Features
Proposed education reforms
Government, which provides almost the entirety of primary and secondary education, is on a mission to reform the education system. It is most timely. The widespread application of digital technology in most activities (general artificial intelligence) in many societies is on a scale comparable to the use of electricity as an energy source in the first half of the 20th century. It is pervasive. It reduces production costs and enables the creation of new goods and services. Super artificial intelligence holds forth prospects of hitherto unimagined creative activity, whether for good or for ill. There is no escape from the need to teach, learn and practice artificial intelligence. It is feared that super artificial intelligence may come to be beyond the comprehension of any human. Children who begin their secondary schooling now will enter the workforce in the decades beyond 2035. There is no detailed mapping of what that economy and society would be like, but there is little doubt that the ‘brave new world’ is one that, if we miss, we will be in the backwoods again. Therefore, serious thought on what might be taught in schools is most timely.
Making civilised life possible
In secondary schools, children learn for seven periods of 50 minutes each, every weekday. Although the ‘liberal arts’ dominated school and university education in the 19th and early 20th centuries, mathematics and science must now form the basis of all systematic education. We must understand the forces at work in societies where constant vigilance is essential to make civilised life possible. A good school will teach first language, second language, mathematics, physics, chemistry, biological sciences and social studies, every day to all students: 15 periods for basic subjects (2 languages plus mathematics), 10 periods for the three sciences (physics, chemistry and biology) and 5 periods for social studies. That leaves 5 periods during a week when students may choose to study religion and fine arts. There will be arguments about whether we should teach religion and fine arts more often in school. The central question is what can be dropped from the 30 periods a week to accommodate more religion and fine arts, and I see none. Languages and mathematics, social studies and basic sciences must be taught in schools. From the viewpoint of a student and a parent, consider the following situation. You have a brilliant child who scores in the high 90s in languages and mathematics consistently in school. Would you teach that child religion and fine arts at the expense of mathematics, biology and social studies? The answer you give in respect of your child applies to all children. Would you drop physics to accommodate the teaching of religion and/or fine arts? Would you drop social studies to accommodate them? If you do not agree to drop any one of them, you are left with 5 periods in the week to teach religion and fine arts.
Three periods a week for religion
I would be happy with three periods in the week to study religion. (I did not spend any time in school studying religion or the fine arts.) If you use three periods in the week to study religion, that time must be used to introduce young people to the variety of religions and religious practices, the world over. Studies of Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, some idea of Judaism and other forms of religious beliefs and practices over 6 years will introduce the children into that world, its variety, its values and conflicts in a way that is unlikely to be done at any other stage in his/her life. Religiosity in one’s parents’ religion can be taught at home and in places of respective worship and prayer. It is being done very well now in kovils, viharas, churches, and mosques. There is little need for duplication. I understand the teaching of fine arts poorly. In answering questions about subjects that can be substituted for the ones that I have proposed, a prior question to answer is, what would you drop to accommodate the substitute?
The government makes a horrible mistake by dropping social studies (social science) from the curriculum of secondary education. Languages and mathematics lay the foundations for all other learning. (In medieval times, in Europe, they formed the trivium) Both mathematics and language help us to convert our abstract ideas into forms accessible to others.
Importance of study of society
The study of physics, biology, and chemistry helps us understand nature. There is no way that a civilized society can ignore the study of the society in which it lives and which is changing rapidly as now. Notwithstanding Rousseau’s well-known dictum, man is not born free but utterly dependent. What degree of autonomy one achieves is a product of the society one lives in. A Chinese who has a regular income in the Sichuan Province is free in a way that her compatriot, without a regular income in Anhui Province, is not. A young woman teaching chemistry in Lahore University is free in a way that an illiterate fruit vendor in Chattogram is not. The Magna Carta, an agreement arrived at in Latin between an English king and his barons in 1215 CE, is quoted in a court in Lagos, Nigeria in 2025 to seek the freedom of a young undergraduate arrested by the police. All these are products of social relations. It is not only Newton’s second law of thermodynamics that all educated people must be familiar with but also Marx’s interpretation of human history.
Our own society is rotten with corruption, riddled with crime and striving and struggling for a better life. Apart from the need to understand problems in our society, there is no general study of this society in any language as it changes under numerous pressures.
Another dozen books can be written on Gemunu’s attack on Vijitapura and two dozen on Suniyama but there is nothing on life in slums in Maradana; nothing on the emigration for employment in West Asia; and nothing on the lives of masses of people transplanted into the less thickly populated northeastern Sri Lanka, although a descendant of one of them was elected president of the republic. We must understand the nature of these problems and solutions there for, and interest in them can well begin in secondary schools. Besides, we live in an increasingly integrated world where norms of behaviour seem to be determined by crude strength, whether military, technological or economic and where deprivation and cruelty are acceptable as normal. Children in secondary schools will learn about social relations as they mature into citizenship. Social studies will help them in the process.
There is a second set of problems which the government plans to solve: the size of the student population in each school. This problem has been alive since at least the mid-1960s. The Department of Education then, with the assistance of the World Bank, studied this issue, but the proposals came up against the opposition of teachers’ unions and of some politicians. In 2023, of 10,000 schools, some 1,500 had less than 50 students on roll. They were all Type 2 and Type 3 schools and about 90 percent had Grades 1-5. These children, aged 5 to 10 years, cannot travel long to join large schools. Most of them come from low-income families with parents who themselves did not receive much education. Of all schools, some 3,000 had less than 10 teachers each. On these many accounts, children in small schools suffer from limited options compared to those in larger schools. It is more expensive per student to run these schools than larger schools. Although it may sound reasonable to close these schools and absorb the displaced children in larger schools, in the circumstances, it is not practicable to do so without harming the interests of those children. The higher costs have to be borne.
Bandula’s commendable programme
Bandula Gunawardena, when he was the minister of education, started a highly commendable programme of opening schools that taught technology in towns spread over the country. That practice, with necessary changes, can be carried out usefully. The government can also use the infrastructure of some Central Schools to teach the new curriculum. Where new centres of population have grown, as in Horowapatana, Embilipitiya and in the north, as well as the plantations (which I have not visited of late) new schools need to be built.
A problem which has not been raised by the government is that of the supply of teachers. Taken as a whole, there are plenty of teachers: about one teacher for every 20 students. Of these 240,000 or so teachers, except for some 2 %, all are either trained university graduates, university graduates or otherwise trained professionals.
Small schools and teachers
The small schools absorb a disproportionately large number of teachers. Schools in large towns with many secondary schools attract teachers for a variety of reasons. Schools in between suffer from a shortage of teachers. Teachers of English, Mathematics and Science are especially scarce in small towns and rural areas, a deep contrast to a surplus of teachers in urban areas. Within a square mile of the Royal College on Reid Avenue, there are 12 ‘good schools’. Private tuition, whether individually or in classes, steps in to help students where schools do not have the right teachers. The large number of students who seek admission to arts faculties in universities do so because there are no opportunities in their schools to study English, mathematics and science. They turn to anthropology and fine arts for lack of options.
An adequate supply of teachers in English, mathematics and sciences will change the social composition of the student populations in the relevant faculties in universities and make better sense of state education. The whole nation will gain.
Before I close, I want to make two more comments. For a long time, commentators have spoken of rote learning in Japan, South Korea, China, India and the rest of Asia. Although so far there are few Nobel prizes awarded to persons working in these countries, they also have produced the Toyota car, Samsung cell phone, most of the world’s supply of advanced computer chips and some of the world’s leading institutes of technology, whether in Harbin or in Chennai. Above all, in one generation, one billion people in China and India have been raised out of poverty. That is not bad for rote learning.
In the same vein, there is the complaint that there is no ‘critical thinking’ among teachers and students in Asian communities. Is there critical thinking in lecture halls in US, where a teacher lectures to an audience of a few hundred? Questioning takes place in small groups where students have intimacy of discussion, where students have access to books and papers, and now the internet, and there is an active intellectual life. You have to spend an academic year in Cambridge or Princeton to appreciate an intellectual atmosphere. It is the tutorial system and that atmosphere that contribute to the legendary good teaching in Oxford and Cambridge.
In the US, it is in graduate schools that students come into close contact with star teachers. You can meet thousands of graduates who attended even the most prestigious universities in the US, who never met the star professors at their university, whom they see on television. It would also help if those who complain about the lack of critical thinking in our universities give their understanding of ‘critical thinking’. Please don’t quote a professor in Yale as your explanation. We can read her contributions ourselves.
by Usvatte-aratchi ✍️
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
-
Features1 day agoOctopus, Leech, and Snake: How Sri Lanka’s banks feast while the nation starves
-
Business4 days agoExpansion of PayPal services in Sri Lanka officially announced
-
Features6 days agoMysterious Death of United Nations Secretary General Hammarskjöld
-
News4 days agoCourt orders further arrests in alleged USD 42 Mn NDB fraud case
