Features
Nihal Jayawickrama discusses Alice in Wonderland reasoning, minority rights, and universal jurisdiction with the Anglo- American Lawyer magazine
The Editor-in-Chief of The Anglo-American Lawyer Magazine, Srinath Fernando continues his interview with Dr Nihal Jayawickrama, former Ariel F. Sallows Professor of Human Rights at the University of Saskatchewan, Canada, and Professor of Law at the University of Hong Kong. A leading authority on Constitutional Law of Sri Lanka, he is the author of The Judicial Application of Human Rights Law published by the Cambridge University Press.
The AAL Magazine: Dr. Jayawickrama, the Singarasa v Attorney General of Sri Lanka is a classic case which had been referred to by experts and academics all over the world on the human rights discourse. Why do you think the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka failed to respect the decision of the Human Rights Committee and refusal by the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka to review the findings of the HRC in Geneva where there had been a patent injustice to the victim?
Dr. Jayawickrama: Singarasa was convicted by the High Court for terrorism-related offences and sentenced to a term of 50 years rigorous imprisonment. The only evidence against him was his own confession made to a police officer while he was under detention under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, but reduced the term of imprisonment to 35 years. It took the view that Singarasa had failed to prove that the confession had been made involuntarily, that being the requirement under the PTA. (Under normal law, the burden is on the prosecution to prove that a confession was made voluntarily).
Singarasa thereafter availed himself of the right to communicate with the Human Rights Committee (the Government having ratified the Optional Protocol to the ICCPR in 1998 recognizing the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be a victim of a violation by the State of any of the rights set forth in the ICCPR). The Committee found several violations of the right to a fair trial (Article 14) and of the right to freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (Article 7). Accordingly, it advised release or retrial and compensation.
The Committee’s Views are communicated to the State party and to the petitioner. The State party is required to give the Views serious consideration in good faith. Accordingly, the Government should have either exercised the presidential power of pardon/remission of sentence, or requested the Attorney-General to consider whether a retrial was a viable option, and compensated the petitioner financially. Instead, the Government appears to have ill-advisedly informed the Human Rights Committee that it did not have the legal authority to execute the decision of the Committee to release the convict or grant retrial.
Singarasa’s legal advisers, in my view also ill-advisedly, applied to the Supreme Court to exercise its revisionary powers to give effect to the Views of the Human Rights Committee. That gave the opportunity for the Attorney-General to argue that the expression of Views by the Human Rights Committee amounted to “an interference with the judiciary” and “a violation of the sovereignty of the people”. Sir Nigel Rodley, the distinguished international jurist, described this submission as “Alice in Wonderland (or Alice Through the Looking Glass) reasoning”. In a critical study of this case published in a law journal, he added that “It took the powerful intellect of the Chief Justice of Sri Lanka to come to the unlitigated conclusion that Sri Lanka’s very ratification of the Protocol was ultra vires and invalid”. Sir Nigel Rodley described that decision as “an example of judicial waywardness”.
Subsequent events demonstrate that neither the Sri Lankan Government, nor the Human Rights Committee, have taken seriously the outcome of that revision application to the Supreme Court. I filed a communication at or about that time on behalf of S.B. Dissanayake MP who was sentenced to serve a period of two years rigorous imprisonment for contempt of court imposed by the same Chief Justice, and neither the Attorney-General nor the Government raised any issue of jurisdiction. Nor did the Government argue powerlessness when it received the Views of the Human Rights Committee.
The AAL Magazine: Do you find similar scenarios where conflict of dualism and monism had clashed if you may quote an instance in other countries.
Dr. Jayawickrama: Let me give just one example. India is also described as a “dualist” state. However, there are several instances when the Indian Supreme Court has given effect to provisions in international human rights multilateral treaties which the government of India had ratified but had not taken steps to incorporate in domestic law. Indian judges have taken the view that any international convention that is not inconsistent with the fundamental rights provisions in the Constitution must be read into those provisions to enlarge their meaning and content. Justice Michael Kirby also attempted to do so in the High Court of Australia, but I believe he did not receive much support from his brother judges.
The AAL Magazine: In the Constitution of Sri Lanka social and economic rights have not been expressly defined. Though there is a chapter on Directive Principles of State Policy, its observance is complimentary to fundamental rights but there is also an ouster clause in the Constitution of Sri Lanka Article 29 which says ‘’the provisions of this Chapter do not confer or impose legal rights or obligations and are not enforceable in any court or tribunal. No question of inconsistency with such provisions shall be raised in any court of tribunal.’’ How would you comment on this exclusion of what is given by one hand and taken away by the other hand. Would you find this a grotesque way of drafting constitutions?
Dr. Jayawickrama: Sri Lanka has been singularly unfortunate in this regard. Sir Ivor Jennings refused to include a Bill of Rights in the Minister’s Draft Constitution which Mr. D.S. Senanayake submitted to the Soulbury Commission, arguing that the United Kingdom has no Bill of Rights “and we think that we do the job better than those countries which do have one”. Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike proposed to the Select Committee on the Revision of the Constitution which he initiated in 1958 that it recommends the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, and in fact had a draft prepared by Mr. J.A.L. Cooray and Justice T.S. Fernando, but his assassination brought that effort to an abrupt end.
In 1970. Dr. Colvin R. De Silva was very reluctant to include an enforceable chapter on fundamental rights in the Republican Constitution, arguing that that would result in placing the Supreme Court above the National State Assembly, which was to be the “supreme instrument of state power”. When such a chapter was eventually included, it was to have no application to “existing law”; nor was any special mechanism established to enforce its provisions in respect of governmental action. The judicial review of laws was also not permitted. A chapter on “Directive Principles of State Policy” containing reference to certain social and economic rights, was not enforceable in any court.
The 1978 Constitution presented by Mr. J.R. Jayewardene selectively designated a few civil and political rights as fundamental rights and subjected even these to numerous restrictions. For example, the right to life is omitted. Others omitted include family rights, the right to privacy (a significant omission in the context of telephone tapping), the right to property, the freedom to leave the country, the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas, the right to a fair hearing in respect of civil rights and obligations, and the rights of accused persons. “Birth or other status” is not a prohibited ground of discrimination, thereby enabling the perpetuation of the concept of illegitimate children. And, of course, none of the economic, social, or cultural rights are recognized. Finally, all existing law was declared to be valid and operative notwithstanding any inconsistency with the chapter on fundamental rights. That means that the entire body of law enacted over a period of 176 years, a veritable armoury of archaic powers and more recent intrusions into human dignity, remained in force notwithstanding any conflict with fundamental rights.
When the citizens agree to be governed, what they insist in return from the rulers is that their rights and freedoms be effectively guaranteed. The constitution should provide, as it does in many other countries, that an international treaty, when ratified, will have the force of law, superseding any inconsistent existing law. If the government is unwilling to do so, why ratify a treaty at all? Alternatively, it is imperative that, in a country in which, in recent decades, the human body has been brutalized and the human spirit degraded, at least the provisions of the two international human rights covenants should be incorporated in the constitution. The constitutional recognition of the universally accepted rights and freedoms of the individual is not only a matter of sound commonsense and prudent governance; it is also a solemn treaty obligation.
A minority is a group of individual human beings who share ethnic, linguistic, religious, or cultural bonds and possess a collective desire to live together. The tragedy of Sri Lanka is that many of our politicians still refuse to recognize the fact – the unalterable, immutable and enduring fact – that we are a multicultural country. In the contemporary multicultural state, minority communities have rights in common with, and no less than, everyone else. Indeed, because of the need to protect the distinctive character and identity of minority communities, which is what constitutes the cultural mosaic of the State, they even enjoy additional rights. For example, contemporary international law protects the physical existence of minority groups by criminalizing genocide, by recognizing the right to seek asylum, and by prohibiting discrimination.
International human rights law now provides guidance on the minimum acceptable standards for peaceful co-existence in a multicultural society. They include the right of minorities to use their own language, to profess and practice their own religion and the right to enjoy their own culture. International law also recognizes the right of a minority to determine its political status, and the right to participate effectively in decision-making, both at regional and national levels. The Supreme Court of Canada has held that if a minority is denied meaningful access to government, it has the right to decide to secede. The application of these principles is non-negotiable and cannot be made subject to the will of the electorate. They should form an integral part of a national constitution. We have so far failed to do so, and the consequent events, both tragic and destructive, are now a matter of history.
The AAL Magazine: Despite ouster clauses, can the Supreme Court of Sri Lanka still uphold the rights of people as fundamental rights trumps any other consideration.Dr. Jayawickrama: The Supreme Court of Ceylon of the 1960s, in the absence of any reference to fundamental rights in the Constitution, and indeed before the two international covenants came into force, asserted the Right to a Fair Trial, the Right to Liberty, and the Right to Freedom of Movement. That spirit of judicial activism has not been apparent thereafter.
The AAL Magazine: Dr. Jayawickrama, lastly what’s your view on the application of universal jurisdiction. Do you think not enough focus has been given to this area of prosecution? Do you know any known case where such prosecutions had been done successfully? Do you think prosecution under ‘universal jurisdiction’ is purely a political motivated exercise when it comes to international relations and diplomacy?
Dr. Jayawickrama: As early as 1980, the United States Federal Court of Appeals upheld the conviction for torture committed by a national of a Central American State in his own country, but who happened to be visiting the United States. That court held that “official torture is now prohibited by the law of nations”. More recently, there were two instances of the exercise of universal jurisdiction in, I believe, Germany and France, when a person of Syrian nationality and another of Iranian nationality were tried and sentenced. International human rights organizations, such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, do, I believe, possess relevant evidence that could be placed before any judicial tribunal in any part of the world. In Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council has now been authorized to collect and process credible evidence of “crimes against humanity” allegedly committed by Sri Lankan military personnel, for the purpose of providing such evidence to States willing to exercise universal jurisdiction.
In the contemporary world, with several multilateral treaties that are designed to protect human beings, whether they be children, women, or men, it is, in my view, quite legitimate that territorial boundaries do not stand in the way of ensuring that protection. If a person has committed an act that is recognized as a crime under international law, it ought to be possible to bring such person to trial in whichever country he may be, especially if his own country has failed, or is unable, to do so. However, there are several countries that are competent to exercise universal jurisdiction by reason of their accession to relevant international treaties, but which may choose not to undertake that responsibility for political and other reasons. Such countries may avoid that responsibility by ensuring that the alleged criminals do not enter their territories by refusing them visas to do so.
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.
-
Features4 days agoSri Lankan Airlines Airbus Scandal and the Death of Kapila Chandrasena and my Brother Rajeewa
-
News5 days agoLanka’s eligibility to draw next IMF tranche of USD 700 mn hinges on ‘restoration of cost-recovery pricing for electricity and fuel’
-
News4 days agoKapila Chandrasena case: GN phone records under court scrutiny
-
News4 days agoRupee slide rekindles 2022 crisis fears as inflation risks mount
-
Business4 days agoExpansion of PayPal services in Sri Lanka officially announced
-
Features1 day agoOctopus, Leech, and Snake: How Sri Lanka’s banks feast while the nation starves
-
Features6 days agoMysterious Death of United Nations Secretary General Hammarskjöld
-
News4 days agoCourt orders further arrests in alleged USD 42 Mn NDB fraud case
