Connect with us

Features

PMs official visit to Japan – she tells us “don’t get late and don’t go to a geisha house!”

Published

on

Prime Minister Sirimavo Bandaranaike reviews the honour guard with Japanese Prime Minister Takeo Miki during the welcome ceremony at the Akasaka State Guest House on November 13, 1976 in Tokyo, Japan. (Photo by The Asahi Shimbun)

“Rarely have we laughed so much” swapping stories

(Excerpted from the autobiography of MDD Pieris)

At 8 a.m. next day, November 12, 1976. the State drive to the airport commenced. We took off for Tokyo. The flying time was around three hours 45 minutes, and we arrived at 1 p.m. According to the Japanese arrangements, the Prime Minister was met by the Head of the Suite of Honour, the Chief of Protocol, Ambassador Uchida and wife, as well as Sri Lanka’s Ambassador Bernard Tilakaratna and wife. The only ceremony at the airport was a gun salute.

The formal welcoming ceremony was to be held later. We were accommodated at the luxurious and opulent Akasaka Palace Hotel, with shining marble, rich brocades and ornate furniture. Some of us were assigned very large suites of rooms. The marble floors were so shiny that walking was somewhat of a hazard. We spent a quiet afternoon, settling in and getting our bearings. At 8 p.m. the Prime Minister was interviewed on Japanese TV, for which we prepared during the early evening. Thereafter, at 9 p.m. we went to Ambassador Bernard Tilakaratna’s for a relaxed private dinner.

The following day, the very colourful, formal, official welcoming ceremony took place at 10 a.m. out in the spacious courtyard of Akasaka Palace, with long red carpets, a smartly turned out guard of honour and a band playing the National Anthems. It was quite cold outside, uncomfortably so at times. The Japanese Prime Minister Mr. Miki and Mrs. Miki were present, and so were the diplomatic corps. The ceremony was over by 10.30 a.m. At 11 a.m. we left from Tokyo railway station, by the super express “Hikari” to Nagoya. Lunch was served on the train. At Nagoya we changed trains and at 3 p.m. arrived at Toba station in rain and gloom.

By 3.15 p.m. we were at Mikimoto Pearl Island. The Prime Minister was personally taken around by Mr. and Mrs. Mikimoto. We were shown the process of culturing pearls. The oyster is first delicately opened up. A small shard of skin taken from inside the oyster and a type of round oyster shell piece is placed within. The oysters are then tied to grids, and the grids immersed in water. After a period of three years the secretions of the oyster make a pearl, which is really a natural pearl, but artificially induced. All this was very interesting. Also fascinating was to see the women pearl divers in action. They were diving in fairly heavy rain and in the cold looking for oysters.

At around 4.45 p.m. we left the island for the Shima Kanko Hotel, about one hour’s drive on a picturesque winding mountain road, with a view of numerous small islands and the Pacific ocean below. The view was obscured somewhat by the rain. At 7.45 p.m. we had dinner at the hotel with Mr. & Mrs. Mikimoto.

The next day the 14th, it was still raining heavily. At 9.20 a.m. we left by train to Kyoto, a journey of about three hours. We were accommodated at the comfortable Miyako Hotel. The afternoon was free for sight-seeing. We were taken to see a silk weaving centre; a beautiful Japanese garden neatly laid out; ponds full of beautiful multi-coloured fish; Temples; and Kyoto Palace, a one time residence of emperors. The Palace was quite spartan in appearance. There was little ostentation or opulence. Wood was the predominant building material and the inside was somewhat gloomy. The white pebbled courtyards were simple and attractive.

We got back to the hotel around 5.30 p.m. At 7.30 p.m. the Chief of Protocol, Ambassador Uchida and wife, who had accompanied us took the Prime Minister and us to an excellent restaurant where we had varieties of Japanese food. We got back at 10 p.m. and Ambassador Uchida invited Arthur Basnayake, Bernard Tilakaratna and myself to go out and have a drink at a Geisha house. He wanted us to have this cultural experience, before we left Japan. It fell to my lot to inform the Prime Minister that we were going out. “Alright, but don’t get late, and don’t go to a geisha house!” she added humorously.

Ambassador Uchida and a couple of other senior Japanese officials took us to a geisha house. We removed our shoes at the entrance, and got into a comfortable pair of slippers. The lady in-charge dressed in an elaborately patterned Kimono, stylistically done hair and heavily touched up face bowed and received us. She led us to a room with subdued lighting, tatami mats and low tables, with cushions placed on the mats around the tables. A number of elaborately made up ladies dressed in traditional silk kimonos bowed and greeted us here, and they acted as hostesses until we left a little past midnight.

We spent only about one and half hours there. But it was an experience worth having. The ladies helped us to remove our jackets, and they loosened our ties to make us comfortable. We sat on the cushions and was soon sipping sake, the Japanese rice wine, and eating some delicious food served in small quantities by our hostesses. The senior Japanese officials with us were much traveled and experienced. They spoke perfect English, and the time was spent in relating a number of humorous anecdotes and experiences by everyone, some bordering on the risque.

Seldom had we laughed so much. The anecdotes were interspersed with witty remarks and irreverent comments. In the meantime, our hostesses, who were seated by our sides, gently saw to it that we ate and drank. After about 40 minutes of this, the room lights gradually dimmed, to near darkness, and a kimono clad figure appeared with some kind of classical string musical instrument, which she played whilst singing a plaintive and haunting song. It was a well-designed break from our uproarious exchanges, and was meant to slow the tempo and afford us relaxation on a different plane.

After the song, the lights brightened again and we resumed our chatter. But it was interesting, that we took awhile to transit from serenity and song, back to our previous mode of conduct. Altogether, it was a delightful evening. We had laughed so much, that we were sweating. The food and drink were excellent, and the ladies attending to us, concerned and diligent hostesses. This whole episode exemplified an important aspect of Japanese life style at a particular level.

They work very hard and long. At the same time, their culture and their practices provide them with opportunities to completely take their mind off work and relax totally. During the entire one and half-hours of socializing, not once did anyone refer to anything official, other than to satirize or lampoon. We were not there to discuss grave issues. We were there to enjoy ourselves.

The next morning, November 15, we had to make an early start, and take the 8.05 a.m. train from Kyoto to Tokyo. The Prime Minister had a very good memory, and in the morning when we met her in the lobby of the hotel just prior to our departure for the station, she remembered to ask “So how was last night?” We replied that it was most enjoyable. “What time did you return?” was the next question. We told her. But whilst answering that question our minds were working on an answer to a possible third question, as to where we went. That question did not come, but we wondered whether we detected a twinkle in her eyes.

Kyoto to Tokyo was a three-hour journey. En route the Prime Minister discussed with us details pertaining to that afternoon’s official meeting with the Japanese Prime Minister. But before that meeting, the Prime Minister and some of us had a most important luncheon engagement. It was with Emperor Hirohito, the Empress, and other members of the Royal family and some distinguished guests. Having arrived back at Akasaka Palace Hotel at 11.20 a.m., the Prime Minister, Ambassador Bernard Tilakaratna, Mackie and I left for the Imperial Palace at 12.20 p.m. Only the Prime Minister and the Ambassador attended the audience with the Emperor.

We were ushered into a hall, where two distinguished invitees in long frock coats were already there, the Chief Justice and the Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament, (The Diet). In due course, we were all introduced to the Emperor and Empress and the other members of the Royal family who sat for lunch with us. They were Crown Prince Akihito, Princess Michiko and Prince Mikasa, and his wife. Prince Mikasa had earlier visited Sri Lanka as a special envoy during the Buddha Jayanthi Celebrations in 1956.

The other distinguished Japanese invitees besides the Chief Justice and the Speaker, were the Prime Minister Mr. Miki, the Foreign Minister and the President of the Senate. It was a formal, subdued lunch, with polite conversation in soft modulated voices.

We got back at 3 p.m. and almost immediately afterwards left for the Prime Minister’s office for talks with the Japanese Prime Minister at 3.30 p.m. The discussions, as usual covered both bilateral and international issues, and were conducted in an atmosphere of great cordiality. We were back at the hotel at 5.30 p.m. and had a short break before dressing for dinner. At 7.30 p.m. Prime Minister Miki hosted a banquet in honour of the Prime Minister at his residence.

Whilst dressing to attend this, I found to my consternation that my dress shirt had come back from the laundry, with two buttons missing and a third wobbly. The two bows that I had packed also proved to be defective. There was nothing else to be done except to prop up things with judiciously placed pins, which took time and effort, with the departure deadline approaching. I had a most uncomfortable evening, thereafter, wondering what would happen every time I bowed, in a milieu where a great deal of bowing was mandatory.

To my great relief, the evening passed without a major disaster, but with stress as a companion. I was particularly concerned about the prospect of the bow ending up in the soup with a loud plop and endangering my clothes, as well as possibly my distinguished neighbours! We got back at 10.30 p.m. and as was customary, worked with my senior colleagues on the day’s cables to Colombo, the Joint Communique and other matters. We finally, went to sleep at 1.15 a.m. after a particularly long and eventful day.

The new day, the 16th, which had already dawned was not as hectic as the previous one. There were however some important appointments. The lunch hosted by the Economic Organization of Japan gave the Prime Minister an opportunity to talk to a number of industrialists and businessmen. There followed at 4.30 p.m. an Embassy reception to meet Sri Lankans living and working in Japan. At 6.15 p.m. we were at the National Theatre and watched a part of a Kabuki play. We got back at 8 p.m. and after dinner, the senior official team got down to some extended work on a number of matters, which included an important opening statement for the Prime Minister’s press conference, the next day, refining the language and adjusting the content of the draft joint communique between the two governments; and finalizing cables to Colombo. We finished only at 2.30 a.m., which meant another day of little sleep.

Later this day November 17, there was a further round of talks between the two Prime Ministers commencing at 9.15 a.m. At this meeting, Japan pledged increased grant and project aid. The sessions concluded at 10.30 a.m. We then accompanied the Prime Minister to a 10.45 a.m. reception hosted in her honour by the Japanese Buddhist Federation. After lunch, at the hotel we accompanied the Prime Minister to the Nippon Press Centre for a 4 p.m. Press Conference. It went quite smoothly, and without any problems. We got back at 5.30 p.m. for a short rest, and then came down for the 8 p.m. formal black tie dinner hosted by the Prime Minister in honour of Prime Minister Miki and Mrs. Miki, held at the plush banqueting hall of Akasaka Palace Hotel.

This was our final day in Japan, and after dinner the Prime Minister and all of us exchanged views and attempted to sum up our experience and what had been achieved in Japan. I went back to my room afterwards, and drafted the Cabinet Paper on the entire visit to the three countries. I had made this both a practice and habit, for two main reasons. The first was my belief in the necessity for promptness. The second was the more practical issue of the load of work you were going home to.

Although acting arrangements were always made, and I had a person of the calibre of WT Jayasinghe acting for me, yet the convention and practice were that important matters, unless urgent were kept back, for the permanent incumbent to tackle. Therefore, it was also a matter of practical good sense that you covered as much ground as possible of issues related to a foreign visit, before you arrived home to an accelerated period of work. You then only had to attend to the inevitable area of the follow up on certain matters, which every visit entailed.

On the 18th, our last morning in Japan, there was heavy rain. Therefore, the formal departure ceremony which was to be in the Palace courtyard, was shifted indoors to a large hall at Akasaka Palace. The guard of honour; the band; the flags of the two countries and the distinguished invitees were all accommodated in this hall. After the arrival of Prime Minister Miki and wife, the ceremony began. The band sounded very loud indoors. At 9. 30 a.m. we left Tokyo, by the British Airways flight to Colombo via Hong Kong. On the flight, I showed the draft of the Cabinet Paper, which was rather long to the Prime Minister and obtained her approval.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Addressing human rights needs multi-pronged approach

Published

on

Volker Türk

by Jehan Perera

The ongoing 63rd session of the United Nations Human Rights Council, which runs from September 7 to October 7, 2026, in Geneva is important to Sri Lanka. Its outcome will send a signal to other international actors, including the European Union, as to whether Sri Lanka’s reform policy is on track. The written update on Sri Lanka, prepared by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights under High Commissioner Volker Türk and presented by Deputy High Commissioner Nada Al-Nashif, has taken a more holistic approach to the government’s performance over the past year. It acknowledged the progress Sri Lanka has made under the NPP government in relation to accountability for financial fraud and other economic crimes. At the same time, the High Commissioner’s update made clear that progress in relation to economic crime cannot be equated with progress in relation to accountability for grave human rights violations committed during the armed conflict and in other periods of political violence.

The government may have felt sufficiently confident that its response to the High Commissioner’s update could be handled by its representative in Geneva and did not require the attendance of Foreign Minister Vijitha Herath. Sri Lanka’s representative Sumith Dassanayake called for a fundamental review of country-specific mandates within the UN Human Rights Council. Sri Lanka has been facing repeated scrutiny in the form of successive UNHRC resolutions from 2012 onwards. Ambassador Dassanayake argued that such mandates should not continue indefinitely and must be regularly assessed against measurable objectives and tangible outcomes. This may reflect confidence that its record of reform is beginning to receive recognition internationally. The reports and statements at the Human Rights Council acknowledged progress in the government’s efforts to address corruption and economic crime.

The government’s anti-corruption drive has included investigations into allegations involving individuals who held the highest political offices in the country. The arrest of former President Ranil Wickremesinghe in connection with alleged misuse of public funds, and the investigation into the controversial SriLankan Airlines Airbus transaction involving former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s son, are examples of the reach of these investigations. The arrest of SLPP National Organiser and Member of Parliament Namal Rajapaksa in connection with allegations relating to the Airbus purchase scandal has also demonstrated that the government is willing to pursue cases involving politically powerful figures.

Wide Range

The ongoing investigations appear to encompass a wide range of parliamentarians and government members, both past and present. They suggest that accountability for corruption is not being confined to lower-level officials or to individuals who lack political influence. This is precisely the kind of accountability that the public has long demanded and that previous governments have too often failed to deliver. The government is also reaching into the upper levels of the military hierarchies of the past. The case in which 11 young men, most of them Tamil, disappeared after being abducted in Colombo between 2008 and 2009 involved allegations that some families were asked to pay ransoms. The investigation into this case has reached senior military figures. The willingness to pursue such cases is important because it challenges the assumption that those who exercised power during the war are beyond the reach of the law. Such cases would provide a practical test of whether the government’s commitment to accountability for economic crimes is part of a broader commitment to the rule of law.

Success in prosecuting corruption cannot substitute for justice for those who were unlawfully killed, disappeared, tortured or otherwise victimised. The UN report noted that there had been no recognition or accountability for crimes under international law, gross human rights violations and serious violations of international humanitarian law committed by all parties during the war. The government has yet to establish a credible and effective process to address the many cases of enforced disappearance, extrajudicial killing, torture and other serious violations. The government needs to take the international commitments it has inherited on human rights issues seriously. It needs to adopt a multi-pronged approach and go beyond focusing primarily on financial and corruption-related accountability.

Need Action

As a member of the international community, Sri Lanka has a responsibility to abide by the commitments it has made. It cannot selectively uphold international obligations postponing those that are politically difficult. Also, as a small country, Sri Lanka has a self-interest in ensuring the survival of international law, which is all that it has to protect it from the depredations of the bigger international actors. The erosion of international law by powerful states makes it all the more important that smaller states uphold the principles on which the international system is based. Sri Lanka cannot credibly appeal to international law when it is threatened from outside while disregarding its own obligations within. Sri Lanka also needs to win the confidence of its own population that it is committed to justice and equality for all. Public opinion polls and community-level research have disclosed that ethnic and religious minorities are appreciative of the sense of greater security they enjoy under the present government from ethnic or religious extremists.

But a sense of security is not the same as the fulfilment of rights. As far as the Tamil people are concerned, the government has yet to deliver on several of its specific promises. These include the long-standing problems of missing persons, the release of political prisoners who have been members of Tamil militant organisations, and the return of land taken over for military purposes during the war. The issue of Buddhist statues and archaeological sites found on their properties which are then taken from their control continue to trouble them especially as they see no signs of resolution of those disputes. The issue of pastureland in the east of the country in Mylathamadu is particularly concerning to them as they see orders by successive presidents, both President Ranil Wickremesinghe and President Anura Kumara Dissanayake, being disregarded on the ground. The Mylathamadu pastureland dispute is where traditional Tamil dairy farmers have engaged in multi-year protests against the ongoing encroachment of their ancestral grazing lands by Sinhalese crop cultivators relocated under government development schemes.

The government’s failure to hold Provincial Council elections is particularly troubling. The provincial council system is the only one that can provide the Tamil people and other ethnic minorities the opportunity to wield political power and exercise a measure of self-determination in the areas in which they are the numerical majority. The continued postponement of Provincial Council elections therefore has consequences that go beyond an ordinary electoral delay. It deprives communities of an important constitutional avenue for democratic participation and power-sharing. The ethnic and religious minorities appreciate what the government is doing in the larger national interest, but they must not be made to feel that their special concerns are being ignored. The government cannot resolve Sri Lanka’s entire legacy of rights violations overnight. But it does need to demonstrate that it is willing to move forward on multiple fronts, not only on a few.

Continue Reading

Features

The emptying university: why are academics leaving?

Published

on

by Hasini Lecamwasam

Brain drain in Sri Lanka is at an all-time high. The latest Human Flight and Brain Drain Index for 2024 shows that we are 16th of 175 countries on this count, and first in South Asia. That this is a crisis goes without saying. Brain drain affects all sectors, and is a huge strain on the resources of a developing country. Particularly in Sri Lanka, where considerable public investment is made in the moulding of professionals through the system of free education, this amounts to transferring the resources of poorer countries to richer ones with top migration destinations. It is, therefore, important to consider the push and pull factors behind skilled outmigration, specifically from the public university system of Sri Lanka, a key focus of the Kuppi column.

From frustration to exit

Several bitter realities in our crumbling public university system act as push factors in the migration decisions of academics. Many essays on this column have, over several years, attempted to highlight numerous aspects of this erosion. Perhaps, primary among them is the lack of adequate funding, which has debilitating ramifications for the system: very little investment is made in the up-keep of infrastructure (and even less in its expansion), resulting in serious constraints in accommodating growing batches of students and the wellbeing of the staff (particularly in regional universities); research funding is negligible, severely curtailing academics’ ability to effectively discharge their primary duty of teaching which should ideally be informed by their research (and the research of others, access to which is also, unfortunately, mediated by funding); a funding crunch also means a slash in (or greater constraints on) recruitments, increasing the workloads of academics, currently in service, and eating into the quality of their teaching and research.

What recruitments are done frustrate those with any faith in merit. As many of our interventions in this column have shown, recruitment processes are characterised by archaic selection criteria that place very little weight on a candidate’s postgraduate growth and the advantages of interdisciplinary training. Added to this is the general preference for ‘culturally compliant’ candidates who would not rock the boat too much. The combined effect is that those with the capacity and spirit to try out innovations in education are discouraged from joining or staying on in the public university system. Some, or many, of them may instead seek appointments abroad.

A thread that binds all of these problems together is pervasive hierarchy which, again, many interventions on this column have sought to highlight. It is the interest in preserving hierarchy that leads to the preference for alumni in recruitment processes. Hierarchy within universities can be particularly frustrating for younger faculty and women, who typically have to bear the brunt of the workload of their senior, often male, colleagues. In a context of funding, and, therefore, recruitment, restrictions, this translates into a disproportionate burden being placed on junior (usually female) faculty, seriously hindering their prospects of growing into successful academics due to the time constraints within which they have to operate. Junior academics, therefore, are more likely to look to educational institutions abroad for what they hope would be a different work culture that respects them more.

Ideological ruses

On top of these structural frustrations are also the workings of neoliberal ideology. For one, the nature of relations between the global metropole and peripheral countries like Sri Lanka largely dictates what is desirable and what is not. The apparent lifestyles of Western countries – from food to clothing, housing, appliances, and so on – have continued to lure people from the periphery with the promise of a ‘better’ life, alongside better career advancement opportunities. This, of course, masks much of the struggle that goes on behind the scenes to survive in Western societies. For instance, in most cases highly attractive public infrastructure such as roads, public transport, clean air, quality control of food, and so on belie the astronomical privatised costs of healthcare and education. Health insurance is usually mandatory and steep in most high-income settings, while even subsidised education (for which eligibility criteria are strict) creates a serious dent in household earnings. Of course, the happy images of glossy trams and gleeful international travellers don’t convey this.

A second ideological ruse is the myth of greater opportunities and recognition abroad. While there is no denying that local skilled sectors – be it higher education, health, civil service, or private white-collar positions – are replete with issues that inhibit merit-based professional advancement, the notion that things are fundamentally different in Western countries stems from an uninformed optimism. As is now increasingly known and discussed, Western labour markets are notoriously racialised, and equivalent skills are rarely treated as such. Instead, it is usually demanded that skilled migrants clear certain formal examinations in their host countries. In fields like medicine, this is followed by an interview that may also be racially prejudiced. Once these initial steps are cleared, remuneration reverts to square one irrespective of experience accumulated abroad, not to mention the many subtle aggressions, rejections, and trials one has to go through in the negotiation of everyday life. In the many cases where professional qualifications are used as leverage for a move abroad, sights are set on a better future for one’s children, which again is informed by the misplaced faith in greater opportunities and a lack of awareness of the factors outlined above. Needless to say, in the global swing to the Right, things have become even more challenging. In such a context, considering the few rare cases where skilled migrants live extremely comfortable lives as the norm becomes a dangerous misconception.

The two ideological pull factors mentioned above are complemented by a push factor, which has to do with a highly classed understanding of what a white-collar professional is due in their society. Many of these aspirations are clearly articulated in academic trade union action demanding separate quotas for school entry, increased fuel allowances, winning back the presently stalled vehicle permit scheme, salary hikes, and so on. While working people have every right to agitate for better material conditions, insofar as it remains unconnected to a broader movement for improving the conditions of the lot of the working class, it remains self-serving and very much within the class logic of capitalist society. Since these demands are articulated as a means of maintaining distinction, it is clear that they are not envisaged as part of a class movement. The frustration of not having these needs for distinction satisfied may push some to seek greener pastures abroad, at least financially, (perhaps as a means of social mobility based on it), only to be disappointed on most occasions.

What is to be done?

Addressing the systemic push factors listed above requires, first and foremost, greater allocations for free public higher education. This would immediately translate into more recruitments and less work per academic, and better research and teaching in the long haul. An increase in funding would also ideally lead to greater infrastructural investments, especially including improving the living conditions of those who work in regional universities amid untold hardships. Next, fairer, more creative, and, therefore, more effective recruitment policies are badly needed to attract talented individuals to university positions. Rather than carving out a ‘special category’ for academics to achieve this purpose, which is informed by a classed logic, this needs to be done through fundamental reforms in recruitment processes. Third, a persistent attack on the entrenched hierarchy within universities through internal reform is much called for. Reforming recruitment practices will go a long way towards addressing this. Measures should also be taken to introduce more stringent policies against SGBV (not to mention ragging, even though it is not directly connected to brain drain). Such measures would create a safer, fairer, and more attractive workplace, which would give more reasons for people to stay.

On top of greater allocations, we also need a transformation of our aspirations themselves if this situation is to change. That necessitates a kind of education capable of questioning the ‘paradise’ conception of Western societies, and lays bare their colonial material and ideological dimensions, in both their historical and contemporary manifestations. These colonial understandings of the ‘good life’, moreover, have devastating ecological implications for the planet, not to mention social justice. An education with the ability to transform this mindset would hopefully prove to be more than a mere path to social mobility, rather being a tool of social emancipation that renders mobility moot.

(Hasini Lecamwasam is with the Department of Political Science, University of Peradeniya)

Kuppi is a politics and pedagogy happening on the margins of the lecture hall that parodies, subverts, and simultaneously reaffirms social hierarchies.

Continue Reading

Features

Friends favourite Suzi Croner returns for Oktoberfest 2026

Published

on

Charming audiences in Switzerland as Suzi Flückiger, Sri Lanka’s own Suzi Croner is coming home… for a very special occasion.

The bubbly former frontline vocalist of 90s band Friends will take the stage at a popular venue in Colombo for Oktoberfest 2026.

Known in Europe for her country and classic hits, Suzi has remained a much-loved name back home. This will be a rare chance for local fans to see her live and celebrate the voice behind so many Friends memories.

Oktoberfest 2026 in Colombo promises an evening of live music, traditional Bavarian food and beer, colourful dirndls and lederhosen, folk dancing, and plenty of community cheer.

Suzi Croner (Flückiger)

Against this lively backdrop, Suzi will take the stage for a special solo set, featuring her own pre-recorded music. She performed at the event last year too, as a solo artiste, but a German band providing the music.

This year, however she says, it’s a different scene.

“The novel attraction will be the dancers from Germany — all girls, clad in German outfits,” Suzi said. She added that the event will also highlight the activities generally connected with Oktoberfest, which should generate a lot of fun and excitement for those who join her in Colombo next month.

Suzi has become a much-in-demand artiste in Europe, and has even performed Down Under, in Melbourne.

In Switzerland, where she has been based for the past 42 years, she continues to charm audiences with country and classic hits, performing at private events and community nights across Europe.

“My weekends are generally loaded with my work as a singer,” she said. “And I also play tennis three times a week, because I need to keep fit to entertain my audience in an active way.”

Her repertoire is made up mainly of Swiss, German and English songs.

And true to form, Suzi loves springing surprises.

“So watch out when you join me at Oktoberfest 2026, in Colombo!” she said.

Continue Reading

Trending