Features
BIDEN’S COURAGEOUS VISIT TO ISRAEL ENDS IN ALMOST COMPLETE FAILURE
by Vijaya Chandrasoma
War does not determine who is right. Only who is left. Bertrand Russel
Saturday, October 7, 2023 was yet another Day that will live in Infamy, like December 7, 1941, when US President Roosevelt coined the phrase after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, which paved the way for America’s involvement in World War II.
Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, in a telephone call with President Biden before his proposed visit, said that the Hamas attack represented “savagery I can say we have not seen since the Holocaust”. Rightly so. That one day, when 2,000 Hamas terrorists butchered 700 innocent Israeli civilians and wounded hundreds more, was indeed eerily reminiscent of the atrocities committed by the Nazis against innocent Jews, men, women and children during the Holocaust.
The difference is that the Holocaust against Jews continued for least a decade, or more than 3,650 consecutive days, day after day of incredible cruelty, of torture and death. Atrocities by Nazis, not for any crime committed by Jews, but out of historic, inherent racial and religious hatred.
The Jews never forcibly tried to take possession of any land that was the homeland of Germans or any other Europeans. They simply wanted to live in peace and integrate with the Germans, and with the citizens of nations of Russia and Europe. This in spite of the regular eruption of pogroms (ethnic massacres) they endured for centuries.
During the mid-1930s, there was a significant anti-Semitic movement in the USA, which overtly endorsed Hitler’s atrocities. In fact, American national hero, Charles Lindbergh, once considered by the right wing of the Republican Party as a potential Presidential candidate in 1940, had a close relationship with Hitler and actively worked for the anti-interventionist cause. At that time, more than 80% of the American public shared his views, opposing any involvement in the European conflict. The question of going to the aid of the Jews was never on the American table.
This was until the end of the war, when the atrocities committed by the Germans, with the massacre of six million Jews and five million Europeans of “impure blood”, gassed and baked in ovens and gas chambers, were exposed to a horrified, disgusted world. Until Europeans, Americans, even some Germans felt the extreme shame of not going to the aid of these innocent victims, even though they well knew exactly what was happening in these Nazi concentration camps.
The Nazi’s “Jewish Problem” then became, out of guilt, the British and Americans’ “Jewish Problem”. They took the easy way out. They stole the land of the Palestinians by Divine Order, after which it became the Palestinians’ “Jewish Problem”.
As Pablo Casals, famed Puerto Rican cellist and conductor said, “The world is in greater peril from those who tolerate or encourage evil than those who actually commit it”.
There have been pro-Palestinian protests in cities around the world, including America, against the continuing Israeli attacks on Gaza in revenge for the Hamas atrocities on October 7. Students of prominent educational institutions in America, including Harvard, are joining worldwide protests against the injustice of land being stolen from the people of Palestine.
A historic and mostly forgotten irony has been erased from the minds of these students at Harvard University, and most Americans. They are protesting the stealing of Palestinian land by the Israelis, unaware that they are standing on land stolen by their ancestors from native Americans.
Harvard students are protesting the annexation of Palestinian land by the Israelis, so doing on land stolen from the original native American tribe of Massachusetts. A tribe that exists no longer, but endures in memory only in the name of the state.
But I digress. Going back to the gift that kept on giving, also known as the Balfour Declaration of 1917, the British committed Palestine, a country where Arabic culture, traditions and language were dominant, “to the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people”.
The Jewish people accepted the twice-promised land, gifted by both the British and the Bible (the most sacred of title deeds), and emigrated to Palestine in their thousands, fleeing centuries of European persecution.
The Divine Gift of the Promised Land proved to be fruitful. Today, 3.5 million Palestinians are confined to the narrow, 140 sq. miles of the Gaza Strip, and share the West Bank of the Jordan River in dots of settlements amongst hostile Jewish settlers. The rest of the land of Palestine, now Israel, is under the military control and occupation of the Chosen People.
The map at the top of the essay shows the progressive and illegal Israeli annexation of Palestinian land since 1947.
A Two-State solution, proposed earlier by the United Nations, seemed to be the only equitable way to end this conflict, with equitably divided sovereign states, possibly according to pre-1967 borders. Jews and Palestinians living in peace in lands neighboring each other may be an impossible dream.
The virtual genocide and displacement of the Palestinian people and the complete annexation of Palestinian land, with American assistance, is almost a fait accompli. Today, Jews, with a population of 9.7 million outnumbering 3.5 million Palestinians, occupy the major part of the “Holy Land”. So where is the Israeli need for a Two-State solution? The Jewish State, as foretold in the Bible is a virtual reality.
President Biden visited Israel last Wednesday, in a display of American solidarity with Israel. He had three major missions for this historic visit: to make possible the release of 250 hostages, including about 20 Americans, held by Hamas in Gaza; to warn other actors in the region, like Hezbollah and Iran, not to escalate the conflict; and to ensure that Israel does not imperil the human rights of innocent Palestinians in their stated motive of exacting revenge for the atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7.
The bombing of a hospital in Gaza, which killed hundreds of Palestinian civilians and patients, a war crime, changed the trajectory of Biden’s short visit even before his arrival in Tel Aviv.
The Israelis first said the hospital bombing was an airstrike targeting Hamas that went wrong; then they accused terrorists operating in Gaza, Islamic Jihad, of bombing their own hospital. The hospital bombing occurred during Israel’s intense and continuing airstrikes on North Gaza for 11 days after the Hamas attack on October 7.
As expected, Biden stands with Israel Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. On meeting Bibi, Biden hugged him and said he believes the Israeli version of the Gaza hospital bombing, that it was done by “the other team, not you”. The American propaganda machine is busily gathering questionable satellite evidence to absolve their allies of this dastardly attack. No Arab will accept such evidence, doctored or not.
The Israelis’ stated intention of targeting only Hamas in their strikes in Gaza is as ridiculous as it is perfidious. Hamas operatives live with Palestinian civilians, they do not wear a Scarlet Letter T on their foreheads to identify themselves as terrorists. Collective murder of innocent Palestinians in the Israeli quest for revenge is inevitable. The Israeli blockade of food, water and medical supplies in Gaza is aimed at all Palestinians, not just Hamas terrorists. The relentless bombing by the Israeli Defense Forces of the area refutes their claim that the Gaza hospital bombing was done by a stray Hamas rocket.
Finger pointing is to no avail. The damage is done. The protests of Arabs throughout the Middle-East resulting from this atrocity led to the cancellation of the scheduled summit in Jordan for President Biden with Arab leaders in the region.
Biden left Israel, with little to show for his courageous though risky visit to a war zone. He said the Americans have learnt from past mistakes; grave mistakes, when they failed to intervene as Hitler was carrying out genocide of the Jews in Germany in the 1930s; and when America overreacted after 9/11, embroiling America in an illegal war for 15 years against the wrong enemy, with enormous cost to life, property and credibility.
Biden had limited success when he persuaded Israel to temporarily open the Egyptian border and allow American humanitarian aid to reach the Palestinians in North Gaza, desperately in need of such aid of medical supplies, water and food. One million Palestinian civilians under siege to be supplied 20 trucks of emergency provisions, sufficient for maybe a few days. Whether more trucks will be allowed access is anyone’s guess.
But while Biden condemned the terrorism of Hamas, he did not demand any assurances from Netanyahu of the cessation of retaliation against innocent Palestinians in North Gaza. Nearly two weeks of airstrikes and bombings, blockage of essential supplies, which have already claimed the lives of over 4,000 innocent Palestinian men, women and children. The hostages have still not been released. He received no assurance from Netanyahu of the suspension of the imminent ground offensive in North Gaza which will endanger the lives of nearly a million Palestinian civilians. Their strategy seems to drop thousands of bombs on North Gaza, destroy everything, and follow though with a ground invasion. What is their endgame – genocide?
The Israeli offensive if allowed to take place, will escalate exponentially the risk of the conflict spreading to other regions.
In that sense, Biden’s visit was a complete failure. But a complete success for Netanyahu, who got everything for Israel and gave away almost nothing.
President Biden is making a speech to the American people from the Oval Office, as I am writing this. A moving speech, emphasizing American values, determination to support democracy wherever it is under threat. He reiterated his steadfast support of both Ukraine and Israel, valued and loyal allies. He made a request from Congress for a funding package of $100 billion to help these allies in their wars against, as he said, aggressors who threaten their very existence as sovereign nations. He is asking for funding to help them in providing weaponry for their self-defense. He has no plans of having American boots on the ground in either of these arenas.
At first and admittedly ill-considered analysis, it has to be agreed that Americans must aid their allies. However, these two allies, Ukraine and Israel, are fighting their wars in different roles. One, Ukraine, in defense of their sovereignty against the aggressor, Russia. The other, Israel, is the aggressor, putting the finishing touch on targeted genocide, completion of the annexation of the land of an erstwhile sovereign nation, Palestine. An annexation in which Americans have been complicit since the end of World War II.
One ally is the defender, the other the aggressor. But helping both, morality and justice notwithstanding, is in the best interests of the Americans. That has always been the prime American motive in all the numerous wars they have involved themselves in since World War II.
Does the fate that befell the native American tribes centuries ago, when their lands were violently stolen and they were systematically and brutally “eliminated” by Europeans, await the Palestinians? History seems to favor that ultimate outcome, in the not too distant future.
Fifty years ago, Prime Minister of Israel, Golda Meir is reputed to have told then Senator Biden on a visit to that embattled region, “You know, Senator. We have a secret weapon here, in Israel. We have no place else to go”.
The tables certainly have turned. Today, the Palestinians have been almost completely defeated in their almost century-long struggle to hold on to their land against impossible odds. They are facing imminent genocide, displacement and extinction. Neighboring Arab nations are not, as a rule, prepared to accept them as refugees. They have no secret weapon in Palestine. They have no place else to go.
Features
Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics
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.
Features
The Quiet Shift: China as America’s “+1” in a Changing World Order
“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
Features
Egypt … here I come
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.
-
Features5 days agoSri Lankan Airlines Airbus Scandal and the Death of Kapila Chandrasena and my Brother Rajeewa
-
News6 days agoLanka’s eligibility to draw next IMF tranche of USD 700 mn hinges on ‘restoration of cost-recovery pricing for electricity and fuel’
-
News5 days agoKapila Chandrasena case: GN phone records under court scrutiny
-
News5 days agoRupee slide rekindles 2022 crisis fears as inflation risks mount
-
Features2 days agoOctopus, Leech, and Snake: How Sri Lanka’s banks feast while the nation starves
-
Business5 days agoExpansion of PayPal services in Sri Lanka officially announced
-
Features7 days agoMysterious Death of United Nations Secretary General Hammarskjöld
-
News5 days agoCourt orders further arrests in alleged USD 42 Mn NDB fraud case
