions. Gorbachev pursued both political and economic restructuring, in contrast to China which focused on a thoroughgoing economic restructuring while maintaining the Communist Party’s stranglehold over the political system and society. The changes worked in China but failed in the Soviet Union.
China did not have the burdens that Gorbachev had to unload off the Soviet Union: a complex and multi-ethnic federal system under the control of a single Party; the costly system of political and military control over Warsaw Pact countries; and the blood sucking war in Afghanistan. In addition, the Soviet economy that recorded impressive strides in the pre-war and post-war periods (a fact now acknowledged by mainstream economists) had irretrievably fallen to the pits during the long, soporific tenure of Leonid Brezhnev (generally attributed to Cold War military budgets and poorly advised resource allocations and production priorities). The Soviet political system was also not easily amenable to radical changes because of its entrenched bureaucracy, depleted institutions and a stunted civil society.
At the same time, Gorbachev’s changes created far reaching effects in Europe and worldwide. He pulled Soviet Union out of the Afghan quagmire. He successfully forced nuclear disarmament treaties on the US and on NATO. And he let the Berlin Wall fall, which many consider to be the beginning of the post-colonial phase of globalization. East European countries broke free of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union itself, much to Gorbachev’s mortification, imploded leaving Russia alone in its winter of discontent without a Tsar and without a Politburo. He was reviled in Russia but was celebrated in the west. For all their public adulations, however, western leaders, especially the US, did not purposefully and sincerely support Gorbachev achieve his perestroika goals.
While Prime Minister Thatcher and President Reagan publicly warmed up to the man, they did not persistently overrule the hawks in their administrations and in NATO who resisted change on the grounds that they could not trust Gorbachev. The American Right believed that it was America’s economic strength and military might that forced the Soviet Union to accept ‘defeat’ in the Cold War and adopt glasnost and perestroika changes. This thesis has been consistently debunked by western historians, most notably by Oxford University’s Archie Brown who has reminded that Gorbachev’s emergence in the Soviet had nothing to do with any US policy.
The West’s biggest betrayal has been over its unwritten undertaking to Gorbachev that NATO will not expand into Eastern Europe following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw agreements. NATO and the West went ahead expanding and collecting new members regardless of Gorbachev’s protestations from retirement. The NATO expansion is the most weighted single factor behind the emergence of Putin and now his war in Ukraine.
Nina Khrushcheva, a Professor at New York’s New School and the great-granddaughter of Khrushchev who ordered the Berlin wall built in 1961, has recalled in her obituary what Gorbachev told her when she asked him why he did not send tanks to Germany in 1989 to protect the wall: “We shouldn’t dictate to sovereign countries their way of life.” Gorbachev stood by that principle all through his six years in office, and has lived by it for over thirty years after retirement.
On the other hand, Gorbachev’s principle of non-interference has been repudiated not only by Russia’s Putin but also by the West and NATO. To wit, the dismemberment of Yugoslavia, two invasions of Iraq, another long distance war in Afghanistan, and continuing imbroglios in the Middle East and North Africa. And the Western countries that fomented and cheered disruptions in Eastern Europe as democratic revolutions, are now having democracy threatened in their own countries by new populist manifestations of the old forces of race, bigotry and fascism.
The emergences of Boris Johnson in Britain and of Donald Trump in America are not accidental aberrations. While Britain has been able to get rid of Johnson without too much fuss thanks to the parliamentary system, the US with its presidential system is stuck with Trump even after getting him out of office after a single term.
From JRJ to Ranil-Rajapaksa
For the rest of the world, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of China as a market economy powerhouse have meant the removal of the Socialist Second World from the world order. The Left Parties in the Third World lost their external reference points for the argument for socialism in developing countries or emerging economies. In Sri Lanka, the 1977 victory of JR Jayewardene was an electoral repudiation of the people’s experience of what was politically bandied as socialism over nearly two decades. But President Jayewardene’s agenda went beyond more than reviving the economy and relieving people of their scarcities.
While Gorbachev’s reforms in the Soviet Union were intended to open up politics and facilitate power sharing, Jayewardene’s agenda was to centralize and personalize executive power behind the facades of the old parliamentary system. Where Gorbachev failed, President Jayewardene succeeded almost perfectly by his expectations. But 45 years on, what was once celebrated as calculated political success has turned out to be a wholesale disaster for the country. Both economically and politically.
If the emergence of the Rajapaksas exposed the faults of the presidential system, the failed presidency of Gotabaya Rajapaksa has made everyone sick and tired of it. Enter Ranil Wickremesinghe, the apprentice in 1977 and now the elder statesman – first as Gotabaya’s Prime Minister, then as Acting President, and now as interim President, but actually carrying himself as if he is a new President elected by the people. It is not clear if President Wickremesinghe is now intending to get rid of the executive presidency, or if he will try to keep it at least a term longer so that he can make one last electoral go at it.
In addition to being President, Mr. Wickremesinghe is also his Minister of Finance. On Tuesday he presented the interim budget replacing Basil Rajapaksa’s non-budget for 2022. It was really a precursor to the IMF’s statement a day later that the IMF Team in Colombo and government officials have reached staff-level agreement to support the authorities’ economic adjustment and reform policies with a new US$2.9 billion funding facility over a 48-month period. The agreement is subject to ratification by the IMF Board in Washington.
The expectation is that the IMF agreement would help Sri Lanka obtain debt relief from Sri Lanka’s creditors along with additional financing from multilateral partners to help ensure debt sustainability and additional funding support. The infamous ‘haircuts’ that creditors should agree to bear are yet to come and the discussions around it are reportedly being facilitated by Japan. China remains non-committal even as its agreement is essential for reaching agreements with other bilateral creditors and private lenders. Haircuts can be significant and varying arrangements have been used for different countries in the past. The Russian experience in 1998-99 involved a rather ‘tough haircut’ (50-70%) for external creditors and more favourable treatment in dealing with domestic debt.
There are already calls against delaying and using different mechanisms for domestic debt restructuring to prevent the Employees’ Provident Fund going bankrupt and significant losses to domestic banks. A related political question that is bound to arise will be about the ‘haircuts’ that Sri Lanka’s parliamentarians, especially SLPP MPs, are willing to take for themselves. Already, many MPs are known to be against early elections to secure their pensions, and SLPP MPs are not looking for any haircut but prioritized compensation for damage to their properties during the May 9 violence that was in fact provoked by their own leaders. The President will have his handsful in determining who in parliament will get haircut and who will get compensation and in which order.
Mr. Wickremesinghe had it easy lecturing helpless government clerks in Anuradhapura that they should either work or go home. His words will carry far greater weight if he were to say to Nivard Cabraal that he is not entitled to extra pension, or to former Presidents that they are not entitled to government pensions and retirement residences if they continue to be active in politics and remain lawmakers in parliament. Mikhail Gorbachev lived for over 30 years after his retirement on meagre government support to which he was entitled. He did not look for any American Green Card but chose to remain in Russia, occasionally defending his legacy even though his legacy was already dead.
Features
Eastern University and the making of a culture of peace
by Jehan Perera
There is an important change in the way peace is being understood in Sri Lanka. The notion that peacebuilding is not simply the responsibility of governments, politicians and peace organisations, but is also a responsibility of educational institutions, appears to be permeating the consciousness of at least a section of the academic community. This was visible on International Peace Day at an event held at Eastern University by the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences. The event was unusual not least because the medical and nursing faculty of the university had decided that peacebuilding was relevant to its academic and professional responsibilities.
Peacebuilding has too often been treated as something undertaken after conflict, when the fighting has stopped and the immediate task is to rebuild relationships between communities. But peace cannot be sustained by governments and peace organisations alone. If it is to become long lasting, the values and practices of peace have to become part of the institutions through which a society educates its younger generations. Universities and other educational institutions are therefore important to peacebuilding. They are among the places where the foundations of a culture of peace can either be built or neglected.
The experience of the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences at Eastern University provides a practical example of what this can mean. Led by its Dean, Prof Thillainathan Sathaananthan, the faculty organised an event which went beyond the ordinary academic scope of a medical faculty. University academics are experts in writing project proposals and applying for research grants. On this occasion, the members of the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences used those skills to apply for a UNESCO grant that they won to conduct an International Peace Day event. The significance lies less in the Rs 200,000 grant than in the decision to use the university’s institutional capacity and resources to invest in peacebuilding. The event at Eastern University needs to be understood as more than a successful university programme. It represents a possible paradigm shift in peace thinking.
Institutional Commitment
The Peace Day event obtained the support of the university administration, including Vice Chancellor Prof P Peratheepan, and reached out to secondary schools in the vicinity to mobilise their attendance. The event itself was meticulously organised. There were cultural items including traditional and modern dance and song in the three languages, performed by combinations of solo, duet and multiple singers, dancers and actors drawn in part from nearby secondary schools. There was a panel discussion by senior academics on the general theme of peacebuilding and how to prepare for it. A discussion among the students followed, where each student spoke on behalf of a religion that was not theirs. This is significant because peacebuilding cannot remain an idea discussed by specialists at conferences. It has to become part of the way institutions educate and prepare people for life in a plural society.
The Faculty of Health-Care Sciences at Eastern University has provided a model through its Peace Medicine course modules that were introduced to the curricular as a compulsory core course over 10 years ago. Two senior academics, Dr Kuveriel Eliyas Karunakaran and Dr Thillainathan Sathaananthan, have written a book on “Peace Medicine- A Health Care Concern” that was published five years ago. Its Peace Medicine Module integrates principles of medical ethics, compassion, equity, social justice and community engagement into health education and practice. In his introduction, former Vice Chancellor of Eastern University, Prof T Jayasingam noted “This book is an introduction to a theme which had already been operating in the Faculty of Health Care Sciences as a course.”
Doctors, nurses and health workers know better than anyone the harm that war and violence does. They are the people who treat the wounds and trauma that violence leaves behind. In a hospital, a patient is not asked what their religion or ethnicity is before they are treated. Health care is one of the places where peace is practised every day. The Faculty has therefore found a way of connecting its professional responsibilities with the wider social responsibility of peacebuilding. The question is whether this experience can be replicated throughout the country, at universities and at other educational institutions, so that peacebuilding becomes part of the consciousness of education itself. If that happens on a sufficient scale, it can begin to generate a culture of peace that becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.
Local Action
The Eastern University event corresponded closely to the United Nations theme for this year’s International Day of Peace, “Invest in Peace – For Everyone, Everywhere, Every Day”, which honours the “everyday architects of peace”, people driving local action, laying the groundwork for stability and building lasting peace from the ground up. The emphasis on investment is important. An investment means that something is put in: time, courage and resources. There is no more violent conflict in Sri Lanka today. But the absence of war does not automatically produce a culture of peace. The factors that fed the country’s conflict have not disappeared from the world. Racism, corruption and the violation of laws and human rights are the raw materials of conflict. So too are unresolved grievances, discrimination and the failure to recognise the suffering of others.
A country that does not deal with its past does not escape it. The past can return in the next generation. This is why the experience of Eastern University needs to be replicated countrywide, both at universities and at other educational institutions. The objective should not be to turn every academic discipline into peace studies. Rather, peacebuilding needs to become part of the consciousness of education itself. Eastern University shows that a medical faculty can develop Peace Medicine. A law faculty can examine the relationship between justice, rights and peace. Faculties of education can prepare teachers to work in diverse communities, while the humanities and social sciences can examine the different narratives through which communities understand their histories. Every institution can find its own way of making peacebuilding relevant to what it teaches.
Sri Lanka has had many declarations, pledges and programmes in the past. What matters is whether these produce changes in behaviour and institutional practice. Peacebuilding requires confronting difficult issues rather than avoiding them. It requires respect for different identities, but also engagement across those identities. It requires dealing with grievances in the present while also addressing unresolved issues from the past. It requires truth, accountability, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence. It requires people to learn that the rights of another community do not diminish their own rights. The International Peace Day event at Eastern University was evidence of a change in the way at least some academics in a part of the country deeply affected by war are thinking about their responsibilities. Peace needs to be invested in and the most important investment will be in the minds of those who will inherit the future.
Features
Quality assured education commodities
by Ahilan Kadirgamar
I have always noticed the little paper tags that are inside the packaging of some products that say quality assured or quality control. I often wonder who might have checked the product and stamped that tag, but I also forget the tag soon enough. Decades later, when I entered academia, I was taken aback by the emphasis placed on quality assurance in our universities. It is not something that could be forgotten and done away with; the entire university system is obsessed with quality assurance.
Beginning with the staff induction programme, quality assurance is drilled into the newly recruited lecturers. It is the norm, not seen as doing any harm and only trying to improve quality. It is accepted as given, and not questioned. Quality Assurance Cells and Committees are omnipresent and hover above the Departments and, at times, even the Faculty Boards. Quality Assurance reviews are feared by the Deans and Vice Chancellors. University life itself seems secondary to the rule of quality assurance. What do we make of this system of quality assurance and what are its implications for our university system?
Corporate speak
Universities globally have been going through major changes with neoliberal education policies. In many countries, universities increasingly became corporatised to be run like businesses in the 1980s. As state support for universities declined, cost cutting became the norm. They started hiring adjunct or part-time staff. Many public non-fee levying universities around the world began to charge fees. Decade by decade, tuition fees became more and more exorbitant, forcing students to take student loans. The total student debt in the United States now stands at close to US$ 2 trillion; which is about 20 times the GDP of Sri Lanka. As the higher education landscape transformed in the West, university administrations began to recruit Presidents, Vice Chancellors and administrative officials with corporate backgrounds and experience.
Such corporatisation of universities in the West has since been imported into countries like Sri Lanka, introducing a new corporate vocabulary, including quality assurance, graduate competencies, programme outcomes, intended learning outcomes, etc. University teaching has become secondary to documenting so-called outcomes. The teacher-student relationship, the environment of the lecture hall and even administering the university have been over-determined by the processes of ensuring quality. How did such major changes come about in such a short time? Indeed, academics of just two generation ago, would never have heard of these terms and processes in the Sri Lankan university system.
World Bank Trojan horse
Since the early 2000s there have been a number of World Bank projects that have drastically changed the character of Sri Lankan universities. Quality assurance as a central agenda within universities, and many other changes to the working of our universities, came through these World Bank initiatives. The Improving Relevance and Quality of Undergraduate Education (IRQUE) project and Higher Education for the 21st Century (HETC) project were two such earlier projects that set up the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Unit (QAAU) under the University Grants Commission (UGC) and established systematic quality assurance reviews for state universities. The public often thinks these are grants from the World Bank to modernise our universities. However, they are not grants but loans.
The most recent such project, Accelerating Higher Education Expansion and Development (AHEAD) is a US$ 100 million loan from the World Bank implemented from 2018 to 2023, which consolidated the quality assurance structures from the earlier projects. Furthermore, these projects are implemented with tremendous arrogance, prioritising their implementation over all other concerns in the universities, when the project over six years for example accounts for just one fourth of our budget allocation for universities this year.
The AHEAD project drastically changed course curricula, sought to increase student enrolment in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) disciplines, commercialise the university research agenda and create university-business linkages. All of this was pushed to supposedly help us face development challenges. We have heard the ideological attack on our universities and even students claiming they are “unemployable graduates”. These changes to our higher education system were supposedly going to create jobs and increase employment.
The irony of the AHEAD project is that just as it was ending in 2023, apparently after having reached its targets, the Sri Lankan economy was collapsing. The World Bank often gets the direction of causality wrong. It is the economy that creates jobs for graduates, and not the training or kind of graduates that create jobs. It is decades of World Bank policies, and those of its ideological twin the IMF, that have led to such high youth unemployment, not only in Sri Lanka but also in many other countries in the global South.
Sri Lanka entered an IMF agreement in March 2023 and started a new Country Partnership Framework with the World Bank in June 2023. These programmes have little to say about, and actively discourage, government initiatives that aim to create an industrial policy or an employment creation policy. Instead, they push for austerity measures, which not only restrict the allocation for education among other sectors, but also end up contracting the economy to the detriment of increasing employment. Their goal is the commercialisation of higher education, to make universities into businesses and run them like factories.
In this context, the ideology of quality assurance is powerful. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), whose different standards are necessary for marketing, is the institution that came up with the concept of “quality assurance”. It promoted quality assurance as a process of identifying defected products. Therefore, when the World Bank promotes this conceptual framing, our students are, in fact, seen as products on the assembly line, with quality assurance processes aiming to prevent the release of defected products from the university system. For the US$ 100 million we borrowed for the AHEAD project and the many more million dollars in similar World Bank projects, there is no evidence of increased employment of graduates.
Commodity fetishism
Over a century and a half ago, Karl Marx critiqued the economic analysis prevalent at that time that associated some inherent or monetary value for commodities without considering the social relations that underlie the production of those commodities. Marx called this commodity fetishism. Furthermore, he theorised that such commodity fetishism was also a reason for the alienation of human beings from the world. If our labour and what we produce is seen devoid of the social relations that underlie them, we lose our connection with the people and the world. In this process we become alienated from what we produce and the world.
We are now in a world where our students themselves are fetishised as commodities for the market. Universities are no longer communities concerned about knowledge and human growth, but mere factories producing commodities, which have to be produced without defects to be marketed. In this way, quality assurance has become the cause for the alienation of students, academics and our universities themselves, from the larger relationship with our economy and society.
Our university system does need reform. It is grossly underfunded and not providing the financial support and facilities for our students. Universities have become hierarchical spaces without the academic freedom and democratic ethos necessary for producing knowledge. Academics and students need to engage more with their communities to make their learning and research meaningful, not to mention their contribution to and integration with society. However, when it comes to even questions of governance and regulation of the universities, such concerns are merely reduced to improving quality. In our contemporary times, this singular focus on quality assurance, as opposed to addressing the larger structural issues, is crippling our universities. There may be no way out, but to put back quality assurance where it started, those little tags on goods, to perhaps be noticed but quickly forgotten.
Ahilan Kadirgamar is a political economist and Senior Lecturer, University of Jaffna.
(Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies)
Features
Thailand’s biggest new global star …
The entertainment scene, globally, is agog with excitement, and, why not!
Yes, a new global star has emerged … from Thailand, and she hit the headlines by winning America’s Got Talent.
Rattikarn Amloy, known to millions by her stage name Nene Royal, was crowned the winner of America’s Got Talent (AGT) Season 21 at the live finale at Pasadena Civic Auditorium, California, taking home the USD 1 million grand prize.
The 16-year-old rocker, from the holiday island of Phuket (I’ve been to Phuket, courtesy Tourism Authority of Thailand), has struck a power chord around the world, and is the first Thai national ever to win the hit NBC show.
She beat nine other finalists, including runner-up magician Geno Ploeger, after a blistering final performance.
Nene’s story is pure rock and roll fairy-tale. She says she picked up a guitar at age seven, fell in love at the first chord, and taught herself mostly by watching videos online. That dedication earned her a music scholarship to Kajonkiet International School Phuket.
Her audition at America’s Got Talent — a swaggering, shredding rendition of The Cranberries’ classic ‘Zombie’ — exploded online, amassing over 200 million views across AGT’s platforms, more than any act this season.
She kept wowing: ‘Hysteria’ by Muse, then ‘Black Hole Sun’ by Soundgarden which earned her Spice Girl Mel B’s Golden Buzzer, sending her straight to the live shows.
For the final, she unleashed ‘Seven Nation Army’ by The White Stripes. Judge Howie Mandel shouted: “You should win. Give her the million, America.” Mel B praised her “mysterious, mystical stage presence”.
And for the grand finale, she lived every teen rocker’s dream — performing on stage, alongside US rock giants Linkin Park.
When host Terry Crews announced her as winner, the teenager collapsed to the stage floor in tears. “I’m very happy and you know I’m emotional right now,” she said.
And Thailand erupted. Her school held watch parties, posting: “You did it, congratulations, champion. We are so proud of you.”
Even Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul sent a personal congratulation. He had earlier hosted Nene at Government House in July, where she played guitar while he sang a Thai rock song. His office said her talent “brought pride to Thai people.”
Corporate Thailand also rallied behind her — Charoen Pokphand Foods, owned by billionaire Dhanin Chearavanont, even rented a giant billboard in Times Square, New York, to cheer her on.
With her blistering guitar solos, rock-ballad shrieks and fearless spirit, little Nene Royal has just become Thailand’s biggest new global star.
What’s more, this amazing teenager will be bringing her powerful vocals, guitar skills and signature rock-metal style to the stage, as opening act, before one of the world’s biggest rock bands, America’s Avenged Sevenfold, in Singapore, on 13 October.
Unfortunately, we are still to see a local artiste, grab the spotlight, on a global scale … like Thailand’s Nene.
Yes, they do shine, but mostly on social media, and that, too, with the aid of AI (Artificial Intellegence).
-
News7 days agoMastermind Naufer Moulavi among 15 found guilty
-
Midweek Review7 days agoThileepan’s fast unto death: An authentic narrative that many missed
-
Latest News6 days agoShowers above 100 mm are likely at some places in the Western, Sabaragamuwa, Central and North-western provinces and in Galle and Matara Districts
-
Editorial7 days agoBig Bad Bills
-
Editorial6 days agoCrimes punished and unpunished
-
Features5 days agoBeyond traditional jobs: Why Sri Lanka needs to facilitate the gig economy
-
News7 days agoNo referendum needed for passage of 22 A: SC
-
News7 days agoOne clause in Anti-Corruption (Amendment) Bill requires referendu: SC
