Features

Sri Lanka: What is in store for us?

Published

2 years ago

2024/02/11

by Tissa Jayatilaka

To consider what the future holds for Sri Lanka, a glance at its past and present should prove useful as we could thereby contextualise and perhaps begin to understand what that likely future could be. Unless we look at our past mistakes dispassionately, attempt to learn from them and take meaningful steps to re-chart our national course, we are most likely to continue to allow history to repeat itself.

While it is doubtless true that Sri Lanka, like all other colonized countries, suffered immensely at the hands of those who colonized us, our track record of how our country (or constituent parts of it) has been ruled and governed by some of our own kings and nearly all of our politicians leave much to be desired. Heaping all of the blame for our continuing miseries post- 1948, therefore, on our colonizers and colonial rulers who exploited and plundered us (sometimes with a little help from our ‘nobility’) from 1505-1948, as some tend to do, is to obscure the truth.

We ourselves have contributed lavishly to our own ruin as evidenced by our pre-colonial and post – independence history. That history tells us that, as in some other countries of the world, violence and intrigue have been very much a way of life in Sri Lanka both in centuries gone by and post-independence. Why we as a nation have not overcome these tendencies, is something we need to ponder on, if we are to move beyond such uncivilized conduct.

At the turn of the 20^th century, Sri Lankans began to divide along ethnic lines. The brand of Buddhist revivalism of Anagarika Dharmapala supported by Piyadasa Sirisena et al., influenced the circle of Sinhala businessmen who were implicated in the anti-Muslim riots of 1915. From around the 1920s the Sinhala – Tamil relations were on a slippery slope.

The fact that politically shrewd and manipulative British Governors of Ceylon sought to divide and rule us is beside the point; for after all, Ceylon had a sufficient number of educated, experienced and sophisticated political leaders at the time who should have known better than to fall for that colonial bait. The notable Ramanathan brothers who had hitherto spoken and acted in the best interests of the country in collaboration with their Sinhala colleagues, parted ways. They went back to Jaffna and together with a few of their Tamil contemporaries began to work for the betterment of their community.

A little more than a decade and a half later, S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, who in 1926, upon his return from Oxford, had advocated a federal solution for the political ills arising from ethnic rivalry in the country, established the Sinhala Maha Sabha (1937) which was devoted to the promotion of Sinhala Buddhist interests. Bandaranaike had, like some other westernised Christian politicians, also become, what is referred to as, a Donoughmore Buddhist and donned the national dress. The above referred-to parting of the ways of the Sinhala and Tamil politicians, disturbed the harmony that had prevailed between them in the first two decades of the 20^th century.

So we see, that the Sinhala and Tamil politicians were disunited even before we could secure independence from the British. What was infinitely worse was that the Sinhalese and Tamils were divided amongst themselves as well. The upper class and upper caste Sinhalese and their Tamil counterparts, believed that they, by birth and wealth, were superior to the rest of their country men and women.

Within three years after independence, the Sinhala and Tamil politicians split up. Certain members of the GG Ponnambalam-led Tamil Congress left in 1949 to form the Federal Party whilst S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike resigned from the United National Party -led government and formed the Sri Lanka Freedom Party in 1951.

Along with this ethnic division, was the social division based on class and caste. As Howard Wriggins (Wriggins:1960) has noted, Ceylon was made up of two nations, the Sinhala and the Tamil. There were also two other nations—those who spoke English and those who did not. The former was made up of both the public school elite and the western-educated elite. They held significant positions in the public service, the professions, business sector and politics.

The government was carried on in a language the non -English speaking public did not understand. The social divide between the English-educated elite of the urban areas and the rest of the country, especially those in the rural areas, was evident to any sensible observer. At the same time, those Ceylonese who were educated in the English medium, regardless of ethnic differences, bonded together in a way the rest did not.

Despite the above-delineated ethnic and social divisions, post-1948 Ceylon could have emerged as a viable nation united in its diversity. For that to happen, a strong political will was necessary. After nearly four centuries and a half of colonial rule, in the aftermath of independence, there was a need for a revival of indigenous socio-cultural values. And this was admittedly a complex need. However, it was our misfortune, that a majority of the political leaders who guided the destiny of Ceylon at the time, with the possible exception of D.S. Senanayake, had neither the will nor the wisdom required to attempt to bring about an all-embracing national revival and hence succeeded in achieving only a Sinhala Buddhist revival.

Consequently, less than a decade after independence, “1956” came into being on the back of an extreme Sinhala Buddhist nationalism and Ceylon lost whatever was left of the opportunity to forge a pluralist society. We became a country of different ethnicities and religions instead of a robust nation held together by unity in diversity. As the years rolled by thereafter, Sri Lanka became, as the American academic Robert Kearney has put it, an unhappy reminder of the difficulty of maintaining an orderly and peaceful democratic process in a plural society when ethnic loyalties and symbols become central elements of political contention and outcomes are determined on a majoritarian rather than a consociational basis. (Kearney:1985).

The grim and dismal outcome of our missed opportunity to become a rainbow nation, is our painful present predicament. Today we have hit rock-bottom economically and politically. To say that the Sri Lanka of today is in chaos is to state the obvious. Even faced with dire challenges to our very existence as a country, we continue to remain divided as ever, with each of our political outfits clamouring to ride into political power at whatever cost. Each political party has miraculous solutions to our national woes which they “threaten” to implement, as the Rajapakse cabal did whenever elected to office. A need to have a dialogue with the electorate on key issues, prior to an election is, strangely, not deemed important.

In the latter political context, it is useful to recall the damning indictment of our political reality by U.B. Wijekoon, a former prominent politician. In a booklet titled The Curse of Party Politics (no date, probably 2008), Wijekoon tells us that politicians from all backgrounds tend to look at any national problem with the sole intent of seeking an advantage to win elections, disregarding principles and values. Furthermore, he observes that our political party system has wrought havoc by misguiding our society, denying the country of a coherent social fabric and economic equity, and in the process creating grave national instability.

He notes that in Britain, whose political model we have chosen to follow, over a period of five centuries only three political parties came into being, whereas in Sri Lanka, political parties exceeding fifty-nine (59) have been registered within a short span of 60 years. Wijekoon goes onto say that our politicians are not accountable to the people who elect them, and that virtually all of them are guilty of bribery and corruption. With meagre incomes most politicians manage to send their children to international schools in the country and then to universities abroad. What Wijekoon told us in 2008 remains valid even today!

One of the most pressing needs of the day, if we are serious in our intent to resurrect Sri Lanka from the depths to which it has fallen, is to curb and minimize corruption. Corruption as defined by the Malaysian academic Syed Alatas, is the abuse of public trust for personal gain, and it is rife both among our politicians and, tragically, amongst members of our public service as well. Until we implement fully, sans political interference in the judicial process, the existing laws of the land and legislate necessary new laws to combat rampant corruption, it is unlikely that much will change in our country in the years ahead.

Another crucial need, however belatedly, is to make a genuine effort to forge national unity. So long as all of us are not treated as Sri Lankans, regardless of our ethnicity and religion, so long will we continue to flounder as a state nation instead of becoming a nation state. And until Sri Lanka stops discrimination of its citizens on the basis of language and religion, there will not be meaningful and consistent socio-economic development in our thrice-blessed land. Sri Lanka has to curb its militant Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism which, its politicians and a segment of its Buddhist clergy, (contrary to the teachings of the Buddha) are guilty of. Ever since the early 1950s, when the Eksath Bhikku Peramuna (EBP) came into being, Sri Lanka has been plagued by violence against the non-Sinhalese, orchestrated by unscrupulous politicians seeking to win elections by hook or by crook, with the aid of lesser mortals among the Buddhist clergy. This is unacceptable and totally contrary to the ethics and principles enshrined in the Buddha Dhamma.

None of the above can be achieved without a radical reform of our education system. The key element of such a reform should be the teaching of an inclusive History in our schools. The History we are presently taught, even before each of us can begin to distinguish right from wrong, tells us that our non-Sinhala fellow citizens are evil because the Tamil kings of old harmed the Sinhalese or because South Indian Tamils (the Pandyans and the Cholas) invaded us ages ago, between the 9^th and 10^th centuries; and that Islam poses a threat to Buddhism while Muslim traders and businessmen impoverish their Sinhala counterparts. Surely it is about time, we Sri Lankans shed our primordial prejudices, fears and complexes and learned to live in peace with one another.

In addition to the teaching of such an inclusive History, the future generations should be introduced to the tenets of all the major religions, taught the basics of ethical behaviour as a part of their school curriculum combined with the essence of literature and philosophy to create well-rounded future citizens. In this endeavour, early academic specialization should be discouraged, at least until after the GCE Ordinary Levels.

As Arjuna Hulugalle (The Island; 16 April, 2009) observed almost fifteen years ago, the introduction of tri-lingualism is a must. We have come a long way since Dr. Colvin R. de Silva said, One language two nations; two languages one nation. Important as the two languages Sinhala and Tamil are, they are insufficient today for our purposes. Hence, in addition to teaching both indigenous languages to all Sri Lankan students, they should be taught English because a knowledge-based society needs to have access to the world outside its shores.

Tri-lingualism for Sri Lanka is necessary because language will play an important role in the process of reconciling and uniting all our citizens. Countries like Switzerland, Finland, Canada and Singapore to name but a few, give equal importance to all the languages spoken within their borders.

Our education system should be reformed as outlined above so that Sri Lanka could aspire to inter-ethnic, inter-religious and inter-cultural harmony without which, only further misery will be in store for us in the years to come. These changes to our educational system, though essential, can only produce results after many years. Among the short to medium-term measures that could be adopted to address the anomalies in our system, the following could be considered essential and immediate:

· Merit-based selection for all public service appointments;

· The conferment of equal status to all national languages, religions and citizens;

· Gender equality; and,

· The strict application of the laws of the land to all citizens irrespective of their social and political status.

All News Advertisement

Related Topics:Buddhist Ceylon Oxford politicians Ponnambalam Sinhala businessmen sri lanka

Up Next

Origins and Achievements of Colombo Law Faculty

Don't Miss

The Final Night

Click to comment

Features

Lasting solutions require consensus

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/17

Sahan Weerasooriya

Social Media training

Problems and solutions in plural societies like Sri Lanka’s which have deep rooted ethnic, religious and linguistic cleavages require a consciously inclusive approach. A major challenge for any government in Sri Lanka is to correctly identify the problems faced by different groups with strong identities and find solutions to them. The durability of democratic systems in divided societies depends less on electoral victories than on institutionalised inclusion, consultation, and negotiated compromise. When problems are defined only through the lens of a single political formation, even one that enjoys a large electoral mandate, such as obtained by the NPP government, the policy prescriptions derived from that diagnosis will likely overlook the experiences of communities that may remain outside the ruling party. The result could end up being resistance to those policies, uneven implementation and eventual political backlash.

A recent survey done by the National Peace Council (NPC), in Jaffna, in the North, at a focus group discussion for young people on citizen perception in the electoral process, revealed interesting developments. The results of the NPC micro survey support the findings of the national survey by Verite Research that found that government approval rating stood at 65 percent in early February 2026. A majority of the respondents in Jaffna affirm that they feel safer and more fairly treated than in the past. There is a clear improving trend to be seen in some areas, but not in all. This survey of predominantly young and educated respondents shows 78 percent saying livelihood has improved and an equal percentage feeling safe in daily life. 75 percent express satisfaction with the new government and 64 percent believe the state treats their language and culture fairly. These are not insignificant gains in a region that bore the brunt of three decades of war.

Yet the same survey reveals deep reservations that temper this optimism. Only 25 percent are satisfied with the handling of past issues. An equal percentage see no change in land and military related concerns. Most strikingly, almost 90 percent are worried about land being taken without consent for religious purposes. A significant number are uncertain whether the future will be better. These negative sentiments cannot be brushed aside as marginal. They point to unresolved structural questions relating to land rights, demilitarisation, accountability and the locus of political power. If these issues are not addressed sooner rather than later, the current stability may prove fragile. This suggests the need to build consensus with other parties to ensure long-term stability and legitimacy, and the need for partnership to address national issues.

NPP Absence

National or local level problems solving is unlikely to be successful in the longer term if it only proceeds from the thinking of one group of people even if they are the most enlightened. Problem solving requires the engagement of those from different ethno-religious, caste and political backgrounds to get a diversity of ideas and possible solutions. It does not mean getting corrupted or having to give up the good for the worse. It means testing ideas in the public sphere. Legitimacy flows not merely from winning elections but from the quality of public reasoning that precedes decision-making. The experience of successful post-conflict societies shows that long term peace and development are built through dialogue platforms where civil society organisations, political actors, business communities, and local representatives jointly define problems before negotiating policy responses.

As a civil society organisation, the National Peace Council engages in a variety of public activities that focus on awareness and relationship building across communities. Participants in those activities include community leaders, religious clergy, local level government officials and grassroots political party representatives. However, along with other civil society organisations, NPC has been finding it difficult to get the participation of members of the NPP at those events. The excuse given for the absence of ruling party members is that they are too busy as they are involved in a plenitude of activities. The question is whether the ruling party members have too much on their plate or whether it is due to a reluctance to work with others.

The general belief is that those from the ruling party need to get special permission from the party hierarchy for activities organised by groups not under their control. The reluctance of the ruling party to permit its members to join the activities of other organisations may be the concern that they will get ideas that are different from those held by the party leadership. The concern may be that these different ideas will either corrupt the ruling party members or cause dissent within the ranks of the ruling party. But lasting reform in a plural society requires precisely this exposure. If 90 percent of surveyed youth in Jaffna are worried about land issues, then engaging them, rather than shielding party representatives from uncomfortable conversations, is essential for accurate problem identification.

North Star

The Leader of the Lanka Sama Samaja Party (LSSP), Prof Tissa Vitarana, who passed away last week, gave the example for national level problem solving. As a government minister he took on the challenge the protracted ethnic conflict that led to three decades of war. He set his mind on the solution and engaged with all but never veered from his conviction about what the solution would be. This was the North Star to him, said his son to me at his funeral, the direction to which the Compass (Malimawa) pointed at all times. Prof Vitarana held the view that in a diverse and plural society there was a need to devolve power and share power in a structured way between the majority community and minority communities. His example illustrates that engagement does not require ideological capitulation. It requires clarity of purpose combined with openness to dialogue.

The ethnic and religious peace that prevails today owes much to the efforts of people like Prof Vitarana and other like-minded persons and groups which, for many years, engaged as underdogs with those who were more powerful. The commitment to equality of citizenship, non-racism, non-extremism and non-discrimination, upheld by the present government, comes from this foundation. But the NPC survey suggests that symbolic recognition and improved daily safety are not enough. Respondents prioritise personal safety, truth regarding missing persons, return of land, language use and reduction of military involvement. They are also asking for jobs after graduation, local economic opportunity, protection of property rights, and tangible improvements that allow them to remain in Jaffna rather than migrate.

If solutions are to be lasting they cannot be unilaterally imposed by one party on the others. Lasting solutions cannot be unilateral solutions. They must emerge from a shared diagnosis of the country’s deepest problems and from a willingness to address the negative sentiments that persist beneath the surface of cautious optimism. Only then can progress be secured against reversal and anchored in the consent of the wider polity. Engaging with the opposition can help mitigate the hyper-confrontational and divisive political culture of the past. This means that the ruling party needs to consider not only how to protect its existing members by cloistering them from those who think differently but also expand its vision and membership by convincing others to join them in problem solving at multiple levels. This requires engagement and not avoidance or withdrawal.

by Jehan Perera

Features

Unpacking public responses to educational reforms

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/17

Sahan Weerasooriya

A pro-government demonstration calling for the implementation of the education reforms. (A file photo)

As the debate on educational reforms rages, I find it useful to pay as much attention to the reactions they have excited as we do to the content of the reforms. Such reactions are a reflection of how education is understood in our society, and this understanding – along with the priorities it gives rise to – must necessarily be taken into account in education policy, including and especially reform. My aim in this piece, however, is to couple this public engagement with critical reflection on the historical-structural realities that structure our possibilities in the global market, and briefly discuss the role of academics in this endeavour.

Two broad reactions

The reactions to the proposed reforms can be broadly categorised into ‘pro’ and ‘anti’. I will discuss the latter first. Most of the backlash against the reforms seems to be directed at the issue of a gay dating site, accidentally being linked to the Grade 6 English module. While the importance of rigour cannot be overstated in such a process, the sheer volume of the energies concentrated on this is also indicative of how hopelessly homophobic our society is, especially its educators, including those in trade unions. These dispositions are a crucial part of the reason why educational reforms are needed in the first place. If only there was a fraction of the interest in ‘keeping up with the rest of the world’ in terms of IT, skills, and so on, in this area as well!

Then there is the opposition mounted by teachers’ trade unions and others about the process of the reforms not being very democratic, which I (and many others in higher education, as evidenced by a recent statement, available at https://island.lk/general-educational-reforms-to-what-purpose-a-statement-by-state-university-teachers/ ) fully agree with. But I earnestly hope the conversation is not usurped by those wanting to promote heteronormativity, further entrenching bigotry only education itself can save us from. With this important qualification, I, too, believe the government should open up the reform process to the public, rather than just ‘informing’ them of it.

It is unclear both as to why the process had to be behind closed doors, as well as why the government seems to be in a hurry to push the reforms through. Considering other recent developments, like the continued extension of emergency rule, tabling of the Protection of the State from Terrorism Act (PSTA), and proposing a new Authority for the protection of the Central Highlands (as is famously known, Authorities directly come under the Executive, and, therefore, further strengthen the Presidency; a reasonable question would be as to why the existing apparatus cannot be strengthened for this purpose), this appears especially suspect.

Further, according to the Secretary to the MOE Nalaka Kaluwewa: “The full framework for the [education] reforms was already in place [when the Dissanayake government took office]” (https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/08/12/wxua-a12.html, citing The Morning, July 29). Given the ideological inclinations of the former Wickremesinghe government and the IMF negotiations taking place at the time, the continuation of education reforms, initiated in such a context with very little modification, leaves little doubt as to their intent: to facilitate the churning out of cheap labour for the global market (with very little cushioning from external shocks and reproducing global inequalities), while raising enough revenue in the process to service debt.

This process privileges STEM subjects, which are “considered to contribute to higher levels of ‘employability’ among their graduates … With their emphasis on transferable skills and demonstrable competency levels, STEM subjects provide tools that are well suited for the abstraction of labour required by capitalism, particularly at the global level where comparability across a wide array of labour markets matters more than ever before” (my own previous piece in this column on 29 October 2024). Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) subjects are deprioritised as a result. However, the wisdom of an education policy that is solely focused on responding to the global market has been questioned in this column and elsewhere, both because the global market has no reason to prioritise our needs as well as because such an orientation comes at the cost of a strategy for improving the conditions within Sri Lanka, in all sectors. This is why we need a more emancipatory vision for education geared towards building a fairer society domestically where the fruits of prosperity are enjoyed by all.

The second broad reaction to the reforms is to earnestly embrace them. The reasons behind this need to be taken seriously, although it echoes the mantra of the global market. According to one parent participating in a protest against the halting of the reform process: “The world is moving forward with new inventions and technology, but here in Sri Lanka, our children are still burdened with outdated methods. Opposition politicians send their children to international schools or abroad, while ours depend on free education. Stopping these reforms is the lowest act I’ve seen as a mother” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). While it is worth mentioning that it is not only the opposition, nor in fact only politicians, who send their children to international schools and abroad, the point holds. Updating the curriculum to reflect the changing needs of a society will invariably strengthen the case for free education. However, as mentioned before, if not combined with a vision for harnessing education’s emancipatory potential for the country, such a move would simply translate into one of integrating Sri Lanka to the world market to produce cheap labour for the colonial and neocolonial masters.

According to another parent in a similar protest: “Our children were excited about lighter schoolbags and a better future. Now they are left in despair” (https://www.newsfirst.lk/2026/01/17/pro-educational-reforms-protests-spread-across-sri-lanka). Again, a valid concern, but one that seems to be completely buying into the rhetoric of the government. As many pieces in this column have already shown, even though the structure of assessments will shift from exam-heavy to more interim forms of assessment (which is very welcome), the number of modules/subjects will actually increase, pushing a greater, not lesser, workload on students.

A file photo of a satyagraha against education reforms

What kind of education?

The ‘pro’ reactions outlined above stem from valid concerns, and, therefore, need to be taken seriously. Relatedly, we have to keep in mind that opening the process up to public engagement will not necessarily result in some of the outcomes, those particularly in the HSS academic community, would like to see, such as increasing the HSS component in the syllabus, changing weightages assigned to such subjects, reintroducing them to the basket of mandatory subjects, etc., because of the increasing traction of STEM subjects as a surer way to lock in a good future income.

Academics do have a role to play here, though: 1) actively engage with various groups of people to understand their rationales behind supporting or opposing the reforms; 2) reflect on how such preferences are constituted, and what they in turn contribute towards constituting (including the global and local patterns of accumulation and structures of oppression they perpetuate); 3) bring these reflections back into further conversations, enabling a mutually conditioning exchange; 4) collectively work out a plan for reforming education based on the above, preferably in an arrangement that directly informs policy. A reform process informed by such a dialectical exchange, and a system of education based on the results of these reflections, will have greater substantive value while also responding to the changing times.

Two important prerequisites for this kind of endeavour to succeed are that first, academics participate, irrespective of whether they publicly endorsed this government or not, and second, that the government responds with humility and accountability, without denial and shifting the blame on to individuals. While we cannot help the second, we can start with the first.

Conclusion

For a government that came into power riding the wave of ‘system change’, it is perhaps more important than for any other government that these reforms are done for the right reasons, not to mention following the right methods (of consultation and deliberation). For instance, developing soft skills or incorporating vocational education to the curriculum could be done either in a way that reproduces Sri Lanka’s marginality in the global economic order (which is ‘system preservation’), or lays the groundwork to develop a workforce first and foremost for the country, limited as this approach may be. An inextricable concern is what is denoted by ‘the country’ here: a few affluent groups, a majority ethno-religious category, or everyone living here? How we define ‘the country’ will centrally influence how education policy (among others) will be formulated, just as much as the quality of education influences how we – students, teachers, parents, policymakers, bureaucrats, ‘experts’ – think about such categories. That is precisely why more thought should go to education policymaking than perhaps any other sector.

(Hasini Lecamwasam is attached to 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.

Features

Chef’s daughter cooking up a storm…

Published

6 hours ago

2026/02/17

Sahan Weerasooriya

Emma being congratulated on her debut Sinhala single // Emma Shanaya: At the launch of ‘Sanasum Mawana

Don Sherman was quite a popular figure in the entertainment scene but now he is better known as the Singing Chef and that’s because he turns out some yummy dishes at his restaurant, in Rajagiriya.

However, now the spotlight is gradually focusing on his daughter Emma Shanaya who has turned out to be a very talented singer.

In fact, we have spotlighted her in The Island a couple of times and she is in the limelight, once gain.

When Emma released her debut music video, titled ‘You Made Me Feel,’ the feedback was very encouraging and at that point in time she said “I only want to keep doing bigger and greater things and ‘You Made Me Feel’ is the very first step to a long journey.”

Emma, who resides in Melbourne, Australia, is in Sri Lanka, at the moment, and has released her very first Sinhala single.

“I’m back in Sri Lanka with a brand new single and this time it’s a Sinhalese song … yes, my debut Sinhala song ‘Sanasum Mawana’ (Bloom like a Flower).

“This song is very special to me as I wrote the lyrics in English and then got it translated and re-written by my mother, and my amazing and very talented producer Thilina Boralessa. Thilina also composed the music, and mix and master of the track.”

Emma went on to say that instead of a love song, or a young romance, she wanted to give the Sri Lankan audience a debut song with some meaning and substance that will portray her, not only as an artiste, but as the person she is.

Says Emma: “‘Sanasum Mawana’ is about life, love and the essence of a woman. This song is for the special woman in your life, whether it be your mother, sister, friend, daughter or partner. I personally dedicate this song to my mother. I wouldn’t be where I am right now if it weren’t for her.”

On Friday, 30th January, ‘Sanasum Mawana’ went live on YouTube and all streaming platforms, and just before it went live, she went on to say, they had a wonderful and intimate launch event at her father’s institute/ restaurant, the ‘Don Sherman Institute’ in Rajagiriya.

It was an evening of celebration, good food and great vibes and the event was also an introduction to Emma Shanaya the person and artiste.

Emma also mentioned that she is Sri Lanka for an extended period – a “work holiday”.

“I would like to expand my creativity in Sri Lanka and see the opportunities the island has in store for me. I look forward to singing, modelling, and acting opportunities, and to work with some wonderful people.

“Thank you to everyone that is by my side, supporting me on this new and exciting journey. I can’t wait to bring you more and continue to bloom like a flower.”