Connect with us

Features

The Second Term of Donald Trump: What could we expect?

Published

on

Donald Trump

by Tissa Jayatilaka

(This article is based on a talk given to the members of the Sri Lanka Foreign Service Association on the 10th of December, 2024).

I was invited to address you today on the topic of what the second coming of Donald Trump, as President of the United States holds for the United States and the wider world outside of its shores. I was also requested to explain to you the Electoral College process by which a president is elected in the United States. This is a process that baffles even those familiar with the United States and the way its institutions function, as it is markedly different from the way in which other democracies elect their presidents and prime ministers.

I shall try my very best to not confuse you in my attempt to explain the manner in which the POTUS, to use the abbreviation for the President of the United States first used by telegraphic code operators in the 1890s, is elected.

I shall focus, initially, on the second part of my assignment and get it out of the way as soon as possible. That is, I will attempt to explain the US Electoral College process first and then deal with the more fraught and the more alarming first part – which is to deal with the likely consequences that would stem from the return of Donald Trump to 1600, Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, District of Columbia – the White House.

In the United States, the Electoral College is the group of presidential electors that is formed every four years during the presidential election for the sole purpose of voting for the President and Vice President. How this election should be held is described in Article 11 of the Constitution of the United States which says:

Each state shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The 23rd Amendment to the Constitution ratified in 1961, allowed the citizens of the District of Columbia to participate in presidential elections as well: The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States which is treated like a state has consistently had three (3) electors.

As stipulated by the Constitution, every state has a number of electors or members of the Electoral College equal to its number of senators and members of the House of Representatives. Each of the 50 states of the United States, regardless of its size and population, has two senators. The number of members of the House for each state depends on the population of that state. Hence, smaller the population of a state, smaller will be the number of members of the House it is entitled to. Conversely, the bigger states are entitled to a bigger number of House members. So, if we take Oregon as an example, with its six House members and two senators, the state has eight electors, Montana with two House members and two senators has four electors, while California, with a far bigger population than both Oregon and Montana, has 52 members of the House and two senators, which entitles it to 54 electors.

Besides California, Texas, Florida, and New York have the highest number of electoral votes. Except for Nebraska and Maine, 48 of the 50 states in the US and the District of Columbia use a winner-take-all system, awarding all of their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. The Electoral College system also means a candidate can win the election without winning the popular vote, as seen in Donald Trump’s 2016 victory over Hillary Clinton who won 2.8 million more votes than Trump.

One major criticism of the winner-take-all system is that the candidate who receives a majority of the popular vote in a given state gets all of that state’s electoral votes. Let us take Oregon again as an example. As we noted earlier, Oregon has eight electors. If a candidate wins Oregon, even by one vote, he/she gets all eight of its Electoral College votes.

Critics of the winner-take-all system think it is undemocratic for a winner of the popular vote of a state, to get all of that state’s Electoral College votes. Bruce Lohof, a valued friend, congenial colleague and former United States Foreign Service Officer, in an article titled What Must the Other Democracies Think? compares US democracy with fellow democracies and observes:

But how is it that in the 21st century, a Montana Elector represents only 282,000 Montanans while a California Elector represents 720,000 Californians. Worse, how is it that the candidate who receives a majority of Montana’s – or California’s – popular vote gets ALL of the state’s Electoral College votes? Shouldn’t voters be represented equally? And shouldn’t candidates who get, say, 55% of the popular vote, get 55% of the electoral vote? Why do they get to clear the table, poker style?

On five occasions, including two of the last six elections, candidates have won the Electoral College, and thereby the presidency, despite losing the nationwide popular vote. The Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022 addresses some of the shortcomings in the Electoral College process but not all of them. There are those Americans who argue for the dismantling of the Electoral College. According to a September 2024 report of the Pew Research Centre, 63 percent of Americans support the abolition of the Electoral College. According to the US National Archives, public opinion polls have shown that Americans favoured abolishing the Electoral College by majorities of 58% in 1967; 81% in 1968; and 75% in 1981.

The United States came close to abolishing the Electoral College when the late Democratic Senator Birch Bayh (Indiana) led an attempt to amend the Constitution in September 1969 in order to do so. The House voted 339 to 70 in support of the measure. However, led by the Southern senators and helped by extremely conservative Midwestern Republicans, the proposal was defeated in a filibuster.

Be the above criticisms and observations as they may, what we know is that during a presidential election, a citizen does not vote, odd as it may sound, directly for the president, but for a slate of electors pledged to vote for one or the other candidate. In the months leading up to the presidential election held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November, the political parties in each state typically nominate their own slates of would-be-electors. The state’s popular vote determines which party’s slate would be made the eventual electors.

In total, the Electoral College comprises 538 members (made up of two senators for each of the 50 states =100 + 435 members of the House of Representatives from all of the 50 states and three from the District of Columbia). A presidential candidate must win a majority of the Electoral votes cast to win – that is, at least 270 if all the 538 electors vote.

Members of the Electoral College meet and vote in their respective states on the Monday, after the second Wednesday after election day. Then, on 6 January, a joint session of Congress meets at the Capitol to count the votes and declare the outcome of the election, paving the way for the Presidential inauguration on 20 January.

We must bear in mind that the Electoral College is neither a place nor a permanent body. As I stated at the beginning, it is only a process and also as noted above, in each state, political parties designate their slate of potential electors well before the November presidential election. The Electoral College of 2028 will most likely be different from that which elected the President of 2024.

Now, for the second part of my presentation today. What are we to expect from the 47th President of the United States once he is inaugurated on 20 January, 2025? Crystal ball gazing or trying to forecast anything about the future as I plan to do in the next several minutes is, to say the least, a colossal undertaking, especially so when attempting to predict what an unpredictable man, such as Donald Trump, would do once he is back in the saddle as President. In addition to all of the foregoing I must confess that I strongly dislike Donald Trump, the man who is more flawed than most of his predecessors. And this fact makes a dispassionate assessment of him and what his second term might be like, an enormous challenge. Subject to these caveats, let me chance my arm. And I take heart from a comment made by the well-known journalist David Brooks in his recent piece in the Atlantic titled How America got so mean in which he says:

America became a place where 74 (sic) million people looked at Trump’s morality and saw Presidential timber.

It has been said that there is no Republican Party any more, only a Trump Party. And this distorts everything. The Republicans have signalled that they will render complete loyalty to the agenda of their leader. Troy Nehls, a sycophantic, Republican congressman from Texas recently said of the President elect:

He’s got a mission statement, and his goals and objectives, we need to embrace it (sic). All of it. If Donald Trump says jump three feet high and scratch your head, we all jump three feet high and scratch our heads.

If Nehls’ language is extreme, the sentiment behind it, is not. Many Republicans have vowed nearly unquestioned support for Trump’s policies and decisions. Many invoke what they call Trump’s mandate to justify their unwavering support, the kind of rationale normally reserved for a large electoral victory. Yet Trump did not actually win in a landslide. According to available statistics, Trump won less than 50% of the popular vote, beating Kamala Harris by a mere 1.6 points. That is, the smallest margin of victory in a US Presidential Election since 1888!

Trump’s picks for his Cabinet to-date and to other major positions leave much to be desired. Not only are most of them seriously unqualified but are uncouth and allegedly guilty of criminal conduct. Matt Gaetz, Trump’s former nominee for Attorney General, who consequently withdrew his candidacy, is a good illustration of the foregoing. A Trump loyalist with little legal experience, he has been investigated by the House Ethics Committee over allegations that he may have “engaged in sexual misconduct and illegal drug use, accepted improper gifts, dispensed special privileges and favours to individuals with whom he had a personal relationship, and sought to obstruct government investigations of his conduct”.

(To be continued)



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

BRICS upholds inclusive growth; re-affirms South-South cooperation

Published

on

BRICS political leaders at the 2026 New Delhi summit.(BBC)

A principal highlight of the recently concluded BRICS 2026 summit in New Delhi was the grouping’s unambiguous championing of the empowerment of ordinary people everywhere. This was yet another notable coming together of Southern governments over matters of common concern alright but it was the grouping’s people-oriented thinking that struck the impartial commentator as particularly important this time around.

The latter accent merits underscoring in view of the widespread perception that Southern oriented international organizations, such as the Non-aligned Movement (NAM), have had their day, so to speak. However the BRICS summit not only re-affirmed NAM principles but gave proof of its willingness to complement the main undertakings of NAM. Accordingly, causes such as South-South cooperation, international economic and social equity, multilateralism, international peace and the need to uphold the current UN-centred world order received resounding and fresh emphasis.

Particularly encouraging for those espousing Southern development concerns was the stressing of the historic ‘Bandung Principles’ in the New Delhi Declaration which crowned the summit deliberations. As is known, it was the ‘Bandung Spirit’ of 1955 that paved the way for the establishment of NAM and South-South cooperation in a major way. As such the ‘Spirit’ was primary in helping to reshape international development discourse and in giving it a pro-people bent. That is, development correctly conceived was birthed.

The New Delhi Declaration said in this regard: ‘We recall the 1955 Asian-African Conference in Bandung, Indonesia that proclaimed general principles, including equality, independence, non-intervention and mutual benefit. We stress that the Bandung Spirit serves as a reference in the pursuit of a fairer, more inclusive, and representative multilateral system.’

‘Geopolitics’ was not glossed over or ignored in New Delhi, but it is quite forgotten by some sections of opinion in particularly Sri Lanka that BRICS, while being an important Southern counter-balance in terms of power to the global North is also essentially about international economic growth with equity. The New Delhi summit helped to put right this conceptual imbalance in what groupings such as BRICS ought to be thinking and doing.

Even more precisely, people should be at the heart of development and in the exertions and preoccupations of international organizations claiming to represent the South. Southern governments equipped with economic and military might in particular remain important but it is people’s empowerment that ought to be the overriding consideration.

The latter concerns help stress the cruciality of democratic development since it is the latter that facilitates best the well being of people. Unfortunately, BRICS happens to be top-heavy with authoritarian governments that could deliver economic growth but not equity. It is fully representative, participatory governance that could best deliver to the people their essential needs and not totalitarian governments.

This is a complex dilemma for BRICS. It could be resolved somewhat by admitting more and more pro-people, democratic states into the BRICS fold to counter-balance the power and influence of authoritarian states. At present among the principal BRICS countries it’s only India that meets most of the criteria for democratic development.

Hopefully, more and more Southern democracies would see it fit to join BRICS in consideration of the latter’s potential to be a prime ‘economic powerhouse’ of the world. Equally hopefully, people’s empowerment in the true sense would come to be valued as a crucial merit for BRICS membership. It is relevant to stress that the fulfillment of the fundamental rights of a people is integral to their complete empowerment.

A grave negative fallout from the Trump administration’s current militarism is that more and more states world wide would come to value military heft over people’s empowerment. Consequently, the preference for military power could lead to countries wanting BRICS membership for the wrong reasons. That is, security through collective armed might would come to matter over all else and the world would be rendered an increasingly ‘dangerous place’.

But thinking people would expect from BRICS a more responsible role in world affairs and prefer to have from it inspirational guidance in democratic development, correctly understood.

A commitment by BRICS at the summit of considerable importance to world peace that should not be underplayed is its commitment to the UN system and the strengthening of International Law. The relevant quote from the Declaration spoke of BRICS’ ‘Commitment to strengthening multilateralism and multi-polarity and upholding International Law, including the Purposes and Principles of the Charter of the United Nations.’

Coming at a time when the UN is seen by some as a spent force, lacking effectiveness, the above endorsement of the UN Charter and International Law is of crucial significance. This amounts to solidly upholding the post World War Two order despite current largely rhetorical assertions that it is fast unraveling.

While UN reform remains a compelling necessity, the endorsement of the UN-centred order holds out the possibility of some of the BRICS heavyweights, who are currently acting in violation of International Law, eventually getting back to conduct that would be more in keeping with the requirements of International Law.

The UN could put these developments to constructive use by redoubling its efforts to work out diplomatic solutions to the current conflicts and wars that are showing no signs of being receptive to fresh peace efforts.

Two of these theatres of conflict are the Middle East and the Ukraine. While the US, Israel, Russia and Iran would need to be engaged by the UN with exceptional persuasive power to sort out the conflicts where they have come to feature directly and indirectly, the relevant BRICS members’ commitments to world peace and multilateralism could be used as instruments of moral pressure perhaps to induce them to get onto the path of peaceful conflict resolution.

The wide consensus among the BRICS powers amounts to their scoring a significant political victory over the US and its allies. Their espousal of international peace and the UN Charter exposes the US as being at cross purposes with peace-oriented and democratic sections world wide. Specifically, the moral and intellectual poverty of the Trump administration is being revealed glaringly.

This does not amount to a condemnation of the people of the US perse. It is just that some of them have voted quite unwisely. As a first step towards correcting this situation they could make good use of the upcoming mid term elections to register their strong disapproval of the Trump administration and the political extremists among the US Right. Course correction is not impossible.

Continue Reading

Features

Not I — We: A new uniform will mean nothing if the person inside it is left behind

Published

on

by Mahil Dole

Senior Superintendent of Police (Retd.)

Sri Lanka Police has just marked 160 years. The parades were in order. The sentence that should have followed them has not been written with enough force. A police service that is pulled by politics, rewarded for individual glory and tried every night on social media cannot protect a country that is now a maritime hinge for international narcotics and financial crime. The political authority must decide, not in a speech, but in conduct, whether this force belongs to the law or to the loudest faction of the week.

That is not a plea. It is a warning.

The political hierarchy and the police hierarchy now agree that the service needs a new outlook, beginning with the uniform. The cut and the kit are not yet settled. That conversation is overdue. Criminals have moved into containers, encrypted apps and international logistics. An officer equipped for a quieter decade is less able to detect, and less able to come home.

Sophistication of kit is essential. Body-worn cameras, communications and protective equipment that match the threat are not luxuries. They keep a policeman alive.

If the first decision of this compact is only what the officer will wear, the wrapping will be modern and the person untouched. The priority is not a new silhouette. It is a different person inside the uniform.

The officer is a human being

He and she is a product of this complicated society. The fractures that run through the village, the school and the social-media feed run through the recruit. Communal suspicion, religious identity and ethnic memory are not checked at the armoury gate. The question treated as delicate is operational: is this officer mentally geared for ordinary crime and for communal, religious and ethnic conflict?

What is his stand if he belongs to one community and is sent into a dispute involving another? How will the parties look at him? How will the media frame the first photograph? That decides whether a crowd sees the law or “the other side.” We are all Sri Lankans. The sentence is easy on a Police Day banner. It is hard at a junction when rumour is already ahead of the patrol.

Every officer, from constable to gazetted rank, must be trained for these issues as deliberately as for a baton. Not one lecture at Katukurunda: recurring, scenario-based work on mixed neighbourhoods, mixed complainants, and keeping personal faith out of the method of work. The media will hunt the communal angle; parties to a conflict will hunt the ethnic one. The only answer that holds is an officer whose first identity on duty is Sri Lankan and whose first loyalty is the law.

That is “We.” Assuming the uniform dissolves identity is how a single incident becomes a national story.

What they have been is not what they can remain

From the 1866 ordinance this service has been the state’s civilian arm, colonial order-keeping, post-independence law and order, then a wartime partner that buried its dead beside the armed forces. Specialised units were built for terrorism, organised crime and financial intelligence. The same institution was used as a residual army, a political instrument and a promotion marketplace. Loyalty too often attached to a person, not to the law. Easter Sunday made the price visible. So did every file that moved, or stalled, according to who was in office.

A history of sacrifice does not excuse a present of capture. It makes the capture more shameful.

What they are today

On paper the force is large, some 79,000 authorised, 609 stations. On the ground it is thin. More than 4,300 officers have left since 2020. Vacancies exceed 30,000. Shifts of twelve to eighteen hours are still treated as normal. Distress is still logged as discipline rather than welfare. That is waste, not toughness.

Crime has two faces, and both strike national security. Gang violence over narcotics still produces shootings. Sri Lanka also sits on feeder routes moving Afghan and Pakistani product toward other markets. Harbour and high-sea detections in the hundreds of kilograms are no longer rare. Ice hidden in towels at Colombo Port; heroin pulled from multi-day trawlers; scam compounds and frozen assets in the billions of rupees, these are not “ordinary crime.” They buy influence and fund the next consignment.

The third battlefield is information. Reels and anonymous accounts impersonate officers, launder rumour as fact, and reward the man who seeks a following. Inside the service the culture still teaches “I”: my file, my photograph, my briefing. Rank is being treated as a prize. It is a trust.

The container that became a campaign

Late August 2026, officers opened containers at the Colombo International Container Terminal and recovered some 463 to 472 kilograms of crystal methamphetamine, concealed in towels, originating from Pakistan and valued in the billions of rupees. Suspects including foreign nationals were arrested. The United States DEA publicly associated itself with the intelligence. The criminal case sits with the Central Crime Investigation Bureau.

That is a success. It should have been protected as a success.

Instead, an internal process review, ordered by the Inspector General into how information moved between bureaux, was translated on social media into another story: that the IGP and Senior DIG Ranmal Kodituwakku were being “chambered” over the detection. An Opposition MP warned, correctly, that putting the officers who delivered the raid under a public microscope will teach the service the wrong lesson.

State the distinction without apology. A criminal file is about the network and the money. A process file is about timelines and chain of custody. A blog is neither. Collapsing a Senior DIG’s recorded statement into “the hierarchy is in the dock” is not accountability. It is a gift to those who packed the towels. After a half-tonne interdiction, a process review is normal; leaking it as a morality play is not. Complete the inquiry on the record. If negligence is found, deal with it. If not, say so. Half-spoken files let rumour colonise the institution.

Training, technology and a mind that can bear the load

The IGP and the hierarchy must stop treating training as a calendar ornament. Immediate programmes are required, not next year’s paper.

First

, the evolving issues: communal and religious tension, narrative operations, child and women protection, financial and cyber crime, harbour interdiction, the law of arrest.

Second

, the technologies: digital evidence, data protection under the Personal Data Protection Act, disciplined open-source work, body-worn cameras that protect the public and officers alike.

Third

, mental health as operational infrastructure, counselling an Inspector can use without becoming a Legal Division case, and early recognition of burnout before it becomes a headline.

Incentives must follow: allowances for certified competencies, promotion credit for courses applied, not for attendance photographs. Asking for sophistication at the port with no path to acquire it is theatre.

A new uniform that can carry a camera, worn by an officer unprepared for the society he polices, is a costume. The station, the cell, the unseen hour Look next at where this officer lives and works. Many stations are old, congested and unhygienic. Living standards on duty are low. You cannot demand a different person in the uniform and house him as if he were expendable.

Cells are a particular failure of command. Too many sit out of sight of the men on duty. They are dilapidated. What happens inside goes unnoticed until a death, an assault or an escape. That is a design of our own buildings, not a secret of the underworld. A cell that cannot be seen cannot be defended in court or in conscience. Refurbish, fix sightlines, monitor what the Constitution requires, and treat an escape as a failure of supervision before it becomes a press note.

These are not welfare extras. They are the conditions under which evidence is kept, suspects are held, and officers decide whether the job is still worth the family cost.

The health of the officer is the health of the public

One of the first duties of the hierarchy is the health of the policeman and his family. A sick officer with a sick child is not “uncommitted.” He is a risk to himself, to the next raid, and to the citizen at the counter. Police hospitals are few. Officers in rural stations cannot reach them in time. The IGP should not wait for a building programme. Speak to the health authorities now. Arrange priority access for officers and their families at government hospitals. Dedicated wards or reserved beds are not a privilege class. They are the minimum owed to people sent into harm, and into other people’s crises, at every hour.

Good health is a good mind. A good mind is good care for the people. No uniform compensates for an officer who has not slept, has not been treated, and cannot reach a Police hospital.

What they must be tomorrow

The country does not need more decoration. It needs a service the public can approach without fear and that no politician can casually redirect: intelligence-led against networks that threaten the state; digitally capable and legally bounded; trained for communal heat as well as narcotics; housed and treated as human beings; collectively minded. We hold the ground, not I cleared the file.

The constable at the junction and the analyst tracing a hawala chain are the same institution. National security is not a specialist’s private property.

To the policymakers and the political authority

You have agreed with the Police hierarchy on a new outlook. Use it for more than cloth.

Independence is not the IGP’s personal autonomy. It is the institution’s ability to apply the law without fear or favour, and still answer to the law. You cannot have that and also have a Police summoned, transferred or publicly undermined according to the needs of the week.

Appointment and removal of the Inspector General must remain a process, not patronage. The National Police Commission must exercise its powers over promotions, transfers and discipline without being hectored from the gallery. Cabinet sets policy and budget. It does not choose Tuesday’s suspect. Comment from the House on the guilt of named officers while a file is open is not oversight. It is interference under another name.

If you want an apolitical Police, stop using internal inquiry as a factional weapon and social media as a substitute bench. Different treatment of files is the old disease. Naming it only when the officer is someone you dislike is the same disease.

Then fund what a new uniform implies: immediate training, habitable stations, cells that can be seen, and a health arrangement with the Ministry of Health that does not leave a rural sergeant’s family outside the gate. Announcing kit and withholding living conditions is not reform. It is dressing the service for a photograph.

The public has a part. Distinguish error from crime. Cooperate with the officer who is fair; demand consequences where he is not. In conflict, look at the uniform as the law, not as a census of name, faith or village. Do not outsource judgement to an anonymous account.

The stand It is not I. It should be We.

A new uniform will not make an officer Sri Lankan. Training, health, housing, an apolitical file, and a command that treats him as a human being might. A service that thinks in individual glory will be outrun by networks that think in systems. A political class that thinks in capture will keep receiving detections and wondering why the pipeline never closes. A country that argues about the cloth while the person inside it is exhausted, untrained for communal fire, and unseen in a dilapidated cell block is not preparing for tomorrow. It is rearranging the wardrobe.

The law cannot serve two masters. Neither can the uniform, old or new.

(This analysis is offered in the interest of national security, institutional reform, and public safety)

Mahil Dole, SSP (Retd.), served as Deputy Director in charge of the Counter-Terrorism Desk of the State Intelligence Service and later as Intelligence Coordinator to the Inspector General of Police. He is a former Member of the Sri Lanka Wakfs Board and author of Security Beyond Enforcement: Practical Approaches for a Safer Nation. Email – mahildole54@gmail.com

Continue Reading

Features

The Miss World 2026 scene …

Published

on

History was made under the lights on 05th September, as Joheirry Mola Dominguez, of the Dominican Republic, was crowned Miss World 2026 by outgoing queen Suchata Chuangsri of Thailand at April 2nd Square in Nha Trang, Vietnam.

It is only the second Miss World title for the Dominican Republic; 44 years after Mariasela Álvarez’s win in 1982. Reports described it as an “emotional and historic moment” for the nation.

Joheirry, 24, beat 110 other delegates to take the crown.

A dedicated educator and community advocate, she holds a degree in Business Management and Administration from Universidad Iberoamericana. She is Founder and President of “Voices of Tomorrow”, an initiative expanding access to English education for children in vulnerable communities. She also teaches Literature and Social Studies in English, and works as a correspondent for Univision New York’s Ventana a Quisqueya.

Her advocacy won hearts

It was her advocacy that won hearts.

“My Beauty With a Purpose is to take English programmes to kids in vulnerable communities,”

she said at the Grand Final. “Because I believe that when they know this language, the opportunities, the doors that can open to their life, it’s huge. English is a tool that will stay with them and benefit them for the rest of their lives.”

Spain’s Elisabeth Reynés finished 1st Runner-Up, while Malaysia’s Taanusiya Chetty, also winner of Beauty With a Purpose, took 2nd Runner-Up.

The Top 6 included Vietnam’s Le Nguyen Bao Ngoc, Eritrea’s Snit Habteab, and South Africa’s Romanda Hombir.

The 75th Anniversary edition, hosted for the first time in Vietnam, was a spectacle before 20,000 spectators. Staged on a 110+ meter outdoor platform by Nha Trang beach, the square was lit up with huge LED screens and high-power sound.

Even heavy rain during the Americas & Caribbean segment couldn’t dampen spirits. Umbrellas and raincoats popped up and the show resumed 15 minutes later. Nobody left. That’s dedication.

With 111 ambassadors, cultural dances, ao dai performances, and the seaside backdrop, officials called it a celebration of beauty, talent, confidence, and social responsibility.

With 20,000 people, rain or shine, screaming, cheering, live-streaming, waving flags… it was, indeed, pure Miss World magic.

For Sri Lanka, Prathibha Liyanaarachchi did not make the Top 40 at the 73rd Miss World Festival, but she reached the finalist stages of four fast-track events — Top Model, Talent, Sports, and Beauty With a Purpose.

Miss World magic: The square was lit up with huge LED screens and high-power sound

Continue Reading

Trending