Connect with us

Features

Anura B’s ruling

Published

on

Anura Bandaranaike

The following is a summary of Speaker Anura Bandaranaike’s ruling:

Hon. Members, I wish on this occasion, to make a statement concerning an issue which is of the utmost importance and vital concern to all members of this House, which has been occasioned by an unprecedented event which occurred two weeks ago, namely, the issue of two orders by the Supreme Court seeking to restrain me, as your Speaker, from appointing a Select Committee of Parliament under and in terms of Standing Order 78A of the Standing Orders of Parliament.

These orders purport to be made by the Court as interim measures prior to the final determination of two Applications, SC FR 297/2001 and SC FR 298/2001, in which the Petitioners allege that there is an imminent infringement of certain fundamental rights, to which they claim to be entitled, by reason of the envisaged appointment of a Select Committee in terms of the aforesaid Standing Order, pursuant to the notice of the resolution received by me from certain members of this House.

The further orders contemplated in the two applications made to the Court, are of a very far-reaching nature and if granted would entail a stoppage of the contemplated proceedings under Standing Order 78A, which, Hon. Members would be pleased to see, is a complete and decisive intervention, amounting to an interference, with the internal affairs of this House, over which the House alone is complete master and in sole control. This is a right and privilege which elected Legislatures of this country have long enjoyed and claimed to possess without it ever being challenged by any Court or other authority and ungirdled by the laws and the Constitutions that have governed our affairs.

But considering the fact that the questioning of this undoubted right and privilege emanated from the apex Court of this country, I have thought it fit to give the matter the most careful consideration and have sought the advice of learned counsel in the elucidation of this question, which has given rise to controversy.

I have done my own researches into the problem on this matter which only confirm my long-held convictions of the plenary freedom and autonomy of Parliament in the conduct of its own affairs and my intuitive resistance against all attempts from external sources to intervene in this exclusive sphere – a conviction borne out of my own experience as a Parliamentarian which stretches for nearly a quarter of a century.

I am also deeply conscious of my responsibility and obligation as your Speaker and as the custodian of the historic rights and privileges of this Assembly and its members, to be ever vigilant against such intrusions from any place outside this House, which have the effect of impeding the conduct of the affairs of Parliament on the supposed ground of enforcing the constitutional or legal rights of others. These rights and privileges are considered to be essential to the proper performance of the functions and duties of this House, and they constitute the collective inheritance of Parliament, empowered by the law of the State that neither the Speaker nor any single member of the House can renounce or surrender or otherwise abrogate.

Any such right, privilege, immunity or power does not cease unless it be by legislative amendment of the current law. The law on this subject is set out in the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act No. 21 of 1953 as amended by Law No 5 of 1978 and Act Nos 17 of 1980, 25 of 1984, 37 of 1987 and 27 of 1997. This Law has all along been acknowledged to be the governing law by the Courts of this country whenever any such question arose for determination and the Courts have upheld the rights, privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament. No other law can be regarded as superseding this law as the Constitution itself recognizes its continuing legal efficacy, until Parliament decides otherwise.

If I may briefly summarize its main provisions, the present law on this subject came to be enacted in 1953 when the Ceylon (Constitution) Order-in-Council of 1946 as amended was in force.

The foundations of the law relating to the powers, rights and privileges of Parliament rest on the necessity “to maintain its independence of action and the dignity of its position” (Halsbury Laws of England Vol 34 (4th Ed) para 1479). The exclusion of the jurisdiction of the Courts to exercise any control over the acts of the Speaker and the officers of the Legislature, has been recognized in our own law, for well over half a century. It was so provided in Section 29 of the State Council (Powers and Privileges ) Ordinance No 27 of 1942. It is a historic privilege recognized in the United Kingdom from ancient times and forms an integral part of our system of parliamentary democracy which has drawn heavily from their practice in the development of our own traditions. As was observed by Stephen J in Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884) 12 QBD 271

“I think that the House of Commons is not subject to the control of Her Majesty’s Courts in the administration of that part of the statute law which has relation to its own internal proceedings

It seems to follow that the House of Commons has the exclusive power of interpreting the statute, so far as the regulation of its own proceedings within its own walls is concerned; and that, even if that interpretation should be erroneous, this Court has no power to interfere with it directly or indirectly.” (pg 280 – 281)

Speaker Anura Bandaranaike then went on to cite several British judgments relevant to this matter as well as a judgment by HNG Fernando which pronounced on the subject at issue.

As was observed by an eminent judge of our own Court H.N.G.Fernando J (as he was then) in Attorney-General v. Samarakkody (1955) 57 NLR 412, Section 3 of the Parliamentary (Powers & Privileges) Act of 1953 is an adaptation of Article 9 of the Biil of Rights. In that case in proceedings taken under Section 23 (1) of the Act, on an Application made to the Supreme Court, on an allegation that the Respondents were guilty of an offence triable by the Supreme Court, it was held that the conduct of the Respondents, even if it was disrespectful was not justiciable by the Supreme Court.

It is difficult to appreciate how, notwithstanding these statutory provisions, paragraphs 37 and paragraphs (c) (d) and (e) of the prayer in each of the Petitions, came to be included and on what basis the Court’s jurisdiction came to be invoked in respect of proceedings in Parliament.

Apart from the force of the general provision in Article 168 (1) of the Constitution, the matter is put beyond any doubt by Article 67 of the Constitution which expressly provides that until the privileges, immunities and powers of Parliament and of its members are determined and regulated by Parliament, by law (made under the present Constitution), the provisions of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act shall, mutatis mutandis, apply.

Impeachment signifies a questioning of any conduct on an allegation of fault, error or wrongdoing. From the contents of the two Petitions filed in the Supreme Court, it appears that petitioners are questioning the legality and the constitutionality of the course of action, which Parliament had adopted ,pursuant to the provisions of Article 107 (3) of the Constitution, in framing Standing Order 78A which the Petitioners contend violate various provisions of the Constitution.

I am unhesitatingly of the opinion that the declaration sought in paragraph (c) and the two orders sought in paragraphs (d) and (e) of the prayer to the petitions are clearly situations where a proceeding in Parliament is sought to be impeached or questioned. and such conduct is prohibited by Section 3 of the Parliament (Powers and Privileges) Act of 1953, which the Speaker ought in law to resist and is obliged to object to, on behalf of Parliament and the sovereign rights to which it is heir. I am fortified in this conclusion by a consideration of the British practice. The embargo on any external interference or intervention, in respect of proceedings in Parliament, is of special significance for the effective control over the business of Parliament.

Speaker Bandaranaike thereafter quoted the Erskine May, a widely acknowledged authority on parliamentary procedure and several more precedents from the British courts in support of the contention that the courts could not interfere in the conduct of parliamentary business.

“The whole of the law and custom of Parliament has its origin from one maxim, “that whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed and adjudged in that House to which it relates and not elsewhere.”

Bndaranaike said the foregoing decisions of the Courts of the United Kingdom have been followed in Sri Lanka, being in accord with the law of this country. – vide Attorney-General v. Samarakkody (cited earlier) and the recent case of Gomes v. M.H.Mohamed, Speaker of Parliament (1991) 2 SLR 408, where the Petitioner sought writs of Certiorari and Mandamus against the Respondent who was the Speaker of Parliament. The Petitioner in that case alleged that having entertained the notice of a resolution, seeking the impeachment of President R. Premadasa under Article 38 (2) (a) on 28.08.91 he had, instead of performing his constitutional and statutory functions, under Article 38 (2) (c) had informed His Excellency the President that he “ceased to entertain” the resolution which he had earlier accepted. The Petitioner sought to quash the later decision which claimed to “cease to entertain” and compel by Mandamus the performance of the subsequent steps required to be done under Article 38 (2).

Wijeyaratne J observed at pg 414, “Undoubtedly these are statutory duties laid down in the Constitution but nevertheless they are part of the proceedings of Parliament, therefore this Court is precluded from examining these matters.”

It is my view that the right of the Speaker to appoint a Select Committee, in terms of the said Standing Order 78 is also a proceeding of Parliament having the privilege of immunity to being impeached, questioned or interfered with by any Court of Law. In this regard it is pertinent to quote the submissions of Mr. S. Nadesan, Q.C., on 251h September 1984 before the Select Committee appointed in respect of the removal of the Hon. N.D.M.Samarakoon Q.C. from the office of Chief Justice (Vide pages 199 and 200 of the said Report) of which Select Committee I was privileged to be a Member.

Mr. Sarath Muttettuwegama, M.P.: The appointment of a Select Committee does not depend on a resolution?

Mr. Nadesan Q.C.: Yes. Once you send that resolution for the removal on the ground of misbehaviour, then the Speaker automatically functions.

The Chairman: Your point is that he has no other (Hon. Lalith Athulathmudali) option. Neither has Parliament the option. As the resolution is tabled it has to go to the Select Committee. He cannot refuse.

Mr. Nadesan Q.C.: The Speaker takes over, he cannot refuse. Then immediately he shall appoint a Select Committee of Parliament. It is called a Select Committee, because it is selected – that is alright – consisting of seven members to investigate and report to Parliament on allegations of misbehaviour or incapacity set out in such resolution. He has done that.…

he Speaker said: Finally, if I may summarize the decisions which I have reached on the several issues that have arisen:

1. The Supreme Court had no jurisdiction to issue the interim orders restraining the Speaker of Parliament in respect of the steps he is empowered to take under Standing Order 78A.

2. The aforesaid interim orders dated 6th June 2001 are not binding on the Speaker of Parliament.

3. There is no legal obligation to comply with the said orders.

I will now proceed to instruct the Secretary General of Parliament to place the Motion in the Order Paper.

In conclusion, might I be permitted, on a personal note, to say that I am, indeed, proud to belong to a family that has had the unparalalled and unique privilege of continuously serving the Legislature of this Nation, since, 1932, for nearly 70 years.

Therefore, I deem it a singular honour that fate has bestowed upon me, as Speaker of this august Assembly, by affording me the historic opportunity of reaffirming the principles underlining the supremacy of Parliament. Since I commenced my Parliamentary career in 1977, 1 have often quoted in this House, the words of the Bard from Stratford Upon Avon, William Shakespeare. In his monumental play ‘HAMLET’, he spoke thus:-

“This above all: to thine own self be true And it must follow as the night the day Thou canst not then be false to any man”

Hon. Members of Parliament, throughout my political and Parliamentary career, I have had to face periods of difficulty, great turmoil and greater perplexity, which required me to make important decisions and painful choices.1 have done so unhesitatingly by doing the correct thing and have acted according to the dictates of my conscience.

I thank every one of my Honourable friends from both sides of the House, for their attention and patience.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Features

Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics

Published

on

President Donald Trump meets President Xi Jinping in Beijing: Mutually beneficial ties aimed at. (CNN)

The fact that some of the US’ topmost figures in business, such as Tesla chief Elon Musk and major US chipmaker Jensen Huang of NVIDIA fame, occupied as nearly a prominent a position as President Donald Trump at the recent ‘historic and landmark’ visit by the latter to China underscores the continuing vital importance of business in US-China ties. Business seemed to outweigh politics to a considerable degree in importance during the visit although the political dimension in US-China ties appeared to be more ‘headline grabbing’.

To be sure, the political dimension cannot be downplayed. For very good reason China could be seen as holding the power balance somewhat evenly between East and West. The international politics commentator couldn’t be seen as overstating the case if he takes the position that China could exercise substantial influence over the East currently; that is Russia and Iran, in the main. The latter powers hold the key in the Eastern hemisphere to shaping international politics in the direction of further war or of influencing it towards a measure of peace.

For example, time and again China has prevented the West from ‘having its own way’, so to speak, in the UN Security Council, for instance, in respect of the ongoing conflicts involving Russia and Iran, by way of abstaining from voting or by vetoing declarations that it sees as deleterious. That is, China has been what could be seen as a ‘moderating influence’ in international politics thus far. It has helped to keep the power balance somewhat intact between East and West.

At present a meet is ongoing between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. This happened almost immediately after the Trump visit. Apparently, Beijing is in an effort to project itself as treating the US and Russia even-handedly while underscoring that it is no ‘special friend’ of the US or the West.

This effort at adopting a non-partisan stance on contentious questions in international politics is also seen in Beijing’s policy position on the Hormuz tangle and issues growing out of it. The Chinese authorities are quoted as saying in this regard, for instance, that China is for ‘a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire in the Middle East’.

Such a position has the effect of enhancing the perception that China is even-handed in its handling of divisive foreign policy posers. It is not openly anti-West nor is it weighing in with Iran and other Eastern actors that are opposed to the West in the West Asian theatre. A ‘comprehensive and lasting ceasefire’ implies that a solution needs to be arrived at that would be seen as fair by all quarters concerned.

On the highly sensitive Taiwan issue, President Xi was comparatively forthright during the Trump visit, but here too it was plain to see that Beijing was not intent on introducing a jarring, discordant note into the ongoing, largely cordial discussions with Washington. On the Taiwan question President Xi was quoted saying: ‘If mishandled, the two nations could collide even come into conflict.’ In other words, the US was cautioned that China’s interests need to be always borne in mind in its handling of the Taiwan issue.

The cautioning had the desired result because Trump in turn had reportedly conveyed to Taiwan that the latter’s concerns on the matter of independence had to be handled discreetly. He had told Taiwan plainly not to declare ‘independence.’

Accordingly, neither the US nor China had said or done anything that would have made either party lose face during their interaction. Apparently, both sides were sensitive to each others’ larger or national interests. And the economic interests of both powers were foremost among the latter considerations.

There is no glossing over or ignoring economic interests in the furtherance of ties between states. They are primal shaping forces of foreign policies and the fact that ‘economics drives politics’ is most apparent in US-China ties. That is, economic survival is fundamental.

Among the more memorable quotes from President Xi during the interaction, which also included US business leaders, was the following: ‘China’s doors will be open wider’ and US firms would have ‘broader prospects in the Chinese market.’

Xi went on to say that the sides had agreed to a ‘new positioning for ties’ based on ‘constructive strategic stability’. The implication here is that both sides would do well not to undermine existing, mutually beneficial economic relations in view of the wider national interests of both powers that are served by a continuation of these economic ties. That is, the way forward, in the words of the Chinese authorities, is ‘win-win cooperation.’

It is the above pronouncements by the Chinese authorities that probably led President Trump to gush that the talks were ‘very successful’ and of ‘historic and landmark’ importance. Such sentiments should only be expected of a billionaire US President, bent on economic empire-building.

One of the most important deals that were put through reportedly during the interaction was a Chinese agreement to buy some 200 Boeing jets and a ‘potential commitment to buy an additional 750 planes.’ However, details were not forthcoming on other business deals that may have been hatched.

Accordingly, from the viewpoint of the protagonists the talks went off well and the chances are that the sides would stand to gain substantially from unruffled future economic ties. However, there was no mention of whether the health of the world economy or the ongoing conflicts in West Asia were taken up for discussion.

Such neglect is regretful. Although the veritable economic power houses of the world, the US and China, are likely to thrive in the short and medium terms and their ruling strata could be expected to benefit enormously from these ongoing economic interactions the same could not be said of most of the rest of the world and its populations.

Needless to say, the ongoing oil and gas crisis, for instance, resulting from the conflict situation in West Asia, is taking a heavy toll on the majority of the world’s economies and the relevant publics. While no urgent intervention to ease the lot of the latter could be expected from the Trump administration there is much that China could do on this score.

China could use its good offices with the US to address the negative fallout on the poorer sections of the world from the present global economic crunch and urge the West to help in introducing systemic changes that could facilitate these positive outcomes. After all, China remains a socialist power.

Continue Reading

Features

The Quiet Shift: China as America’s “+1” in a Changing World Order

Published

on

Xi and Trump

“Everything ever said to me by any Chinese of any station during any visit was part of an intricate design”

— Henry Kissinger

That design may already be complete before this week’s , a meeting that could shape the future balance of global power.

The wind arrives quietly. By the time it is heard, history has already begun to turn. Across Asia, that wind is no longer distant. It carries with it the exhaustion of an old order and the uncertain birth of another. The question now is not whether the world will change. It is whether those who hold power possess the wisdom to guide that change toward something less violent than the century behind us.

Since 1945, the United States has carried the burden of a global order built with its Western allies. To its credit, the world avoided another direct world war between great powers. The conflicts remained contained in distant lands—proxy wars fought in the shadows of ideology, oil, and influence. From Latin America to Asia, the American century expanded not only through prosperity, but through intervention. Yet empires, even democratic ones, grow tired. Fatigue settles slowly into institutions, alliances, and public memory. The role of global policeman no longer inspires certainty in Washington as it once did.

The “rules-based order” now confronts its own contradiction: it was built to be universal, yet it often appeared selective. During my recent visit to , a young researcher asked me quietly, “Does the West itself still believe in the rules-based order?” The question lingered long after the conversation ended. The rising century demands a more inclusive architecture—one that recognises the reality of Asian power, especially China.

My three years of field research across South and Southeast Asia, documented in , revealed a transformation too significant to dismiss as temporary. China has moved beyond being merely a competitor to the United States. In trade, infrastructure, technology, cultural diplomacy, and economic influence, Beijing has established itself as what may be called the world’s “US +1.”

Great powers often search for such a partner. History shows this tendency clearly. When an empire becomes overextended—burdened by wars, alliances, sanctions, tariffs, and crises—it seeks another center of gravity to stabilize the system it can no longer manage alone. The United States today faces disorder stretching from Venezuela to Iran, from Ukraine to the unsettled Middle East. In this landscape, China emerges not simply as a rival, but as a state powerful enough to broker peace where Washington alone no longer can.

Drawing from the lessons of the Nixon–Mao era, warned that “” The United States and China are now engaged in a long-term economic, technological, political, and strategic competition. Managing that competition wisely may become the defining challenge of this century. In such a deeply polarized and unstable world, recognising China as a “US +1” partner is not surrender, but strategic realism.

Donald Trump understood this reality before boarding his flight to meet Xi Jinping. Their meeting inside Zhongnanhai—the guarded compound where China’s leadership governs—was never merely ceremonial. It symbolized a deeper recognition already acknowledged quietly within the itself: China is the nearest peer competitor the United States has ever confronted. Before departing Washington, Trump seemed to reassess not only China’s strength, but its unavoidable position as a “” shaping the future global balance.

Yet the significance of a Trump–Xi meeting extends beyond trade wars, tariffs, or diplomatic spectacle. It presents an opportunity to confront two crises shaping the century ahead: global energy insecurity and regional instability. Washington increasingly understands the limits of direct engagement with Tehran. Decades of pressure, sanctions, and confrontation have produced exhaustion rather than resolution. In that vacuum, Beijing now possesses leverage that Washington does not.

For China, this is an opportunity to evolve from a development partner into a security actor. Xi Jinping’s (GSI) was never designed merely as rhetoric. It was intended as the next phase of Chinese influence—transforming economic dependence into strategic trust. The geopolitical spillover from the Iranian conflict now offers Beijing a historic opening to project itself as a stabilising force in the region, not against the United States, but alongside it as a “US +1” partner.

If China succeeds in helping stabilise the Gulf and secure energy corridors vital to Asia, it will reshape perceptions of Chinese power globally. Beijing would no longer be seen only as the builder of ports, railways, and industrial zones, but as a guarantor of regional balance. This transition—from infrastructure diplomacy to security diplomacy—may become one of the defining geopolitical shifts of the coming decade.

Xi Jinping does not seek open confrontation. His strategy is older, more patient, and perhaps more formidable because of its restraint. Beijing speaks not of domination, but of a “,” advanced through three instruments of influence: the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). These are not slogans alone. Across Asia, many governments increasingly trust China as a development partner more than any other power.

India, despite its ambitions, has not matched this scale of regional penetration. In both ASEAN and South Asia, China’s economic gravity is felt more deeply. Ports, railways, technology networks, and financial dependency have altered the geopolitical map quietly, without the spectacle of war.

In , I compared three inward-looking national strategies shaping Asia today: Trump’s MAGA, Modi’s emerging economic nationalism , and Xi’s strategy. Among them, China has demonstrated the greatest structural resilience. Faced with American tariffs and decoupling pressures, Beijing diversified its supply chains across Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia. Rail corridors now connect Chinese industry to European markets through Eurasia. ASEAN has surpassed the United States as China’s largest trading partner, while the European Union follows closely behind. Exports to America have declined sharply, yet China continues to expand. Trump, once defined by confrontation, now arrives seeking a new “” with China—an acknowledgment that economic rivalry alone can no longer define the relationship between the world’s two largest powers.

Unlike Washington, which increasingly retreats from multilateral institutions, Beijing presents itself as the defender of multilateralism. Whether genuine or strategic matters less than perception. In geopolitics, perception often becomes reality.

What emerges, then, is not surrender between rivals, but interdependence between powers too large to isolate one another. The future may not belong to a bipolar Cold War, but to a reluctant coexistence. The United States now recognises that China possesses diversified markets and partnerships capable of reducing dependence on America. China, in turn, understands that its long march toward global primacy still requires strategic engagement with the United States.

This is where the true geopolitical shift begins.

Many analysts continue to frame China solely as a threat. Yet history rarely moves through absolutes. The next world order may not be built through confrontation alone, but through uneasy partnership. Artificial intelligence, technological supremacy, economic stability, and global governance now demand cooperation between Washington and Beijing, whether either side admits it publicly or not.

Trump will likely celebrate his personal relationship with Xi, presenting himself as the American leader capable of negotiating a “better deal” with China than his predecessors. But beneath the rhetoric lies something larger: the gradual acceptance of China’s indispensable role in shaping the future international order.

Even the question of war increasingly returns to Beijing. If Washington seeks an understanding with Tehran, China’s influence becomes unavoidable. Iran listens to Beijing in ways it no longer listens to the West. This alone signals how profoundly the balance of power has shifted. And Xi, careful as always, refuses to openly inherit the mantle of global leadership. He delays, softens, and obscures intention. It is part of a longer strategy: to rise without provoking the final resistance of a declining hegemon too early.

History rarely announces its turning point. Empires fade slowly, while new powers rise quietly beneath the noise of the old order. Washington still holds immense power, but Beijing increasingly holds the patience, reach, and strategic depth to shape what comes after.

The century ahead may not belong to one power alone, but to the uneasy balance between Washington and Beijing. And in that silence, a new world order is already taking shape.

By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

Continue Reading

Features

Egypt … here I come

Published

on

Chit-Chat Nethali Withanage

Three months ago, 19-year-old Nethali Withanage, with Brian Kerkoven as her mentor, walked the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week. On 06 June, she’ll walk for Sri Lanka in Hurghada, Egypt, as the country’s delegate to Top Model of the World 2026._

I caught up with Nethali as she prepares to fly out, this weekend, and here’s how our chit-chat went:

1. Tell me something about yourself?

I’m someone who blends creativity with ambition. I’ve always loved expressing myself, whether it’s through fashion, styling, or the way I present myself to the world. At the same time, I’m very driven and disciplined, especially when I was working, as a student counsellor, at Campus One, at a young age, where I’ve learned how to connect with people, understand them, and communicate with confidence. I believe I’m still evolving, and that’s what excites me the most … becoming better every single day.

2. What made you decide to be a model?

Modelling felt natural to me because it combines everything I love – fashion, confidence, and storytelling without words. I realised that modelling isn’t just about appearance, it’s about presence and how you carry your energy. I wanted to be part of an industry where I could express different sides of myself, while inspiring others to feel confident in their own skin.

3. What sets you apart from other models?

I would say my ability to connect. Whether it’s with the camera, a brand, or an audience, I bring authenticity. I also have a strong background in communication and sales, which gives me an edge in understanding how to represent a brand, not just wear it. I don’t want to just model clothes, I want to bring them to life.

4. What clothing do you prefer to model?

I enjoy modelling versatile styles, but I’m especially drawn to elegant and expressive fashion pieces that tells a story. I love looks that allow me to embody confidence and femininity, whether it’s a structured outfit or something soft and flowing.

5. What is the most important aspect of modelling?

Confidence combined with professionalism. Confidence allows you to own the moment, but professionalism ensures that you respect the work, the team, and the brand you represent. Both are equally important.

6. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

I would say I’m learning to trust myself more and not overthink. I’ve realised that growth comes from embracing who you are, not constantly trying to change it. So instead of changing something, I’m focused on becoming more confident in my own voice.

7. School?

I did my O/Ls at Seventh Day Adventist High School Kandana, and, while at school, I was actively involved in creative activities. I enjoyed participating in English Day events that allowed me to express myself and interact with others. Those experiences helped me build confidence, teamwork, and communication skills, which continue to shape who I am today.

8. Happiest moment?

One of my happiest moments is realising how far I’ve come from being unsure of myself to stepping into opportunities, like modelling, and representing myself with confidence. That feeling of growth is something I truly value, and also a dream come true!

9. Your idea of perfect happiness?

Perfect happiness for me is peace of mind, being surrounded by people I love, doing what I’m passionate about, and feeling proud of who I am becoming.

10. Your ideal guy?

My ideal partner is someone who is respectful, supportive, and confident in himself. Someone who values growth, understands my ambitions, and encourages me to be the best version of myself.

11. Which living person do you most admire?

I admire strong, self-made individuals who have built their identity through hard work and resilience. People who stay true to themselves, despite challenges, inspire me, because they show that success is not just about talent, but also about strength and consistency.

12. Your most treasured possession?

My most treasured possession is my confidence. It’s something I’ve built over time, and it allows me to face challenges, take opportunities, and believe in myself, even when things are uncertain.

13. If you were marooned on a desert island, who would you like as your companion?

I would choose someone who is calm, positive, and resourceful, someone who can turn a difficult situation into an adventure. The right mindset matters more than anything.

14. Your most embarrassing moment?

I’m 19 and still haven’t faced any most embarrassing moment. But I would say I’ve had small moments where things didn’t go as planned, but I’ve learned to laugh at myself. Those moments remind me that perfection isn’t necessary; confidence is about how you recover, not how you avoid mistakes.

15. Done anything daring?

Pursuing modelling and stepping into competitions is something I consider daring. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and challenged me to grow, both personally and professionally.

16. Your ideal vacation?

My ideal vacation would be somewhere peaceful, yet beautiful, like a beach destination where I can relax, reflect, and reconnect with myself, while enjoying nature.

17. What kind of music are you into?

I choose music that matches my mood at that time, whether it’s calm and relaxing or energetic and uplifting. Music is something that helps me express emotions and stay inspired.

18. Favourite radio station?

Usually I don’t listen to radio stations but whenever I get into a car I would search for Yes FM because it has a refined balance of contemporary hits and timeless music. I appreciate how it maintains a vibrant yet sophisticated energy, keeping listeners engaged while creating a consistently uplifting atmosphere. It’s something I enjoy because it adds a sense of positivity and elegance to my day.

19. Favourite TV station?

At the moment, I don’t have a television at home, but growing up, my favourite TV station was ‘Nickelodeon’. I genuinely loved the shows and series it aired; they were fun, creative, and full of personality. It was something I always looked forward to, and those memories still bring a sense of joy and nostalgia, whenever I think about it.

20. Any major plans for the future?

My future plans are to grow in the modelling industry, work with international brands, build a strong personal brand and finish completing a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Studies. At the same time, I want to explore my creative side further, especially in fashion and business, so I can create something of my own one day.

Continue Reading

Trending