Connect with us

Features

HAVE YOU EVER EVEN BEEN TO NEPAL?

Published

on

Terraced fields in Nepal

(Excerpted from Fallen Leaves, an anthology of memoirs by LC Arulpragasam)

In 1962, I joined FAO as the Land Tenure Officer in its Regional Office in Bangkok. Within six months I was told that I would be sacked within a week unless I retracted a certain position that I had taken on land reform in Nepal. This is the story.

The Government of Nepal had passed a tenancy reform law in 1962, based on the advice of the Ford Foundation (USA). The law provided for security of tenure along with reduced rents for tenants of agricultural land. Its provisions were roughly in the following terms. Whoever is a tenant of an agricultural land on a specified date (x) will have permanent rights of tenancy. Such a tenant cannot be evicted as long as he pays the landlord a rent of 25 per cent of the crop each year. This was as opposed to the 50 per cent of the crop that was habitually being charged by landlords in Nepal at that time. The law was praised in international circles as a brilliant piece of legislation, because it was short and simple, making any legal challenge difficult.

The legislation was sent to me for comments by my boss, Dr. Erich Jacoby, Chief of the Land Tenure Branch of FAO, Rome. I wrote back to say that while the law was short and direct, there was an implicit problem in its very first words, which said: ‘whoever is a tenant of an agricultural land on date x…’ The law did not specify how it would be decided, whether there was a tenant on the land, and how he would be identified. In practice, every landlord would say that there was no tenant on his/her land – and hence there would be no tenants to benefit from this ‘excellent’ law.

One could theoretically fall back on the land records to ascertain who was a tenant on any particular date. But it was known that Nepal did not have such land records – least of all, a record of tenancy. Some identification of each parcel of land, its extent, its ownership and tenancy would be needed for implementing such reforms – and this was completely lacking in Nepal at that time. This is in contrast to the comprehensive system of land records in British India, which provided the basis of its land tax system, whereby all lands were surveyed and registered, showing the names of all owners and their tenants, if any.

There was an even more serious problem. My experience in Sri Lanka showed that landlords would evict their tenants, claiming that they cultivated the land themselves. Or through daily-paid workers, leaving no tenants to benefit from the new law. In a semi-feudal country like Nepal at that time, it was very likely that the tenants would be intimidated by their landlords, through threat of eviction, cut-off of credit or even violence, to make them surrender their rights as tenants. Not being able to defy their landlords, they would even abjectly agree to remain as ‘hidden tenants’ with no rights under the law. In exchange, they would be allowed to continue to cultivate the land, at whatever rent the landlord decreed, and subject to eviction at any time.

Everything would depend on the mechanics by which the tenant of any land was to be identified and recorded, prior to the enforcement of the law. The law, however, by ignoring this fundamental problem, left the tenants worse off than before, subject to immediate eviction by landlords who wished to evade the new law. I had only given my above opinion to my boss, because he had asked for it. I did not know at that time that it would cause an international incident!

About one month later, FAO was informed by the UN Bureau of Public Administration, which was executing the project, that the identification and registration of tenancy rights was to be done by a cadastral surveyor, who would survey and register all agricultural lands. This left the difficult task of recording tenancy rights to a lowly surveyor (called an amin in Nepal), who was paid only the equivalent of US $1 per month at that time, thus making him utterly susceptible to bribery and intimidation. With these probable outcomes in mind, I wrote to my boss, who had again requested my opinion, that the process of registration of tenants proposed by the UN was likely to result in the cadastral surveyor merely recording that there were no tenants on the land (because the landlords had brought pressure on them) leaving no tenants to benefit from the reforms!

Little did we anticipate the reaction of the United Nations Office. First we received a reply from the Director of the UN Bureau of Public Administration, Mr. Coates, stating that such recording of ownership and tenancy rights had been done all the time by cadastral surveyors in India. He claimed that he himself, as an ex-member of the Indian Civil Service (ICS), had on many occasions adjudicated such ownership and tenancy rights based on the cadastral surveyor’s findings ‘under the peepul tree’.

When my boss persisted with my opinion, the UN Headquarters in New York complained directly to the Director-General of FAO that FAO was obstructing their programme on unfounded and uninformed grounds. This was followed also by an official complaint to the Director-General of FAO by the Nepalese Government alleging the same. Unfortunately, the Director-General of FAO, Mr. B.R. Sen had himself been an ex-member of the hallowed Indian Civil Service. He dismissed FAO’s stand as uninformed, stating that he himself had decided such ownership disputes on the basis of cadastral surveys on so many occasions ‘under the peepul tree’! Learning that I was the culprit, he ordered that I go immediately to Nepal and officially apologize and retract FAO’s position. If I did not do this within one week, my employment was to be terminated! At this juncture my boss, the Assistant Director-General in charge of the FAO Regional Office tried to protect me. But when he heard the full story, he was utterly dismayed. Although he was a Pakistani, he too had been a former member of the ICS: how many times, had he too decided such cases, based on a cadastral survey, ‘under the peepul tree’, with no difficulty (that I had predicted) at all!

By this time I did not know which I hated more, the Indian Civil Service or the peepul tree! All the top administrators in the UN system at that time seemed to be British or Indian retirees from the prestigious Indian Civil Service (ICS). So I was beginning to see this as a dispute between the ex-officials of the ICS and myself, from the Ceylon Civil Service (CCS). I still felt that I was right and that they (including my top boss in FAO, the Director-General himself) were wrong.

First, although they knew cadastral survey and land administration, this was not the issue. For the issue was whether the process that they advocated could actually identify and register a tenant under the shadow of land reform. They had actually never done this! Second, whereas they had all decided on ownership and thought that they had decided on tenancy, their inquiries had only been to identify the owners of the land for tax purposes, while completely depending on the landlords to supply the name of the tenant for the full land record.

Nepali farmers

Whereas the landlords had previously willingly provided the names of their tenants to the Indian Civil Servants, the same landlords now wished to deny that they were any tenants on their land at all! Thus the question was whether the procedures used in India for deciding on ownership for tax purposes would be adequate for deciding on tenancy for land reform purposes! Thirdly, although these top ex-ICS officers had years of experience in land administration, they had no experience of land reform.

Thus their long experience in deciding quite a different issue, in quite a different era, in quite a different social and legal dynamic, was now the biggest obstacle to their understanding the different nature of the problem and of finding a suitable solution. In the end, they turned it into a personal problem. For whereas they had all been to Nepal, it was known that I had not! It got even worse when they saw me, for I looked even younger than my 32 years at that time!

Although I was convinced that I was right, I now had no option but to go – as instructed – to Nepal to eat humble pie and retract my position. I was snubbed by the UNDP Representative in Delhi – and it got worse when I reached Nepal. The Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Planning refused to see me. I was sent down to the Joint Secretary who was unnecessarily brusque. Although I had decided to capitulate and eat my piece of humble pie, I had to make a pretence of looking into the matter. So I asked to visit a village where the cadastral survey and land registration had already taken place according to the procedures prescribed by the UN. The Joint Secretary asked me where I wished to go. Not knowing anything about Nepal, I jabbed wildly at the map. He remarked drily that I was pointing to the Himalayas, but he could get me as far as Pokhara in the foothills, but that I would have to walk from there!

So I set out early next morning to Pokhara by plane, which in those days landed in a grass field. Accompanied by a senior surveyor who was to be my interpreter and guide, we walked for a full day to get to the village that I had fortuitously chosen. It was a thrilling experience, walking in the silence of the mountains with the snow-clad Himalayan peaks towering above me. In one place, I also had the thunder of water from a subterranean river shaking the ground beneath me. I reached the selected village by nightfall. When I examined the cadastral map and land record prepared by the cadastral surveyor, it showed that all the lands were cultivated by their owners, either as owner-cultivators or through daily-paid workers supervised by them. Since the record showed no tenants, there would be no beneficiaries of the land reform in this village.

The next morning at daybreak, I positioned myself on the path to the fields, so that I could meet the farmers going to and from their fields. I tackled one in about every four farmers, asking more or less the same question: ‘Are you a tenant?’ Every one of them answered that he was either an owner cultivator or a daily-paid worker, although most seemed to be too poor to be owners of their own land. I repeated the process at eventide, when the farmers returned from their fields, but I always received the same reply. I spent the whole of the next day asking the same question and getting the same answer. In desperation, I requested a meeting of all farmers on my last evening in the hope that group dynamics might reveal a glimpse of the true picture. But even at this meeting, I received the same response.

At this point, the only well-dressed man spoke up, saying: ‘Sir, because of your perseverance and hard work, I need to speak out, since none of the others here can afford to do so. These poor men here have been lying to you for the past two days: they are all tenants. They have been informed in advance of your arrival and have been instructed by their landlords to say that they are not tenants. In fact, they have been threatened with eviction and violence – and two of them, even with death’. At these words, there was a babble of voices, all wanting to speak. They burst out that they were indeed tenants, but had been threatened with eviction by their landlords if they claimed the same. I invited each one to speak – and each one said the same thing.

I then took out the already completed cadastral map and went over it with them. I asked the entire group whether there was a tenant on each lot of land, going over all the lots in turn. They unanimously answered: ’Yes, so-and-so is the tenant’ in respect of each lot, with 100 per cent agreement. After recording the name of the tenant and of the owner against each piece of land, I had a new land record made, which was confirmed by the entire village. And it was the exact opposite of that recorded by the cadastral surveyor, following the procedures prescribed by the UN!

Whereas the latter showed that there were no tenants on any of these lands, my records showed that there was 100 per cent tenancy on all lands in this particular village. This meant that if the land reform had proceeded on the basis of the cadastral records prepared by the Government and championed by my own FAO Director-General, there would not have been any tenants to protect and thus no beneficiaries under the land reform law!

Having got the new land record confirmed by the senior surveyor, I then had to walk an extra day to get the endorsement of the Zonal Commissioner. On the next day, in Kathmandu, I had to report my findings to the Joint Secretary, who had also invited Dr. Lindsay, the author of the land reform legislation, to the meeting. They were astounded to find that their system of identifying tenants had provided 100 per cent wrong information. Instead of retracting my position and apologizing to the Government and the UN, I was now able to prove that I had been right all along, even though I had never been to Nepal before!

I also became a favourite of the Ministry at that time. The Minister himself would come to the airport to meet me on each of my subsequent visits. The Government requested me to formulate an FAO project for assistance to its land reform programme. I introduced a new system for the identification of tenants based on the participation of both the tenants and owners through public village meetings – which was adopted by the Government in the 1960s. This episode proved to be a personal and professional triumph for me in the early days, since I had proved even the Director-General of FAO and his Assistant-Director-General for the Asian Region, as well as the UNDP, the UN Bureau of Public Administration, the Ford Foundation and the Government of Nepal, all to be wrong! I was only 32 years old at that time – and had never been to Nepal when I first gave my opinion on the issue.



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