Connect with us

Features

Whither Meritocracy? Reimagining the Grade Five Scholarship examination in Sri Lanka

Published

on

Prime Minister and Minister of Education, Higher Education and Vocational Education Dr. Harini Amarasuriya citing a 2024 survey, highlighted that 20,000 students left school with no trace, 80,000 were chronically absent, and of the 300,000 children admitted annually, only 40,000 or 13.3% enter government universities while 150,000 or 50% exit into vocational or private education, leaving the futures of many unaccounted for.

She further noted that the current system fails to adequately prepare students—especially girls—for employment, despite their academic strengths, with female workforce participation lagging 50% behind males. Dr. Amarasuriya stressed the need to move beyond exam-centric selection and embrace more holistic evaluation methods. She said that the reforms will begin next year with Grade 1 and Grade 6, marking the start of a transformative journey in Sri Lanka’s education system. She also said they propose to move away from exam-centric selection toward more holistic and flexible evaluation systems, and the reforms will begin in Grade 1 and Grade 6 starting next year. This article focuses exclusively on the Grade 5 Scholarship Examination, given its central role in shaping forthcoming educational reforms. While recent policy discourse—particularly as articulated by the Prime Minister—emphasises a shift away from exam-centric selection toward more holistic and flexible evaluation systems, I argue that this framing overlooks the deeper, structural issue at hand. The core problem is not the format of the examination itself, but the entrenched socioeconomic inequalities that manifest starkly across rural and urban school settings. Rural and estate schools continue to suffer from a lack of essential facilities, placing their students at a significant disadvantage and undermining the promise of equitable access to educational opportunity.

Primary education in Sri Lanka marks the foundational phase of formal learning, spanning Grades 1 to 5 and typically enrolling children between the ages of 5 and 10. This stage, made compulsory since 1999, emphasises holistic child development through activity-based and student-centered pedagogies that nurture cognitive, social, and emotional growth. The curriculum integrates core subjects such as language, mathematics, science, and environmental studies, aiming to build essential literacy and numeracy skills while fostering curiosity and creativity. Along with the Year 5 examination, during this period, there are two more public examinations, namely, G.C.E. (O/L) examination (at the end of Grade 11), and G.C.E. (A/L) examination (at the end of Grade 13), which are compulsory stages in the academic journey of a student. These examinations attract the excessive attention of students, parents, and schools. Combined with parental pressure to ensure that their children perform well, each of these examinations has placed students under intense stress. Candidates who successfully complete these examinations become eligible for placement in state universities aligned with their chosen field of study.

Further, now, as an incentive to successful candidates a bursary of Rs. 750 per month per student is given to economically disadvantaged but academically gifted students (communicated to me by Professor Sarath Ananda). In the 2024 examination there were 323900 candidates sitting for the examination and only 51244 had above the cut off marks, which is around 15%. This limited eligibility criterion of getting passing marks results in a significant barrier, excluding numerous qualified students from underprivileged backgrounds.

Historical Legacy of the Grade 5 Scholarship Exam

The Grade 5 Scholarship Examination, focus of this paper is a nationally administered, highly competitive test introduced by educational reformer Dr. C. W. W. Kannangara in 1947 (Christopher William Wijekoon Kannangara. Born on October 13, 1884, in the village of Randombe near Ambalangoda, he is widely celebrated as the Father of Free Education in Sri Lanka). Conducted annually by the Department of Examinations under the Ministry of Education, the exam serves dual purposes: identifying academically gifted students in rural, less developed areas for placement in prestigious national schools and awarding financial scholarships to support their continued education and enabling social mobility for children from economically disadvantaged or geographically marginalized communities. Over the years, this assessment has become a central component of Sri Lanka’s education system, significantly influencing the academic paths of thousands of students annually.

Kannangara’s concept was innovative in prioritising merit over wealth or location as the basis for quality education. His reforms aimed to remove socio-economic barriers, allowing disadvantaged students with strong academic abilities to access elite national schools through a scholarship exam. These schools offered better resources and opportunities, making the exam a key tool for expanding educational access across different social groups.

Its launch coincided with the establishment of Madhya Maha Vidyalayas, or Central Colleges, which were strategically situated in semi-urban and rural regions. These schools were more than just administrative expansions; they embodied Kannangara’s philosophy of equity and decentralisation. By placing high-quality institutions in areas often neglected by colonial education planning, Central Colleges created a new axis of academic excellence outside urban, Colombo based hubs in rural centres. The Grade Five Scholarship Examination served as the bridge connecting promising students to these institutions, weaving together policy, infrastructure, and individual aspiration.

In practice, the exam’s early years saw thousands of children—many from farming families, coastal communities, and remote villages—catapulted into the nation’s academic mainstream. For many, it was the first and only chance to transcend inherited limitations. The psychological value of the exam, too, should not be underestimated; it instilled belief in the idea that talent could triumph over circumstance. Over time, it became deeply embedded in the national consciousness, not just as an assessment, but as a rite of passage and a symbol of upward mobility.

While later decades saw the exam evolve in form and consequence—often criticized for its competitiveness and pressure—it remains a cornerstone of Sri Lanka’s educational ethos. Its origins, rooted in the transformative aspirations of Kannangara and his allies like A. Ratnayake, reflect a time when education was seen not just as a service but as a social equalser. Today, revisiting that founding vision offers both inspiration and critique, urging policymakers to ask whether the exam still serves its original purpose, and how it might be reimagined to meet the changing needs of an unequal world.

At the inception of the Central College programme in Sri Lanka, spearheaded by Dr. Kannangara, 54 Central Colleges were established between 1943 and 1947. These schools were strategically placed across electorates to decentralise access to quality education and serve as the backbone of Kannangara’s free education reform. The very first Central College established under Dr. Kannangara’s free education initiative was Akuramboda Central College, located in the Matale District, which is now called Weera Keppetipola Central College. It was founded in 1943, marking the beginning of a transformative era in Sri Lankan education. These institutions, including well-known schools like Horana Taxila, Polonnaruwa Royal, and the C. W. W. Kannangara Central College in Matugama, was designed to decentralize educational opportunity and provide quality schooling beyond the urban centres. Together, they served as the backbone of the Central College system, laying the foundation for widespread access to education and becoming pivotal in advancing social mobility and regional equity throughout Sri Lanka.

A. Ratnayake (Ratnayake Wasala Mudiyanselage Abeyratne Ratnayaka) was crucial in developing the Grade Five Scholarship Examination during its early years. As a senior administrator working closely with Dr. Kannangara, he helped implement the vision of free and equitable education in Sri Lanka by establishing and expanding Central Colleges. Ratnayake designed systems to identify talented students from rural areas, making the scholarship exam a pathway to school admissions and financial aid. He promoted merit-based selection to maintain the credibility of the process. Though less celebrated than Kannangara, Ratnayake’s administrative leadership ensured the scholarship program became a lasting fixture in Sri Lankan education reform.

Although no comprehensive public record exists of all notable individuals who have benefited from the Grade Five Scholarship Examination, numerous prominent Sri Lankans have credited it with shaping their educational trajectories. Historically, the examination has functioned as a critical gateway—enabling students from rural or economically marginalized communities to enter elite schools, thereby unlocking pathways to higher education and professional advancement.

 The Grade Five Scholarship Examination, originally created for rural students, is now a major national competition, administered by the Department of Examinations to 9- and 10-year-olds in their final primary year, it is offered in both Sinhala and Tamil throughout the country. High performers of this examination gain access to elite schools, like Royal College and Ananda College and financial bursaries, offering many families a pathway to upward mobility.

Controversies and Calls for Reform

The 1981- Education White Paper, the 1988 – Kingsley Report, the 1993 – School Development Bill, the 1997 – Jayathilaka Committee Report, the 1999 – School Review Proposal (plan to close 3000 schools), the 2005- Tara Harold Report, the 2007 University Status Review Commission etc. were all proposals that have been widely debated but, have not been implemented. However, in each of the above cases, no matter how much public protest the reforms were subject to, there was a specific official document presented that could be discussed.

The exam has now become highly competitive, prompting debates about the stress it places on children and its shift from a student milestone to a parental pursuit. Increased tuition and rote learning have distorted its purpose, raising questions about its effectiveness in measuring ability. Only about 10% of candidates receive scholarships or school transfers annually, showing its limited impact.

Additionally, disparities in primary education—such as differences in resource allocation, availability of qualified teachers, and infrastructure—have impacted the intended equity of the exam. Students from under-resourced schools may encounter disadvantages, regardless of their aptitude. As a result, there have been proposals for reform, such as making the exam voluntary and increasing quotas for admissions to popular schools. Some view the exam as encouraging perseverance and discipline, while others believe it increases stress and maintains socioeconomic differences.

Currently, the Grade Five Scholarship Examination is at the centre of debates on educational equity and reform in Sri Lanka. The Prime Minister has proposed replacing it with a modular evaluation system to reduce pressure on students and parents. As the nation seeks a more inclusive and effective education system, the exam’s future remains uncertain, though its impact as both an opportunity and a point of controversy is well established.

Socioeconomic status and academic performance and deeper structural

inequities in access to quality education:

The current implementation of the examination deviates from the original goals and principles of the programme, as evidenced by candidate performance in the 2023–24 cycle, which is analysed in the following section. Data for this section were obtained from Year Five examination reports from the Department of Education. (See Graph 1)

The 2024 Grade 5 Scholarship Examination data from Sri Lanka (above graph) reveals a stark correlation between socioeconomic status and academic performance, underscoring the persistent inequities embedded within the education system. Socioeconomic status emerges as a strong predictor of performance, as evidenced by the disproportionate representation of upper-income students in the highest score bands. In the 91–100 and 81–90-mark ranges of Paper II, upper-income students—particularly females—consistently outnumber their lower-income counterparts, suggesting that access to resources, parental education, and enriched learning environments significantly influence outcomes. Conversely, lower-income students are heavily concentrated in the 41–60-mark range, with a steep drop-off in representation beyond the 70-mark threshold.

This disparity is especially pronounced among lower-income males, who are underrepresented in scholarship-qualifying bands and face compounded disadvantages due to both economic constraints and gendered patterns of academic disengagement. The cumulative frequency data further illustrates that most of the lower-income students fall below the competitive cutoff, raising urgent questions about the fairness of a system that rewards privilege while overlooking structural barriers. These findings call for a recalibration of scholarship criteria and targeted interventions to ensure that merit is not narrowly defined by socioeconomic advantage.

In 2024, the performance of candidates in the Grade 5 Scholarship Examination shows mixed results compared to previous years. ​ While 77.96% of candidates obtained marks 70 or above, slightly higher than 77.75% in 2023, this is still lower than the 82.97% in 2022 and 86.83% in 2020. ​ The percentage of candidates obtaining marks 100 or above dropped to 37.70% in 2024, which is lower than 45.06% in 2023, 47.81% in 2022, and significantly lower than 66.11% in 2020. However, there was an improvement in the percentage of candidates meeting the cut-off, with 16.05% qualifying in 2024 compared to 15.22% in 2023 and 14.64% in 2022. ​ The mean marks in 2024 were 107.25, showing a decline from 111.74 in 2023 and 115.11 in 2022, while the standard deviation of marks was 30.88, indicating slightly less variability compared to 34.98 in 2023 and 32.17 in 2022. ​ Overall, while there is a slight improvement in the percentage of candidates meeting the cut-off, the performance in terms of higher marks and mean marks has declined compared to previous years. (See Graph 2)

To be Continued

By ProF. Amarasiri de Silva ✍️



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Eastern University and the making of a culture of peace

Published

on

by Jehan Perera

There is an important change in the way peace is being understood in Sri Lanka. The notion that peacebuilding is not simply the responsibility of governments, politicians and peace organisations, but is also a responsibility of educational institutions, appears to be permeating the consciousness of at least a section of the academic community. This was visible on International Peace Day at an event held at Eastern University by the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences. The event was unusual not least because the medical and nursing faculty of the university had decided that peacebuilding was relevant to its academic and professional responsibilities.

Peacebuilding has too often been treated as something undertaken after conflict, when the fighting has stopped and the immediate task is to rebuild relationships between communities. But peace cannot be sustained by governments and peace organisations alone. If it is to become long lasting, the values and practices of peace have to become part of the institutions through which a society educates its younger generations. Universities and other educational institutions are therefore important to peacebuilding. They are among the places where the foundations of a culture of peace can either be built or neglected.

The experience of the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences at Eastern University provides a practical example of what this can mean. Led by its Dean, Prof Thillainathan Sathaananthan, the faculty organised an event which went beyond the ordinary academic scope of a medical faculty. University academics are experts in writing project proposals and applying for research grants. On this occasion, the members of the Faculty of Health-Care Sciences used those skills to apply for a UNESCO grant that they won to conduct an International Peace Day event. The significance lies less in the Rs 200,000 grant than in the decision to use the university’s institutional capacity and resources to invest in peacebuilding. The event at Eastern University needs to be understood as more than a successful university programme. It represents a possible paradigm shift in peace thinking.

Institutional Commitment

The Peace Day event obtained the support of the university administration, including Vice Chancellor Prof P Peratheepan, and reached out to secondary schools in the vicinity to mobilise their attendance. The event itself was meticulously organised. There were cultural items including traditional and modern dance and song in the three languages, performed by combinations of solo, duet and multiple singers, dancers and actors drawn in part from nearby secondary schools. There was a panel discussion by senior academics on the general theme of peacebuilding and how to prepare for it. A discussion among the students followed, where each student spoke on behalf of a religion that was not theirs. This is significant because peacebuilding cannot remain an idea discussed by specialists at conferences. It has to become part of the way institutions educate and prepare people for life in a plural society.

The Faculty of Health-Care Sciences at Eastern University has provided a model through its Peace Medicine course modules that were introduced to the curricular as a compulsory core course over 10 years ago. Two senior academics, Dr Kuveriel Eliyas Karunakaran and Dr Thillainathan Sathaananthan, have written a book on “Peace Medicine- A Health Care Concern” that was published five years ago. Its Peace Medicine Module integrates principles of medical ethics, compassion, equity, social justice and community engagement into health education and practice. In his introduction, former Vice Chancellor of Eastern University, Prof T Jayasingam noted “This book is an introduction to a theme which had already been operating in the Faculty of Health Care Sciences as a course.”

Doctors, nurses and health workers know better than anyone the harm that war and violence does. They are the people who treat the wounds and trauma that violence leaves behind. In a hospital, a patient is not asked what their religion or ethnicity is before they are treated. Health care is one of the places where peace is practised every day. The Faculty has therefore found a way of connecting its professional responsibilities with the wider social responsibility of peacebuilding. The question is whether this experience can be replicated throughout the country, at universities and at other educational institutions, so that peacebuilding becomes part of the consciousness of education itself. If that happens on a sufficient scale, it can begin to generate a culture of peace that becomes increasingly difficult to reverse.

Local Action

The Eastern University event corresponded closely to the United Nations theme for this year’s International Day of Peace, “Invest in Peace – For Everyone, Everywhere, Every Day”, which honours the “everyday architects of peace”, people driving local action, laying the groundwork for stability and building lasting peace from the ground up. The emphasis on investment is important. An investment means that something is put in: time, courage and resources. There is no more violent conflict in Sri Lanka today. But the absence of war does not automatically produce a culture of peace. The factors that fed the country’s conflict have not disappeared from the world. Racism, corruption and the violation of laws and human rights are the raw materials of conflict. So too are unresolved grievances, discrimination and the failure to recognise the suffering of others.

A country that does not deal with its past does not escape it. The past can return in the next generation. This is why the experience of Eastern University needs to be replicated countrywide, both at universities and at other educational institutions. The objective should not be to turn every academic discipline into peace studies. Rather, peacebuilding needs to become part of the consciousness of education itself. Eastern University shows that a medical faculty can develop Peace Medicine. A law faculty can examine the relationship between justice, rights and peace. Faculties of education can prepare teachers to work in diverse communities, while the humanities and social sciences can examine the different narratives through which communities understand their histories. Every institution can find its own way of making peacebuilding relevant to what it teaches.

Sri Lanka has had many declarations, pledges and programmes in the past. What matters is whether these produce changes in behaviour and institutional practice. Peacebuilding requires confronting difficult issues rather than avoiding them. It requires respect for different identities, but also engagement across those identities. It requires dealing with grievances in the present while also addressing unresolved issues from the past. It requires truth, accountability, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence. It requires people to learn that the rights of another community do not diminish their own rights. The International Peace Day event at Eastern University was evidence of a change in the way at least some academics in a part of the country deeply affected by war are thinking about their responsibilities. Peace needs to be invested in and the most important investment will be in the minds of those who will inherit the future.

Continue Reading

Features

Quality assured education commodities

Published

on

by Ahilan Kadirgamar

I have always noticed the little paper tags that are inside the packaging of some products that say quality assured or quality control. I often wonder who might have checked the product and stamped that tag, but I also forget the tag soon enough. Decades later, when I entered academia, I was taken aback by the emphasis placed on quality assurance in our universities. It is not something that could be forgotten and done away with; the entire university system is obsessed with quality assurance.

Beginning with the staff induction programme, quality assurance is drilled into the newly recruited lecturers. It is the norm, not seen as doing any harm and only trying to improve quality. It is accepted as given, and not questioned. Quality Assurance Cells and Committees are omnipresent and hover above the Departments and, at times, even the Faculty Boards. Quality Assurance reviews are feared by the Deans and Vice Chancellors. University life itself seems secondary to the rule of quality assurance. What do we make of this system of quality assurance and what are its implications for our university system?

Corporate speak

Universities globally have been going through major changes with neoliberal education policies. In many countries, universities increasingly became corporatised to be run like businesses in the 1980s. As state support for universities declined, cost cutting became the norm. They started hiring adjunct or part-time staff. Many public non-fee levying universities around the world began to charge fees. Decade by decade, tuition fees became more and more exorbitant, forcing students to take student loans. The total student debt in the United States now stands at close to US$ 2 trillion; which is about 20 times the GDP of Sri Lanka. As the higher education landscape transformed in the West, university administrations began to recruit Presidents, Vice Chancellors and administrative officials with corporate backgrounds and experience.

Such corporatisation of universities in the West has since been imported into countries like Sri Lanka, introducing a new corporate vocabulary, including quality assurance, graduate competencies, programme outcomes, intended learning outcomes, etc. University teaching has become secondary to documenting so-called outcomes. The teacher-student relationship, the environment of the lecture hall and even administering the university have been over-determined by the processes of ensuring quality. How did such major changes come about in such a short time? Indeed, academics of just two generation ago, would never have heard of these terms and processes in the Sri Lankan university system.

World Bank Trojan horse

Since the early 2000s there have been a number of World Bank projects that have drastically changed the character of Sri Lankan universities. Quality assurance as a central agenda within universities, and many other changes to the working of our universities, came through these World Bank initiatives. The Improving Relevance and Quality of Undergraduate Education (IRQUE) project and Higher Education for the 21st Century (HETC) project were two such earlier projects that set up the Quality Assurance and Accreditation Unit (QAAU) under the University Grants Commission (UGC) and established systematic quality assurance reviews for state universities. The public often thinks these are grants from the World Bank to modernise our universities. However, they are not grants but loans.

The most recent such project, Accelerating Higher Education Expansion and Development (AHEAD) is a US$ 100 million loan from the World Bank implemented from 2018 to 2023, which consolidated the quality assurance structures from the earlier projects. Furthermore, these projects are implemented with tremendous arrogance, prioritising their implementation over all other concerns in the universities, when the project over six years for example accounts for just one fourth of our budget allocation for universities this year.

The AHEAD project drastically changed course curricula, sought to increase student enrolment in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) disciplines, commercialise the university research agenda and create university-business linkages. All of this was pushed to supposedly help us face development challenges. We have heard the ideological attack on our universities and even students claiming they are “unemployable graduates”. These changes to our higher education system were supposedly going to create jobs and increase employment.

The irony of the AHEAD project is that just as it was ending in 2023, apparently after having reached its targets, the Sri Lankan economy was collapsing. The World Bank often gets the direction of causality wrong. It is the economy that creates jobs for graduates, and not the training or kind of graduates that create jobs. It is decades of World Bank policies, and those of its ideological twin the IMF, that have led to such high youth unemployment, not only in Sri Lanka but also in many other countries in the global South.

Sri Lanka entered an IMF agreement in March 2023 and started a new Country Partnership Framework with the World Bank in June 2023. These programmes have little to say about, and actively discourage, government initiatives that aim to create an industrial policy or an employment creation policy. Instead, they push for austerity measures, which not only restrict the allocation for education among other sectors, but also end up contracting the economy to the detriment of increasing employment. Their goal is the commercialisation of higher education, to make universities into businesses and run them like factories.

In this context, the ideology of quality assurance is powerful. The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO), whose different standards are necessary for marketing, is the institution that came up with the concept of “quality assurance”. It promoted quality assurance as a process of identifying defected products. Therefore, when the World Bank promotes this conceptual framing, our students are, in fact, seen as products on the assembly line, with quality assurance processes aiming to prevent the release of defected products from the university system. For the US$ 100 million we borrowed for the AHEAD project and the many more million dollars in similar World Bank projects, there is no evidence of increased employment of graduates.

Commodity fetishism

Over a century and a half ago, Karl Marx critiqued the economic analysis prevalent at that time that associated some inherent or monetary value for commodities without considering the social relations that underlie the production of those commodities. Marx called this commodity fetishism. Furthermore, he theorised that such commodity fetishism was also a reason for the alienation of human beings from the world. If our labour and what we produce is seen devoid of the social relations that underlie them, we lose our connection with the people and the world. In this process we become alienated from what we produce and the world.

We are now in a world where our students themselves are fetishised as commodities for the market. Universities are no longer communities concerned about knowledge and human growth, but mere factories producing commodities, which have to be produced without defects to be marketed. In this way, quality assurance has become the cause for the alienation of students, academics and our universities themselves, from the larger relationship with our economy and society.

Our university system does need reform. It is grossly underfunded and not providing the financial support and facilities for our students. Universities have become hierarchical spaces without the academic freedom and democratic ethos necessary for producing knowledge. Academics and students need to engage more with their communities to make their learning and research meaningful, not to mention their contribution to and integration with society. However, when it comes to even questions of governance and regulation of the universities, such concerns are merely reduced to improving quality. In our contemporary times, this singular focus on quality assurance, as opposed to addressing the larger structural issues, is crippling our universities. There may be no way out, but to put back quality assurance where it started, those little tags on goods, to perhaps be noticed but quickly forgotten.

Ahilan Kadirgamar is a political economist and Senior Lecturer, University of Jaffna.

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

Continue Reading

Features

Thailand’s biggest new global star …

Published

on

The entertainment scene, globally, is agog with excitement, and, why not!

Yes, a new global star has emerged … from Thailand, and she hit the headlines by winning America’s Got Talent.

Rattikarn Amloy, known to millions by her stage name Nene Royal, was crowned the winner of America’s Got Talent (AGT) Season 21 at the live finale at Pasadena Civic Auditorium, California, taking home the USD 1 million grand prize.

The 16-year-old rocker, from the holiday island of Phuket (I’ve been to Phuket, courtesy Tourism Authority of Thailand), has struck a power chord around the world, and is the first Thai national ever to win the hit NBC show.

She beat nine other finalists, including runner-up magician Geno Ploeger, after a blistering final performance.

Nene’s story is pure rock and roll fairy-tale. She says she picked up a guitar at age seven, fell in love at the first chord, and taught herself mostly by watching videos online. That dedication earned her a music scholarship to Kajonkiet International School Phuket.

Her audition at America’s Got Talent — a swaggering, shredding rendition of The Cranberries’ classic ‘Zombie’ — exploded online, amassing over 200 million views across AGT’s platforms, more than any act this season.

She kept wowing: ‘Hysteria’ by Muse, then ‘Black Hole Sun’ by Soundgarden which earned her Spice Girl Mel B’s Golden Buzzer, sending her straight to the live shows.

For the final, she unleashed ‘Seven Nation Army’ by The White Stripes. Judge Howie Mandel shouted: “You should win. Give her the million, America.” Mel B praised her “mysterious, mystical stage presence”.

And for the grand finale, she lived every teen rocker’s dream — performing on stage, alongside US rock giants Linkin Park.

When host Terry Crews announced her as winner, the teenager collapsed to the stage floor in tears. “I’m very happy and you know I’m emotional right now,” she said.

And Thailand erupted. Her school held watch parties, posting: “You did it, congratulations, champion. We are so proud of you.”

Even Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul sent a personal congratulation. He had earlier hosted Nene at Government House in July, where she played guitar while he sang a Thai rock song. His office said her talent “brought pride to Thai people.”

Corporate Thailand also rallied behind her — Charoen Pokphand Foods, owned by billionaire Dhanin Chearavanont, even rented a giant billboard in Times Square, New York, to cheer her on.

With her blistering guitar solos, rock-ballad shrieks and fearless spirit, little Nene Royal has just become Thailand’s biggest new global star.

What’s more, this amazing teenager will be bringing her powerful vocals, guitar skills and signature rock-metal style to the stage, as opening act, before one of the world’s biggest rock bands, America’s Avenged Sevenfold, in Singapore, on 13 October.

Unfortunately, we are still to see a local artiste, grab the spotlight, on a global scale … like Thailand’s Nene.

Yes, they do shine, but mostly on social media, and that, too, with the aid of AI (Artificial Intellegence).

Continue Reading

Trending