Features
False historical perspectives of Wigneswaran
by Rienzie Wijetilleke and
Kusum Wijetilleke
rienzietwij@gmail.com
Archbishop Cardinal Malcolm Ranjith’s recent comments regarding racial and religious politics were most timely. In a climate where religious leaders seek to become political leaders, to hear the Archbishop state so unequivocally that religion and language should not be the basis for a political party is at least mildly reassuring. It seems that the Archbishop was irked by recent comments made in Parliament by MP C. V. Wigneswaran regarding the primary language of Sri Lanka’s indigenous peoples. Cardinal Malcom is certainly not alone, although when he states that this division began in the 1950s, he is only half right. Certainly, the introduction of the singular language policy of 1956 created a significant fissure in the country, yet the beginnings of the debate around language and ethnicity and its political divisions had taken root long before this.
In Sri Lanka’s post-independence self-reckoning, many colourful characters played their roles in further igniting the already volatile situation and using their positions to foment distrust for personal gain. Many famous (or infamous) political luminaries were involved throughout the decades in the see-saw struggle to build a unitary nation state with guaranteed rights for all ethnicities. Specifically, the following passages will pay attention to two important figures during this period; former Prime Minister S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and the Politician and Lawyer G.G. Ponnambalam, both selected mainly for their colourful use of language and rhetorical flourishes.
Elitist Ideologues
S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike (SWRD) is widely considered to be one of the foremost characters in the era of post-independence Sri Lanka, marked by communal divisions, creating the conditions for a separatist struggle with a terrorist organization. SWRD and other nationalist agitators were all armed with ideological justifications for their dogmatic ethno-political positions. S.J.V. Chelvanayakam (SJV), the aforementioned G.G. Ponnambalam (GGP) along with SWRD were all guilty during certain periods in their careers of utilizing divisive supremacist and absolutist rhetoric, stoking communal tension.
In the mid-1950s, speeches such as the below, made by SWRD, were common place:
“… the fears of the Sinhalese, I do not think can be brushed aside as completely frivolous. I believe there are a not inconsiderable number of Tamils in this country out of a population of 8 million. Then there are 40-50 million Tamil people in the adjoining country. What about all this Tamil literature, Tamil teachers, even films, papers and magazines?… I do not think there is an unjustified fear of the inexorable shrinking of the Sinhala language. It is a fear that cannot be brushed aside”
Against a historical backdrop of inflamed rhetoric and divisive political machinations, today’s politics appear to be exhibiting many of these traits. Recent elections saw various politicians using their platforms to propagate their own community’s sense of historical grievance and connect it to the present day.
In his recent comments, Mr. Wigneswaran alluded to “false historical perspectives of the past”. Taking these comments in unison with his opening lines regarding Tamil being the language of the “first indigenous inhabitants of this country” one can easily detect a hint of the racial supremacy that was the hallmark of GGP’s rhetoric. Notwithstanding the historical accuracy of his speech, there seems little reason to make such a remark other than to embellish his otherwise banal statement with a trace of controversy so that it may reach the collective conscious of the mainstream. Thereafter followed the plea to “recognize the intrinsic rights of people of the North and the East.”
In the mid-1930s, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike (SWRD) formed the Sinhala Mahasabha, a party whose sole purpose was to promote Sinhalese culture and community interests. This was a direct response to the Tamil Nationalist anti-Sinhala movement led by G.G. Ponnambalam (GGP) in that same decade. The result was one of the earliest Sinhala – Tamil riots in modern history, at Nawalapitiya in 1939. The riots were reportedly the result of disparaging comments made by GGP regarding the Mahavamsa which were perfectly in tune with much of his rhetoric during this time.
Prior to the incident, at the launching of the Sinhala Mahasabha branch in Nawalapitiya, SWRD commented that the party should erect a statue of GGP to thank him for provoking its very existence. Being a shrewd politician, SWRD understood the influence of a well-motivated reactionary movement, fueled by the rhetoric of its nemeses. This seems to be a point lost on Mr. Wigneswaran judging by his recent comments in Parliament, reminiscent of the sort of grand-standing and ferocious rhetoric the famous GGP traded in.
The Contradictions of Ponnambalam
A talented lawyer by trade, GGP was blessed with foresight and tactical acumen which made him a considerable political force. He realised early on that the Tamil elites of the time had more in common with the Sinhalese elites than their ‘own people’. SWRD and the Sinhala Mahasabha joined ranks with the UNP of D.S. Senanayake and began constitutional reforms with the aim of establishing an independent ‘Ceylonese’ nation. Ponnambalam Arunachalam (PA) and Ponnambalam Ramanathan (PR), both stalwarts of Ceylonese politics, were supportive of constitutional reforms and of the concept of an independent Ceylon under the auspices of the Donoughmore Commission. PA and PR had earlier rejected the concept of communal representation, encouraged by the British Governor of the time, William Manning, in favour of the universal franchise. It is suspected that both PA and PR were suspicious of communal representation since it may have dissolved their positions as elites belonging to a higher caste and thereby entitled to be the torch-bearers for the Tamil people in an independent Ceylon.
GGP realised that the introduction of the universal franchise would dilute Tamil representation in the legislature. Whilst GGP appeared to disagree with the elitist PA and PR he seemed to betray his own elitist tendencies when he proposed the “50/50” Balanced Representation scheme. Yet, it was his rhetoric that spurned the potential for a truly inclusive ‘Ceylonese’ state. To this extent GGP supported PR in his regular visits to London in the 1930s to lobby the British Government to discard the universal franchise in favour of communal representation and in effect, uphold the caste system.
Against the context of the introduction of the universal franchise, GGP articulated his belief that the Sinhalese did not warrant a majority in the legislature or a primary role in governing the country and structuring any future nation state. His campaign often included racist epithets and spoke of historical racial power balances not too dissimilar to the content of Mr. Wigneswaran’s recent comments. GGP would regularly repeat his ideology, which promoted the supremacy of the Tamils over the Sinhala race in ancient Ceylon. One of his main weapons was to disparage the Mahawamsa knowing well the emotional attachment of the Sinhalese to it. He consistently labelled the Sinhalese as a “race of hybrids” and inculcated a sense of social and hierarchical grievance amongst the Tamils.
Internationally Borrowed Localized Intellectualism
This sense of racial supremacy was also prevalent during the 1920s and 30s in different parts of the world as well as amongst some of the Sinhalese politicians. The rise of Nazism in Europe and Stalinism in the Soviet Union influenced many Ceylonese intellectuals of the time as well. The ‘Catholic Guardian of Jaffna’ for example, expressed admiration for Hitler during this period. GGP referred to SWRD as a Nazi during comments in the Legislative Chamber, while remarking that he would not allow the Tamils to be treated like the Jews in Germany.
However, GGP himself was said to have visited Nazi Germany on more than one occasion along with some members of the British Union of Fascists. He, like others, seemed to be influenced by the staunchly racialized politics of the time. As an example, Dr. N.M. Perera and Dr. Colvin R. De Silva were influenced by Marxist ideology that was so popular during this time. During the debates on the Sinhala Only Act, a special mention must be made on the efforts of Dr. Colvin R. De Silva to rebuke what was a popular decision amongst the majority;
“… Do we want an independent Ceylon or two bleeding halves of Ceylon which can be gobbled up by every ravaging imperialist monster that may happen to range the Indian Ocean? These are issues that in fact we have been discussing under the form and appearance of the language issue… One language, two nations; two languages, one Nation…”
These intuitive comments would prove to be prophetic some years later. It must be said that many of these men were all products of their time, of their environments and of their intellectual pursuits.
Returning to the recent comments of the Archbishop, he certainly seemed bemused when he laments the current debates surrounding the “original” language of this country and its “original” people. Mr. Wigneswaran’s intent is clear: to carve out a fresh political pedestal for himself, perhaps eager to carry the heavy burden of separatist politics that has ravaged this country for so long.
If we are to humour Mr. Wigneswaran and read between the lines of his statement, if only to uncover an ulterior motive, it seems that he may be setting up his stall as an agitator for not just the people of the North but also the people of the East. It seems necessary to state that while Tamil is a common language between the majorities of both Northern and Eastern provinces, they seem to have little else in common. Thus, it is ironic that Mr. Wigneswaran visited the LTTE memorial in Jaffna before deciding that he had earned the right to speak for the people of the eastern province as well. Note that the Eastern province has over 1.5 mn people, some 400,000 of them Sinhalese and over half a million of them Muslim. Unlike Mr. Wigneswaran, the people of the Eastern Province will still remember the LTTE’s campaigns of terror on Muslim populations; 150 deaths in the Kattankudy Mosque Massacre (1990) and up to 285 deaths in the Palliyagodella Massacre (1992). This is to say nothing of the total eviction of some 72,000 Muslims from the north.
Economic Policies Required Not Communal Politics
It certainly seems that Mr. Wigneswaran has not grasped the lessons of history and continues to trade in the same communal politics of the pre-independence era. He might have been excused for this due to the recent renaissance of mainstream communal politics in the aftermath of the Easter Attacks. Yet, we should not excuse a politician of Mr. Wigneswaran’s proven intellect. The separatist tendencies that exist in the political mainstream should be alienated, not given centre stage at a time when the economic strife of people in the North as well as the South should be the focus of parliamentary business. History has taught us that the politics of racial superiority will only lead to further destruction. Would GGP himself have ever endorsed such rhetoric had he known the real future costs of his separatist ideology?
This seems to indicate that Mr Wigneswaran himself suffers from false historical perspectives. One example is equating the LTTE to the Tamil population in general, a notion that many Tamils would find offensive. Indeed he remains a strong surrogate for the ‘Balasingam ideology’ that still persists through the remnants of the Federal Party. What would he say if a Sinhalese politician were to make similar comments in Parliament? Instead of accepting the overwhelming mandate gained by the President and the PM and focusing on the obvious economic hardship that so many in the country are going through, Mr. Wigneswaran seeks to re-energise the nativists in his corner. It seems tactically naïve to constantly create more support amongst the Sinhala supremacists, who need so little invitation. Why fan the flames when it may be at his political peril? Perhaps, it is designed to sow hatred and instigate fresh violence, which will then improve his negotiating position and prove his point in the process.
The current economic situation is dire for many, people have no disposable income, very little sense of financial security due to rising personal debt and stagnant wages, should we not, at least now, seek to cast away communal politics? If mainstream political discourse begins to degenerate into the racialized rhetoric of pre-independence Sri Lanka, we should hope that the modern day versions of the Tamil elites show more restraint than GGP did. We should hope that the mainstream rhetoric of the majority embraces pluralism as part of its patriotic nationalistic posturing.
If the economy is mishandled further while the electorate is still waging its communal war against each other, the long and ardent project to build a successful ‘post-Ceylonese’ Sri Lanka will stumble further and eventually crash. Any state that remains, be it Sinhalese or Tamil, will be a pale imitation of what was promised by the aforementioned forefathers of their own nationalist movements. What then will become of those intrinsic rights?
Six months into the term of office of the new government, the main positive achievements continue to remain economic and political stability and the reduction of waste and corruption. The absence of these in the past contributed to a significant degree to the lack of development of the country. The fact that the government is making a serious bid to ensure them is the best prognosis for a better future for the country. There is still a distance to go. The promised improvements that would directly benefit those who are at the bottom of the economic pyramid, and the quarter of the population who live below the poverty line, have yet to materialise. Prices of essential goods have not come down and some have seen sharp increases such as rice and coconuts. There are no mega projects in the pipeline that would give people the hope that rapid development is around the corner.
There were times in the past when governments succeeded in giving the people big hopes for the future as soon as they came to power. Perhaps the biggest hope came with the government’s move towards the liberalisation of the economy that took place after the election of 1977. President J R Jayewardene and his team succeeded in raising generous international assistance, most of it coming in the form of grants, that helped to accelerate the envisaged 30 year Mahaweli Development project to just six years. In 1992 President Ranasinghe Premadasa thought on a macro scale when his government established 200 garment factories throughout the country to develop the rural economy and to help alleviate poverty. These large scale projects brought immediate hope to the lives of people.
More recently the Hambantota Port project, Mattala Airport and the Colombo Port City project promised mega development that excited the popular imagination at the time they commenced, though neither of them has lived up to their envisaged potential. These projects were driven by political interests and commission agents rather than economic viability leading to debt burden and underutilisation. The NPP government would need to be cautious about bringing in similar mega projects that could offer the people the hope of rapid economic growth. During his visits to India and China, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake signed a large number of agreements with the governments of those countries but the results remain unclear. The USD 1 billion Adani project to generate wind power with Indian collaboration appears to be stalled. The USD 3.7 billion Chinese proposal to build an oil refinery also appears to be stalled.
RENEWED GROWTH
The absence of high profile investments or projects to generate income and thereby take the country to a higher level of development is a lacuna in the development plans of the government. It has opened the door to invidious comparisons to be drawn between the new government’s ability to effect change and develop the economy in relation to those in the opposition political parties who have traditionally been in the seats of power. However, recently published statistics of the economic growth during the past year indicates that the economy is doing better than anticipated under the NPP government. Sri Lanka’s economy grew by 5 percent in the year 2024, reversing two years of contraction with the growth rate for the year of 2023 being estimated at negative 2.3 percent. What was particularly creditable was the growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2024 (after the new government took over) being 5.4 percent. The growth figures for the present quarter are also likely to see a continuation of the present trend.
Sri Lanka’s failure in the past has been to sustain its economic growth rates. Even though the country started with high growth rates under different governments, it soon ran into problems of waste and corruption that eroded those gains. During the initial period of President J R Jayawardene’s government in the late 1970s, the economy registered near 8 percent growth with the support of its mega projects, but this could not be sustained. Violent conflict, waste and corruption came to the centre stage which led to the economy getting undermined. With more and more money being spent on the security forces to battle those who had become insurgents against the state, and with waste and corruption skyrocketing there was not much left over for economic development.
The government’s commitment to cut down on waste and corruption so that resources can be saved and added to enable economic growth can be seen in the strict discipline it has been following where expenditures on its members are concerned. The government has restricted the cabinet to 25 ministers, when in the past the figure was often double. The government has also made provision to reduce the perks of office, including medical insurance to parliamentarians. The value of this latter measure is that the parliamentarians will now have an incentive to upgrade the health system that serves the general public, instead of running it down as previous governments did. With their reduced levels of insurance coverage they will need to utilise the public health facilities rather than go to the private ones.
COMMITTED GOVERNMENT
The most positive feature of the present time is that the government is making a serious effort to root out corruption. This is to be seen in the invigoration of previously dormant institutions of accountability, such as the Bribery and Corruption Commission, and the willingness of the Attorney General’s Department to pursue those who were previously regarded as being beyond the reach of the law due to their connections to those in the seats of power. The fact that the Inspector General of Police, who heads the police force, is behind bars on a judicial order is an indication that the rule of law is beginning to be taken seriously. By cost cutting, eliminating corruption and abiding by the rule of law the government is removing the obstacles to development. In the past, the mega development projects failed to deliver their full benefits because they got lost in corrupt and wasteful practices including violent conflict.
There is a need, however, for new and innovative development projects that require knowledge and expertise that is not necessarily within the government. So far it appears that the government is restricting its selection of key decision makers to those it knows, has worked with and trusts due to long association. Two of the committees that the government has recently appointed, the Clean Lanka task force and the Tourism advisory committee are composed of nearly all men from the majority community. If Sri Lanka is to leverage its full potential, the government must embrace a more inclusive approach that incorporates women and diverse perspectives from across the country’s multiethnic and multireligious population, including representation from the north and east. For development that includes all, and is accepted by all, it needs to tap into the larger resources that lie outside itself.
By ensuring that women and ethnic minorities have representation in decision making bodies of the government, the government can harness a broader range of skills, experiences, and perspectives, ultimately leading to more effective and sustainable development policies. Sustainable development is not merely about economic growth; it is about inclusivity and partnership. A government that prioritises diversity in its leadership will be better equipped to address the challenges that can arise unexpectedly. By widening its advisory base and integrating a broader array of voices, the government can create policies that are not only effective but also equitable. Through inclusive governance, responsible economic management, and innovative development strategies the government will surely lead the country towards a future that benefits all its people.
by Jehan Perera
Former Minister Ali Sabry’s recent op-ed, “Why Sri Lanka must continue to pursue a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy,” published in the Daily FT on 3 March, offers a timely reflection on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy trajectory in an increasingly multipolar world. Sabry’s articulation of a “non-aligned yet multi-aligned” approach is commendable for its attempt to reconcile Sri Lanka’s historical commitment to non-alignment with the realities of contemporary geopolitics. However, his framework raises critical questions about the principles of non-alignment, the nuances of multi-alignment, and Sri Lanka’s role in a world shaped by great power competition. This response seeks to engage with Sabry’s arguments, critique certain assumptions, and propose a more robust vision for Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.
Sabry outlines five key pillars of a non-aligned yet multi-aligned foreign policy:
- No military alignments, no foreign bases: Sri Lanka should avoid entangling itself in military alliances or hosting foreign military bases.
- Economic engagement with all, dependency on none
: Sri Lanka should diversify its economic partnerships to avoid over-reliance on any single country.
* Diplomatic balancing
: Sri Lanka should engage with multiple powers, leveraging relationships with China, India, the US, Europe, Japan, and ASEAN for specific benefits.
- Leveraging multilateralism
: Sri Lanka should participate actively in regional and global organisations, such as UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC.
- Resisting coercion and protecting sovereignty
: Sri Lanka must resist external pressures and assert its sovereign right to pursue an independent foreign policy.
While pillars 1, 2, and 5 align with the traditional principles of non-alignment, pillars 3 and 4 warrant closer scrutiny. Sabry’s emphasis on “diplomatic balancing” and “leveraging multilateralism” raises questions about the consistency of his approach with the spirit of non-alignment and whether it adequately addresses the challenges of a multipolar world.
Dangers of over-compartmentalisation
Sabry’s suggestion that Sri Lanka should engage with China for infrastructure, India for regional security and trade, the US and Europe for technology and education, and Japan and ASEAN for economic opportunities reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. However, this compartmentalisation of partnerships risks reducing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy to a transactional exercise, undermining the principles of non-alignment.
Sabry’s framework, curiously, excludes China from areas like technology, education, and regional security, despite China’s growing capabilities in these domains. For instance, China is a global leader in renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and 5G technology, making it a natural partner for Sri Lanka’s technological advancement. Similarly, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers significant opportunities for economic development and regional connectivity. By limiting China’s role to infrastructure, Sabry’s approach risks underutilising a key strategic partner.
Moreover, Sabry’s emphasis on India for regional security overlooks the broader geopolitical context. While India is undoubtedly a critical partner for Sri Lanka, regional security cannot be addressed in isolation from China’s role in South Asia. The Chinese autonomous region of Xizang (Tibet) is indeed part of South Asia, and China’s presence in the region is a reality that Sri Lanka must navigate. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would seek to balance relationships with both India and China, rather than assigning fixed roles to each.
Sabry’s compartmentalisation of partnerships risks creating silos in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, limiting its flexibility and strategic depth. For instance, by relying solely on the US and Europe for technology and education, Sri Lanka may miss out on opportunities for South-South cooperation with members of BRICS.
Similarly, by excluding China from regional security discussions, Sri Lanka may inadvertently align itself with India’s strategic interests, undermining its commitment to non-alignment.
Limited multilateralism?
Sabry’s call for Sri Lanka to remain active in organisations like the UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC is laudable. However, his omission of the BRI, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is striking. These platforms represent emerging alternatives to the Western-dominated global order and offer Sri Lanka opportunities to diversify its partnerships and enhance its strategic autonomy.
The BRI is one of the most ambitious infrastructure and economic development projects in history, involving over 140 countries. For Sri Lanka, the BRI offers opportunities for infrastructure development, trade connectivity, and economic growth. By participating in the BRI, Sri Lanka can induce Chinese investment to address its infrastructure deficit and integrate into global supply chains. Excluding the BRI from Sri Lanka’s foreign policy framework would be a missed opportunity.
BRICS and the SCO represent platforms for South-South cooperation and multipolarity. BRICS, in particular, has emerged as a counterweight to such Western-dominated institutions as the IMF and World Bank, advocating for a more equitable global economic order. The SCO, on the other hand, focuses on regional security and counterterrorism, offering Sri Lanka a platform to address its security concerns in collaboration with major powers like China, Russia, and India. By engaging with these organisations, Sri Lanka can strengthen its commitment to multipolarity and enhance its strategic autonomy.
Non-alignment is not neutrality
Sabry’s assertion that Sri Lanka must avoid taking sides in major power conflicts reflects a misunderstanding of non-alignment. Non-alignment is not about neutrality; it is about taking a principled stand on issues of global importance. During the Cold War, non-aligned countries, like Sri Lanka, opposed colonialism, apartheid, and imperialism, even as they avoided alignment with either the US or the Soviet Union.
Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, under leaders like S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was characterised by a commitment to anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, opposing racial segregation and discrimination in both its Apartheid and Zionist forms. Sri Lanka, the first Asian country to recognise revolutionary Cuba, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, supported liberation struggles in Africa, and opposed the US military base in Diego Garcia. These actions were not neutral; they were rooted in a principled commitment to justice and equality.
Today, Sri Lanka faces new challenges, including great power competition, economic coercion, and climate change. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would require Sri Lanka to take a stand on issues like the genocide in Gaza, the colonisation of the West Bank, the continued denial of the right to return of ethnically-cleansed Palestinians and Chagossians, the militarisation of the Indo-Pacific, the use of economic sanctions as a tool of coercion, and the need for climate justice. By avoiding these issues, Sri Lanka risks becoming the imperialist powers’ cringing, whingeing client state.
The path forward
Sabry’s use of the term “multi-alignment” reflects a growing trend in Indian foreign policy, particularly under the BJP Government. However, multi-alignment is not the same as multipolarity. Multi-alignment implies a transactional approach to foreign policy, where a country seeks to extract maximum benefits from multiple partners without a coherent strategic vision. Multipolarity, on the other hand, envisions a world order where power is distributed among multiple centres, reducing the dominance of any single power.
Sri Lanka should advocate for a multipolar world order that reflects the diversity of the global South. This would involve strengthening platforms like BRICS, the SCO, and the NAM, while also engaging with Western institutions like the UN and the WTO. By promoting multipolarity, Sri Lanka can contribute to a more equitable and just global order, in line with the principles of non-alignment.
Ali Sabry’s call for a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy falls short of articulating a coherent vision for Sri Lanka’s role in a multipolar world. To truly uphold the principles of non-alignment, Sri Lanka must:
* Reject compartmentalisation
: Engage with all partners across all domains, including technology, education, and regional security.
* Embrace emerging platforms
: Participate in the BRI, BRICS, and SCO to diversify partnerships and enhance strategic autonomy.
* Take principled stands
: Advocate for justice, equality, and multipolarity in global affairs.
* Promote South-South cooperation
: Strengthen ties with other Global South countries to address shared challenges, like climate change and economic inequality.
By adopting this approach, Sri Lanka can reclaim its historical legacy as a leader of the non-aligned movement and chart a course toward a sovereign, secure, and successful future.
(Vinod Moonesinghe read mechanical engineering at the University of Westminster, and worked in Sri Lanka in the tea machinery and motor spares industries, as well as the railways. He later turned to journalism and writing history. He served as chair of the Board of Governors of the Ceylon German Technical Training Institute. He is a convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com.)
by Vinod Moonesinghe
Cancellation of shows has turned out to be a regular happening where former Backstreet Boys Nick Carter is concerned. In the past, it has happened several times.
If Nick Carter is not 100 percent fit, he should not undertake these strenuous world tours, ultimately disappointing his fans.
It’s not a healthy scene to be cancelling shows on a regular basis.
In May 2024, a few days before his scheduled visit to the Philippines, Carter cancelled his two shows due to “unforeseen circumstances.”
The promoter concerned announced the development and apologised to fans who bought tickets to Carter’s shows in Cebu, on May 23, and in Manila, on May 24.
The dates were supposed to be part of the Asian leg of his ‘Who I Am’ 2024 tour.
Carter previously cancelled a series of solo concerts in Asia, including Jakarta, Mumbai, Singapore, and Taipei. And this is what the organisers had to say:
“Due to unexpected matters related to Nick Carter’s schedule, we regret to announce that Nick’s show in Asia, including Jakarta on May 26 (2024), has been cancelled.
His ‘Who I Am’ Japan tour 2024 was also cancelled, with the following announcement:
Explaining, on video, about the
cancelled ‘Who I Am’ shows
“We regret to announce that the NICK CARTER Japan Tour, planned for June 4th at Toyosu PIT (Tokyo) and June 6th at Namba Hatch (Osaka), will no longer be proceeding due to ‘unforeseen circumstances.’ We apologise for any disappointment.
Believe me, I had a strange feeling that his Colombo show would not materialise and I did mention, in a subtle way, in my article about Nick Carter’s Colombo concert, in ‘StarTrack’ of 14th January, 2025 … my only worry (at that point in time) is the HMPV virus which is reported to be spreading in China and has cropped up in Malaysia, and India, as well.
Although no HMPV virus has cropped up, Carter has cancelled his scheduled performance in Sri Lanka, and in a number of other countries, as well, to return home, quoting, once again, “unforeseen circumstances.”
“Unforeseen circumstances” seems to be his tagline!
There is talk that low ticket sales is the reason for some of his concerts to be cancelled.
Yes, elaborate arrangements were put in place for Nick Carter’s trip to Sri Lanka – Meet & Greet, Q&A, selfies, etc., but all at a price!
Wonder if there will be the same excitement and enthusiasm if Nick Carter decides to come up with new dates for what has been cancelled?
Prof. Gananath Obeyesekere passes away aged 95
Acceptance of nominations for Punakiri, Mannar and Dehiattakandiya local authorities ends at 12 noon on Thursday (27th March 2025)
Gabba to be demolished after 2032 Olympics, cricket to get new home in Brisbane
-
Business5 days agoCargoserv Shipping partners Prima Ceylon & onboards Nestlé Lanka for landmark rail logistics initiative
-
News3 days agoSeniors welcome three percent increase in deposit rates
-
Features3 days agoThe US, Israel, Palestine, and Mahmoud Khalil
-
News3 days agoScholarships for children of estate workers now open
-
Business5 days agoSri Lankans Vote Dialog as the Telecommunication Brand and Service Brand of the Year
-
News4 days agoDefence Ministry of Japan Delegation visits Pathfinder Foundation
-
Features5 days agoThe Vaping Veil: Unmasking the dangers of E-Cigarettes
-
News5 days ago‘Deshabandu is on SLC payroll’; Hesha tables documents