Features
Donald (Gotabaya) Trump upends the world
““Societies are not made of sticks and stones, but of men whose individual characters by turning the scale one way or another determine the direction of the whole”
Plato (The Republic)
Gotabaya Rajapaksa inherited a lower-middle income country and bankrupted it in two years and five months.
Donald Trump is likely to upend the world in a much shorter time. If he doesn’t immediately – and unconditionally – end the unprovoked and illegal war he began against Iran.
When Gotabaya Rajapaksa won the Lankan presidency with the enthusiastic backing of 6.9 million voters (almost all of them Sinhalese, and the absolute majority of them Sinhala-Buddhist), Dr Steve Turley, a pro-Trump conservative radio talk show host, hailed Sri Lanka’s turn to ‘nationalist right’. “An increasing number of populations are turning away from globalism and re-embracing nation, culture, custom and tradition as the basis for a vibrant political and cultural renewal. Just so another nation embraced the nationalist right. Sri Lanka recently held its presidential election and as a result we can add another nation to the growing number of nationalist populist governments throughout the world” (Sri Lanka Turns to the Nationalist Right!!! – YouTube).
The Rajapaksas could have given Donald Trump lessons on ethno-religious- populism, on the art of weaponising race and religion for political purposes. That mastery, however, was of no use when their errors and misdeeds sent the economy into a tailspin. Gotabaya Rajapaksa was chased out, literally, and the Rajapaksas reduced to three percent electorally.
Now Donald Trump, with his Iran folly, is about to unleash unprecedented economic chaos on America and the world.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa believed that Lankan agriculture (after more than half a century of inundation in chemical fertiliser) could be turned organic in one season. Donald Trump seemed to have convinced that a short sharp war would bring Iran to its knees. According to a recent New York Times report, “On Feb 18, as President Trump weighted whether to launch military attacks on Iran, Chris Wright, the energy secretary, told an interviewer he was not concerned that the looming war might disrupt oil supplies in the Middle East and wreak havoc in energy markets. Some of Mr Trump other advisers shared similar views in private dismissing warnings that…Iran might wage economic warfare by closing shipping lanes carrying roughly 20 percent of the world’s oil supply.” With such blitheness did America begin its newest war.
Today, the world’s oil supply is facing an unprecedented crisis. Iran has closed down the Strait of Hormuz and the 20 million barrels of oil that go through it on a normal day is not moving. Donald Trump first promised to use the US navy to escort ships through the channel, then told the shipping industry to show ‘some guts’. No one is likely to heed his call, not after three vessels in the vicinity were hit by Iranian projectiles (In the meantime, Iran is exporting more oil through the Strait than before, according to the Wall Street Journal.). So oil prices are soaring, driving up energy bills in the US – and across the world – less than eight months before mid-term polls with all Congress seats and 33 of the Senate’s 100 seats up for grabs.
Not just oil. Over one-third of world’s fertilizer trade too move through the Strait of Hormuz. Already fertiliser prices are rising globally and experts are warning about falling harvests and increased food prices across the world.
Then there’s Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). Qatar, second largest exporter of LNG gas (handling about 20% of world’s output), has stopped production due to Iranian attacks, leading to soaring prices. An attack by Israel-US on an Iranian bank has resulted in an Iranian threat to retaliate against US and Israeli banking interests. The consequences so far include Citi Group and Standard Chartered evacuating their Dubai offices and HSBC closing its Qatar branch.
If the disruption of energy markets, financial markets, trade routes, and supply chains continues, the world is likely to slip into stagflation – low growth and high inflation with predictable results, from increased poverty and unemployment to socio-political upheavals.
In America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy Ivo Daalder and James Lindsay argue that with his war on Iraq, George W Bush set off a revolution not in “America’s goals abroad, but rather in how to achieve them.” Under Donald Trump, American foreign policy is undergoing an even more momentous transformation. America has gone into Iran without a clear notion of what it wants and how it plans to achieve whatever it wants. With Donald Trump, it is not America Unbound. It is America Unhinged.
Quagmire
“We won,” claimed Donald Trump at a recent rally in Kentucky. Perhaps he has – in some alternate reality.
In this reality, Iran has achieved an unexpected degree of success in using one-way attack drones to destroy several US radars across the Middle East, “degrading the ability of the US and its allies to track incoming missiles,” according to the Wall Street Journal. The Military Watch Magazine reports that American air defence systems worth $2.7billion were destroyed by Iran in the first week of the war. These include one AN/FPS-132 radar (a long-range ballistic missile early-warning system) and two AN/TPY-2 X-band mobile radars (from THAAD anti-ballistic missile systems located in US bases in Jordan and the UAE). As a result, the US is planning redeploy parts of or even the entirety of THAAD anti-missile system from South Korea to the Middle East.
The financial cost of the war to the US was $11.3billion for the first six days, according to the Pentagon.
The Trump administration has finally admitted that around 150 American soldiers have been injured in the war already. This is without any boots on the ground. Israel-American plan to use Iranian Kurds as substitutes doesn’t seem to be working. “This is not our war,” responded deputy prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan Qubad Talabani when asked why Kurds didn’t want to get involved in the Iran war. His message to Iranian Kurdish groups was, he said, “Be cautious, be smart, be strategic. Understand the landscape. Understand what’s on the other side of this border. Don’t rush into anything that could cause you significant damage or cause Kurdish areas in Iran significant damage” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeT68ukZYI&t=192s).
With the air war not going according to plan and Kurds unwilling to act as cat’s paws, Donald Trump is in a bind. Close to 60% of Americans oppose the war while an overwhelming 80% oppose any commitment of ground troops. According to a recent Drop Site/Zeteo/Data for Progress survey, 52% of likely American voters believe that in starting the war, President Trump was ‘at least partly motivated…to distract from the Jeffrey Epstein’ (40% say he wasn’t so motivated). 46% of the respondents said that Trump is more responsive to Israel than to American people while 47% said he was more responsive to American people.
The controversial Epstein file containing allegations about Donald Trump abusing a minor came out, but barely made a stir since all the oxygen is being sucked in by the war on Iran. Without the war, it would have been the NEWS, for several cycles. If distracting public and media attention from the Epstein files was a Trump-objective in starting the war, it is working, so far. As for Israel, there’s little doubt that Binyamin Netanyahu was the prime mover in the war against Iran, just as he was in the 2003 war against Iraq. In his address to the nation, Mr. Netanyahu said that attacking Iran with American assistance “allows us to do what I had yearned for 40 years: smite the terror regime hip and thigh. This is what I promised and this is what we shall do.”
In November 2003, at an event to mark the 20th anniversary of the National Endowment for Democracy, George W Bush assured his credulous nation that “A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region.” Knowingly or unknowingly, he was echoing Bibi Netanyahu’s blithe and misleading words to the US Congress during a hearing on Iraq, “A war on Iraq is a good choice, the right choice… A nuclear-armed Saddam would place the security of our entire world at risk… If you take out Saddam, Saddam’s regime, I guarantee you that it will have positive reverberations in the region” (https://www.vox.com/2015/2/26/8114221/netanyahu-iraq-2002).
Donald Trump is after a third term. A repeat of Iraq in Iran is not in his interests. According the Wall Street Journal, White House officials fear that Israel will continue to attack Iran even if the US tries to end the war. Bibi Netanyahu needs and wants a long war to stay on as PM and to evade a possible long prison sentence for corruption. The extremist parties who back him think that the road to Greater Israel lies through a Middle East engulfed in chaos and anarchy. Longer the war, the greater the chaos. As the deputy PM of Iraqi Kurdistan said, chaos in Iran is not good for Iraq, Kurdistan, the Gulf, or the global markets. The possible exception, he pointed out, is Israel. “They could live with chaos in Iran. They’ve been living with chaos in Syria. As long as threats to Israel are taken care of, distracted, weakened and disorganised…”
According to a report by France 24, Israel drones are spraying herbicides on crops and even fruit trees in the buffer zone between Israel and Syria, destroying them (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lyp9Xfess3Q). This is despite the pro-Israeli nature of Syria’s new regime. Clearly anarchy and chaos in the region is what Israel is after. A long war in Iran or – ideally – the fragmentation of Iran resulting in a series of civil wars would suit Israel’s purpose perfectly.
Blasts from the Past
Soon after the war began, a non-commissioned officer in a combat unit in the US army, a Christian by faith, wrote to the Military Religious Freedom Foundation on behalf of 15 comrades (at least 11 Christians, 1 Muslim, and 1 Jew). He said that his commander urged them to tell the troops that the war with Iran “is part of God’s Plan” and that Donald Trump was “anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to earth.” This complaint was repeated by at least 200 other officers across 50 installations encompassing every branch of the military. 30 Congressional Democrats are now asking the Defence Department to open an investigation into “invoking religious prophecy and apocalyptic theology to justify the United States’ actions in Iran” (https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/2026/03/ms-nows-ali-velshi-covers-mrff-in-superb-segment-on-the-dangerous-infusion-of-religion-into-the-iran-war-by-commanders-pushing-end-times-prophecy/).).
This tendency within a section of the US army to justify the war on Iran using the Bible dovetails perfectly with Bibi Netanyahu’s own propaganda gimmick. In explaining the time of the attack on Iran, he invoked the Jewish holiday of Purim. “2500 years ago in ancient Persia, a tyrant rose against us with the very same goal, to utterly destroy our people.” The story of Purim is contained in the Book of Esther in the Old Testament (Torah in Judaism). Historians doubt the veracity of the tale. Be that as it may, the tale in the Book of Esther is not about Jews rising against Persian oppression; it is about Jews defeating a conspiracy against them by winning over the Persian king.
Haman, a minister of the Persian king Ahasuerus, angered by Jewish leader Mordecai to bow to him convinces the king to kill all Jews within the Persian empire. The king’s chief queen Esther is Jewish (she had married him at Mordecai’s suggestion hiding her Jewish lineage). She manages to convince the king not only to spare her people but also to allow them the right to worship. The historical truth is that Jews lived unharmed in the Persian Empire and often served as auxiliaries in the Persian army for centuries in the war against Christian Rome.
The first time Jewish people regained the right to occupy Jerusalem since the destruction of the Second Temple and their banishment by Roman emperor Titus in 70CE was after Persian emperor Khosrow conquered the Holy City around 610CE with the aid of Jewish auxiliaries. That ‘return’ did not go well either for Jerusalem or its Christian population. According to Pulitzer-winning historian David Levering Lewis, “The horrific sequel is so overlain by partisan hyperbole that little more can now be said other than that the holiest city in Christendom was left a charnel house of smouldering ruins after several days of rape, pillage, and massacre…” (God’s Crucible).
Trying to frame modern wars in the shape of ancient conflicts is a dangerous game. Some of George W Bush’s advisers depicted the war against Iraq as a new Crusade. As history shows, Crusades did the Crusaders no good. “If Richard Cœur – de – Lion and Philip Augustus had introduced Free Trade instead of getting mixed up in the Crusades we would have been spared 500 years of misery and stupidity” Fredrick Engles pointed out (letter to F Mehring – 14.7.1893). But misery is what happens when ignoramuses wear the crown. The misery we went through in 2022, the rest of the world is about to experience, soon.
by Tisaranee Gunasekara
Features
Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics
The fact that some of the US’ topmost figures in business, such as Tesla chief Elon Musk and major US chipmaker Jensen Huang of NVIDIA fame, occupied as nearly a prominent a position as President Donald Trump at the recent ‘historic and landmark’ visit by the latter to China underscores the continuing vital importance of business in US-China ties. Business seemed to outweigh politics to a considerable degree in importance during the visit although the political dimension in US-China ties appeared to be more ‘headline grabbing’.
To be sure, the political dimension cannot be downplayed. For very good reason China could be seen as holding the power balance somewhat evenly between East and West. The international politics commentator couldn’t be seen as overstating the case if he takes the position that China could exercise substantial influence over the East currently; that is Russia and Iran, in the main. The latter powers hold the key in the Eastern hemisphere to shaping international politics in the direction of further war or of influencing it towards a measure of peace.
For example, time and again China has prevented the West from ‘having its own way’, so to speak, in the UN Security Council, for instance, in respect of the ongoing conflicts involving Russia and Iran, by way of abstaining from voting or by vetoing declarations that it sees as deleterious. That is, China has been what could be seen as a ‘moderating influence’ in international politics thus far. It has helped to keep the power balance somewhat intact between East and West.
At present a meet is ongoing between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. This happened almost immediately after the Trump visit. Apparently, Beijing is in an effort to project itself as treating the US and Russia even-handedly while underscoring that it is no ‘special friend’ of the US or the West.
This effort at adopting a non-partisan stance on contentious questions in international politics is also seen in Beijing’s policy position on the Hormuz tangle and issues growing out of it. The Chinese authorities are quoted as saying in this regard, for instance, that China is for ‘a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire in the Middle East’.
Such a position has the effect of enhancing the perception that China is even-handed in its handling of divisive foreign policy posers. It is not openly anti-West nor is it weighing in with Iran and other Eastern actors that are opposed to the West in the West Asian theatre. A ‘comprehensive and lasting ceasefire’ implies that a solution needs to be arrived at that would be seen as fair by all quarters concerned.
On the highly sensitive Taiwan issue, President Xi was comparatively forthright during the Trump visit, but here too it was plain to see that Beijing was not intent on introducing a jarring, discordant note into the ongoing, largely cordial discussions with Washington. On the Taiwan question President Xi was quoted saying: ‘If mishandled, the two nations could collide even come into conflict.’ In other words, the US was cautioned that China’s interests need to be always borne in mind in its handling of the Taiwan issue.
The cautioning had the desired result because Trump in turn had reportedly conveyed to Taiwan that the latter’s concerns on the matter of independence had to be handled discreetly. He had told Taiwan plainly not to declare ‘independence.’
Accordingly, neither the US nor China had said or done anything that would have made either party lose face during their interaction. Apparently, both sides were sensitive to each others’ larger or national interests. And the economic interests of both powers were foremost among the latter considerations.
There is no glossing over or ignoring economic interests in the furtherance of ties between states. They are primal shaping forces of foreign policies and the fact that ‘economics drives politics’ is most apparent in US-China ties. That is, economic survival is fundamental.
Among the more memorable quotes from President Xi during the interaction, which also included US business leaders, was the following: ‘China’s doors will be open wider’ and US firms would have ‘broader prospects in the Chinese market.’
Xi went on to say that the sides had agreed to a ‘new positioning for ties’ based on ‘constructive strategic stability’. The implication here is that both sides would do well not to undermine existing, mutually beneficial economic relations in view of the wider national interests of both powers that are served by a continuation of these economic ties. That is, the way forward, in the words of the Chinese authorities, is ‘win-win cooperation.’
It is the above pronouncements by the Chinese authorities that probably led President Trump to gush that the talks were ‘very successful’ and of ‘historic and landmark’ importance. Such sentiments should only be expected of a billionaire US President, bent on economic empire-building.
One of the most important deals that were put through reportedly during the interaction was a Chinese agreement to buy some 200 Boeing jets and a ‘potential commitment to buy an additional 750 planes.’ However, details were not forthcoming on other business deals that may have been hatched.
Accordingly, from the viewpoint of the protagonists the talks went off well and the chances are that the sides would stand to gain substantially from unruffled future economic ties. However, there was no mention of whether the health of the world economy or the ongoing conflicts in West Asia were taken up for discussion.
Such neglect is regretful. Although the veritable economic power houses of the world, the US and China, are likely to thrive in the short and medium terms and their ruling strata could be expected to benefit enormously from these ongoing economic interactions the same could not be said of most of the rest of the world and its populations.
Needless to say, the ongoing oil and gas crisis, for instance, resulting from the conflict situation in West Asia, is taking a heavy toll on the majority of the world’s economies and the relevant publics. While no urgent intervention to ease the lot of the latter could be expected from the Trump administration there is much that China could do on this score.
China could use its good offices with the US to address the negative fallout on the poorer sections of the world from the present global economic crunch and urge the West to help in introducing systemic changes that could facilitate these positive outcomes. After all, China remains a socialist power.
Features
The Quiet Shift: China as America’s “+1” in a Changing World Order
“Everything ever said to me by any Chinese of any station during any visit was part of an intricate design”
— Henry Kissinger
That design may already be complete before this week’s , a meeting that could shape the future balance of global power.
The wind arrives quietly. By the time it is heard, history has already begun to turn. Across Asia, that wind is no longer distant. It carries with it the exhaustion of an old order and the uncertain birth of another. The question now is not whether the world will change. It is whether those who hold power possess the wisdom to guide that change toward something less violent than the century behind us.
Since 1945, the United States has carried the burden of a global order built with its Western allies. To its credit, the world avoided another direct world war between great powers. The conflicts remained contained in distant lands—proxy wars fought in the shadows of ideology, oil, and influence. From Latin America to Asia, the American century expanded not only through prosperity, but through intervention. Yet empires, even democratic ones, grow tired. Fatigue settles slowly into institutions, alliances, and public memory. The role of global policeman no longer inspires certainty in Washington as it once did.
The “rules-based order” now confronts its own contradiction: it was built to be universal, yet it often appeared selective. During my recent visit to , a young researcher asked me quietly, “Does the West itself still believe in the rules-based order?” The question lingered long after the conversation ended. The rising century demands a more inclusive architecture—one that recognises the reality of Asian power, especially China.
My three years of field research across South and Southeast Asia, documented in , revealed a transformation too significant to dismiss as temporary. China has moved beyond being merely a competitor to the United States. In trade, infrastructure, technology, cultural diplomacy, and economic influence, Beijing has established itself as what may be called the world’s “US +1.”
Great powers often search for such a partner. History shows this tendency clearly. When an empire becomes overextended—burdened by wars, alliances, sanctions, tariffs, and crises—it seeks another center of gravity to stabilize the system it can no longer manage alone. The United States today faces disorder stretching from Venezuela to Iran, from Ukraine to the unsettled Middle East. In this landscape, China emerges not simply as a rival, but as a state powerful enough to broker peace where Washington alone no longer can.
Drawing from the lessons of the Nixon–Mao era, warned that “” The United States and China are now engaged in a long-term economic, technological, political, and strategic competition. Managing that competition wisely may become the defining challenge of this century. In such a deeply polarized and unstable world, recognising China as a “US +1” partner is not surrender, but strategic realism.
Donald Trump understood this reality before boarding his flight to meet Xi Jinping. Their meeting inside Zhongnanhai—the guarded compound where China’s leadership governs—was never merely ceremonial. It symbolized a deeper recognition already acknowledged quietly within the itself: China is the nearest peer competitor the United States has ever confronted. Before departing Washington, Trump seemed to reassess not only China’s strength, but its unavoidable position as a “” shaping the future global balance.
Yet the significance of a Trump–Xi meeting extends beyond trade wars, tariffs, or diplomatic spectacle. It presents an opportunity to confront two crises shaping the century ahead: global energy insecurity and regional instability. Washington increasingly understands the limits of direct engagement with Tehran. Decades of pressure, sanctions, and confrontation have produced exhaustion rather than resolution. In that vacuum, Beijing now possesses leverage that Washington does not.
For China, this is an opportunity to evolve from a development partner into a security actor. Xi Jinping’s (GSI) was never designed merely as rhetoric. It was intended as the next phase of Chinese influence—transforming economic dependence into strategic trust. The geopolitical spillover from the Iranian conflict now offers Beijing a historic opening to project itself as a stabilising force in the region, not against the United States, but alongside it as a “US +1” partner.
If China succeeds in helping stabilise the Gulf and secure energy corridors vital to Asia, it will reshape perceptions of Chinese power globally. Beijing would no longer be seen only as the builder of ports, railways, and industrial zones, but as a guarantor of regional balance. This transition—from infrastructure diplomacy to security diplomacy—may become one of the defining geopolitical shifts of the coming decade.
Xi Jinping does not seek open confrontation. His strategy is older, more patient, and perhaps more formidable because of its restraint. Beijing speaks not of domination, but of a “,” advanced through three instruments of influence: the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). These are not slogans alone. Across Asia, many governments increasingly trust China as a development partner more than any other power.
India, despite its ambitions, has not matched this scale of regional penetration. In both ASEAN and South Asia, China’s economic gravity is felt more deeply. Ports, railways, technology networks, and financial dependency have altered the geopolitical map quietly, without the spectacle of war.
In , I compared three inward-looking national strategies shaping Asia today: Trump’s MAGA, Modi’s emerging economic nationalism , and Xi’s strategy. Among them, China has demonstrated the greatest structural resilience. Faced with American tariffs and decoupling pressures, Beijing diversified its supply chains across Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia. Rail corridors now connect Chinese industry to European markets through Eurasia. ASEAN has surpassed the United States as China’s largest trading partner, while the European Union follows closely behind. Exports to America have declined sharply, yet China continues to expand. Trump, once defined by confrontation, now arrives seeking a new “” with China—an acknowledgment that economic rivalry alone can no longer define the relationship between the world’s two largest powers.
Unlike Washington, which increasingly retreats from multilateral institutions, Beijing presents itself as the defender of multilateralism. Whether genuine or strategic matters less than perception. In geopolitics, perception often becomes reality.
What emerges, then, is not surrender between rivals, but interdependence between powers too large to isolate one another. The future may not belong to a bipolar Cold War, but to a reluctant coexistence. The United States now recognises that China possesses diversified markets and partnerships capable of reducing dependence on America. China, in turn, understands that its long march toward global primacy still requires strategic engagement with the United States.
This is where the true geopolitical shift begins.
Many analysts continue to frame China solely as a threat. Yet history rarely moves through absolutes. The next world order may not be built through confrontation alone, but through uneasy partnership. Artificial intelligence, technological supremacy, economic stability, and global governance now demand cooperation between Washington and Beijing, whether either side admits it publicly or not.
Trump will likely celebrate his personal relationship with Xi, presenting himself as the American leader capable of negotiating a “better deal” with China than his predecessors. But beneath the rhetoric lies something larger: the gradual acceptance of China’s indispensable role in shaping the future international order.
Even the question of war increasingly returns to Beijing. If Washington seeks an understanding with Tehran, China’s influence becomes unavoidable. Iran listens to Beijing in ways it no longer listens to the West. This alone signals how profoundly the balance of power has shifted. And Xi, careful as always, refuses to openly inherit the mantle of global leadership. He delays, softens, and obscures intention. It is part of a longer strategy: to rise without provoking the final resistance of a declining hegemon too early.
History rarely announces its turning point. Empires fade slowly, while new powers rise quietly beneath the noise of the old order. Washington still holds immense power, but Beijing increasingly holds the patience, reach, and strategic depth to shape what comes after.
The century ahead may not belong to one power alone, but to the uneasy balance between Washington and Beijing. And in that silence, a new world order is already taking shape.
By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera
Features
Egypt … here I come
Chit-Chat Nethali Withanage
Three months ago, 19-year-old Nethali Withanage, with Brian Kerkoven as her mentor, walked the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week. On 06 June, she’ll walk for Sri Lanka in Hurghada, Egypt, as the country’s delegate to Top Model of the World 2026._
I caught up with Nethali as she prepares to fly out, this weekend, and here’s how our chit-chat went:
1. Tell me something about yourself?
I’m someone who blends creativity with ambition. I’ve always loved expressing myself, whether it’s through fashion, styling, or the way I present myself to the world. At the same time, I’m very driven and disciplined, especially when I was working, as a student counsellor, at Campus One, at a young age, where I’ve learned how to connect with people, understand them, and communicate with confidence. I believe I’m still evolving, and that’s what excites me the most … becoming better every single day.
2. What made you decide to be a model?
Modelling felt natural to me because it combines everything I love – fashion, confidence, and storytelling without words. I realised that modelling isn’t just about appearance, it’s about presence and how you carry your energy. I wanted to be part of an industry where I could express different sides of myself, while inspiring others to feel confident in their own skin.
3. What sets you apart from other models?
I would say my ability to connect. Whether it’s with the camera, a brand, or an audience, I bring authenticity. I also have a strong background in communication and sales, which gives me an edge in understanding how to represent a brand, not just wear it. I don’t want to just model clothes, I want to bring them to life.
4. What clothing do you prefer to model?
I enjoy modelling versatile styles, but I’m especially drawn to elegant and expressive fashion pieces that tells a story. I love looks that allow me to embody confidence and femininity, whether it’s a structured outfit or something soft and flowing.
5. What is the most important aspect of modelling?
Confidence combined with professionalism. Confidence allows you to own the moment, but professionalism ensures that you respect the work, the team, and the brand you represent. Both are equally important.
6. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
I would say I’m learning to trust myself more and not overthink. I’ve realised that growth comes from embracing who you are, not constantly trying to change it. So instead of changing something, I’m focused on becoming more confident in my own voice.
7. School?
I did my O/Ls at Seventh Day Adventist High School Kandana, and, while at school, I was actively involved in creative activities. I enjoyed participating in English Day events that allowed me to express myself and interact with others. Those experiences helped me build confidence, teamwork, and communication skills, which continue to shape who I am today.
8. Happiest moment?
One of my happiest moments is realising how far I’ve come from being unsure of myself to stepping into opportunities, like modelling, and representing myself with confidence. That feeling of growth is something I truly value, and also a dream come true!
9. Your idea of perfect happiness?
Perfect happiness for me is peace of mind, being surrounded by people I love, doing what I’m passionate about, and feeling proud of who I am becoming.
10. Your ideal guy?
My ideal partner is someone who is respectful, supportive, and confident in himself. Someone who values growth, understands my ambitions, and encourages me to be the best version of myself.
11. Which living person do you most admire?
I admire strong, self-made individuals who have built their identity through hard work and resilience. People who stay true to themselves, despite challenges, inspire me, because they show that success is not just about talent, but also about strength and consistency.
12. Your most treasured possession?
My most treasured possession is my confidence. It’s something I’ve built over time, and it allows me to face challenges, take opportunities, and believe in myself, even when things are uncertain.
13. If you were marooned on a desert island, who would you like as your companion?
I would choose someone who is calm, positive, and resourceful, someone who can turn a difficult situation into an adventure. The right mindset matters more than anything.
14. Your most embarrassing moment?
I’m 19 and still haven’t faced any most embarrassing moment. But I would say I’ve had small moments where things didn’t go as planned, but I’ve learned to laugh at myself. Those moments remind me that perfection isn’t necessary; confidence is about how you recover, not how you avoid mistakes.
15. Done anything daring?
Pursuing modelling and stepping into competitions is something I consider daring. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and challenged me to grow, both personally and professionally.
16. Your ideal vacation?
My ideal vacation would be somewhere peaceful, yet beautiful, like a beach destination where I can relax, reflect, and reconnect with myself, while enjoying nature.
17. What kind of music are you into?
I choose music that matches my mood at that time, whether it’s calm and relaxing or energetic and uplifting. Music is something that helps me express emotions and stay inspired.
18. Favourite radio station?
Usually I don’t listen to radio stations but whenever I get into a car I would search for Yes FM because it has a refined balance of contemporary hits and timeless music. I appreciate how it maintains a vibrant yet sophisticated energy, keeping listeners engaged while creating a consistently uplifting atmosphere. It’s something I enjoy because it adds a sense of positivity and elegance to my day.
19. Favourite TV station?
At the moment, I don’t have a television at home, but growing up, my favourite TV station was ‘Nickelodeon’. I genuinely loved the shows and series it aired; they were fun, creative, and full of personality. It was something I always looked forward to, and those memories still bring a sense of joy and nostalgia, whenever I think about it.
20. Any major plans for the future?
My future plans are to grow in the modelling industry, work with international brands, build a strong personal brand and finish completing a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Studies. At the same time, I want to explore my creative side further, especially in fashion and business, so I can create something of my own one day.
-
Features5 days agoSri Lankan Airlines Airbus Scandal and the Death of Kapila Chandrasena and my Brother Rajeewa
-
News6 days agoLanka’s eligibility to draw next IMF tranche of USD 700 mn hinges on ‘restoration of cost-recovery pricing for electricity and fuel’
-
News5 days agoKapila Chandrasena case: GN phone records under court scrutiny
-
News5 days agoRupee slide rekindles 2022 crisis fears as inflation risks mount
-
Features2 days agoOctopus, Leech, and Snake: How Sri Lanka’s banks feast while the nation starves
-
Business5 days agoExpansion of PayPal services in Sri Lanka officially announced
-
Features7 days agoMysterious Death of United Nations Secretary General Hammarskjöld
-
News5 days agoCourt orders further arrests in alleged USD 42 Mn NDB fraud case
