Features
Now Public: Some Secrets of Sri Lanka’s Debt Restructuring
The IMF issued a ‘lessons learnt’ report in September 2025, giving us extensive information of their observations on Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring undertaken after the declaration of the debt standstill in April 2022, including painstaking details of the entire exercise from their point of view, information which was shrouded in secrecy during the process of restructuring.
(https://www.imf.org/en/-/media/files/publications/wp/2025/english/wpiea2025175-source-pdf.pdf)
The IMF calls the report Sri Lanka’s Sovereign Debt Restructuring: Lessons from Complex Processes. It was prepared by Peter Breuer, Sandesh Dhungana, and Mike Li and was authorized for distribution in September 2025.
It attempts to review “the root causes of Sri Lanka’s debt problem, the deliberation of its solution, and the designs, negotiations, and outcomes of the restructuring processes”, all of which was not shared with the public, now available from an authoritative source.
While some of it is very technical, there are many things in it that we can understand, some that clarify our misconceptions, and some that come as quite surprising. Most of all, it gives a timeline, which enables us to place the decisions made by our governments including its senior officials, and former and new politicians in power. It enables us to situate the choices that were made in context and to figure out the strengths and weaknesses, promises and deceptions that led to the less-than-optimal restructuring choices, and the need for Parliament to be held to account for their lack of seriousness with which they take their responsibilities for financial oversight.
One of the lessons in the report is that all stakeholders including the public should have been kept informed in a timely manner, even granting that there were things that could not be shared at certain points in time.
It shows how important it is for citizens, especially the media, to question the obfuscatory and ill-prepared explanations from politicians, both inside and outside Parliament, and diversionary and deceitful ones from bureaucrats.
So, What Went Wrong?
In the Introduction to the Report is a summary of what went wrong, in the authors’ considered opinion:
· Sri Lanka’s public debt became unsustainable in the run up to its 2022 crisis following policy missteps and insufficient preparation for shocks that subsequently struck.
· The loose fiscal policies and a series of external shocks ultimately led to Sri Lanka defaulting on its external debt obligations in April 2022 for the first time since its independence.
So, who formulated those policies, and whose responsibility was it to buffer us from shocks? Admittedly, Covid-19 was a shock no one could have realistically prepared for, but there were some inexplicable delays in taking urgent measures to minimize that shock.
However, there were other shocks which were manufactured by politicians out of arrogance and ignorance, so let’s not all think that the crisis of 2022 was an unavoidable or ‘natural’ disaster.
It is revealed that Sri Lanka was among the lowest tax take in the world among developing countries, at the time. The restructuring that ensued is described as ‘one of the most complex debt restructuring to date’.
Just as the IMF took pains to learn from our disaster, let us learn some lessons about citizenship, and our responsibility to question those who make policies, hopefully to prevent them from continuing to make those “missteps”.
Something that struck me was the IMF’s declaration that it did not participate in the restructuring or undertake any negotiations. They merely supported Sri Lanka’s efforts at Colombo’s request: “The IMF was not a party of the restructuring, and played no role in the negotiations, and on determination of comparability treatment and inter-creditor equity.” (Para 31)
Somehow, some of us were under the impression that the IMF had a noose round the necks of the administration or the ‘authorities’, which constrained them from getting a better deal for the people. This now seems like convenient, possibly deliberate disinformation, allowed to circulate domestically. The administration did have certain conditions to be met in order to release the Extended Fund Facility, but not the gun to the head that we thought they had. The promised re-negotiations (during the election campaign) of those conditionalities never occurred, and they will remain valid for the duration of their program.
What I share is a fraction of the large amount of information in the Report, which threw a light on the hazy narrative of our descent into and path through the economic crisis and the true story of the negotiations –from the vantage point of the IMF– carried out by the Sri Lankan authorities in order to emerge out of the darkness of the economic crisis.
The Creditor Groups
The IMF report makes a couple of striking points in its Abstract about Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring:
· It was different from all others due to its complexity arising from the diversity of creditors.
· It needed complex coordination among the many stakeholders.
· The majority of creditors were “non-traditional” as in “outside Paris Club”.
· Domestic creditors played a major role in overall debt.
In the graphic they provide of the analysis of Sri Lanka’s debt at the time of default, April 2022, a few glaring facts emerge:
· Half of all debt is domestic.
The report indicates that this will continue to be a feature of Sri Lanka’s economy.
· Private bond holders seem to be twice the amount bi-lateral debt of China and India put together.
The report later states that ISB holders became the largest creditor group among foreign creditors. (What happened to the ‘Chinese debt trap”?)
The ISB holders were in two groups. There was a foreign group and a local group. The local group operated under a ‘consortium of eight domestic financial institutions that held ISBs at the time of Sri Lanka’s default’.
In negotiations with the ISB holders both foreign and local, Sri Lankan authorities signed a non-disclosure agreement.
IMF’s role at this stage was to support reforms and ensure that “all the debt treatments proposed/agreed are in line with program parameters.”
The negotiation strategy and parameters were the “authorities’ prerogative”. They were however guided by:
· Debt sustainability targets defined by the IMF under their program
· The IMF’s baseline macroeconomic framework
The discussions with the official creditors are detailed in the report and seems to have gone smoothly with the proposals of the Official Creditor Committee’s (France, India and Japan as co-chairs) showing ‘significant similarities’ with Sri Lanka’s.
Regarding private creditors, after several rounds of discussions, on September 18. 2024, Sri Lanka announced that it came to an agreement in principle with the foreign ISB Holders, and also with the local bondholders, referred to as the Local Consortium of Sri Lanka (LCSL) comprising 11 members. The local group controlled 12% of the outstanding Bonds. Their legal advisors were Baker McKenszie and Newstate Partners LLP.
New York Law to English Law
Within this announcement, Sri Lanka also announced that they had agreed with the foreign ISB holders to a mechanism that would change Bonds that came under the more equitable governing law of New York law, to English or Delaware law.
The UN reports that 60% of developing country debt is held by private creditors and 52% of it is held under the New York Law.
In 2023, a draft bill was proposed by the New York state called “New York Taxpayer and International Debt Crises Prevention Act”. This was commended by two UN Special Rapporteurs as progressive:
The UN reported on June 8. 2023 that Olivier de Schutter, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, and Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, welcomed the proposal and “urged lawmakers to adopt the draft bill, which compels private creditors to participate in international debt relief efforts on similar terms as public lenders.”
They further said “”If taxpayers contribute to public debt relief, private creditors should be obliged to participate on the same terms,” they said. “Debt relief must be effective and fair for all, and its costs must be shared by private creditors as well.”
The UN said “The proposed legislation means distressed low and middle-income countries would be able to protect the economic, social and cultural rights of their citizens instead of paying ‘unsustainable’ debt loads.”
With this in the pipeline, globally commended by many as helping to bring in more equitable resolutions of debt crises, why move it (to London) from where it was (New York)? Was it in fact precisely because this legislation was in the offing, enforcing private creditors to take on a fair share of the burden? Indeed, what does it say about the negotiating skills of the Sri Lankan team, or even their motivations?
It is also at this point that Sri Lanka agreed in principle, as with all other clauses, to the Macro-Linked Bonds.
Incapacity or Deception?
On September 23, 2024 President Dissanayake was sworn in, after winning the Presidential Election with 42% of the vote.
In December 2024, the IMF reported that “the authorities successfully completed” the process of bond exchange. They also report that post-restructuring, Sri Lanka’s bonds showed strong performance and Moody’s and Fitch upgraded Sri Lanka’s rating by ‘‘three notches”.
The IMF says that the agreements taken together are consistent with their program parameters.
The swearing in of a new President from an entirely different party with an entirely different political orientation and ideology, to the one that negotiated the agreements with the creditors, did not have the faintest impact on the final agreements that were completed. Despite a campaign run on re-negotiating the terms of agreements by the outgoing administration, they were all signed without any change whatsoever.
None of the excuses accounted for the promises strongly delivered from 2023 until the last day of the 2024 campaign, only to be reneged on, because pausing the process at that late stage was seen as disadvantageous.
Anyone who had access to information of the on-going processes as parliamentarians were, and couldn’t see this two months before they were due to be signed, or decided to mislead the public for votes anyway, has to be regarded with more than a tinge of skepticism, concerning current and future promises.
Lessons Learnt
Under the above heading, the IMF draws out lessons from their experience of Sri Lanka’s debt restructure that they think may be relevant to any future events in other countries. Among others, they make the point that the damage this restructuring caused to Sri Lanka’s economy could have been minimized if it had restructured the debt sooner.
It also indicates some reservation about the Macro-Linked Bonds
. The IMF thinks that the “the one-time adjustment nature” of those bonds “presents risks to Sri Lanka as higher payments after 2028, once triggered, would persist even if economic performance were to deteriorate thereafter.” This seems like an MLB debt trap, one that is too late to get out of.
The IMF declares that the design of the debt restructuring “has increased the complexity of the debt contracts” and urges that Sri Lankan authorities “understand comprehensively their post-structuring debt portfolio risks and rapidly strengthen their public debt management capacity.” Obviously, they didn’t have this capacity before, even though we trusted our ‘authorities’ to have been competent at what they were undertaking. Is this important issue being urgently and adequately addressed?
There are many things that Sri Lanka could have done better. One is that the authorities should have laid out “a clear rationale behind the decision” in early engagement with stakeholders including the public, “throughout the restructuring process”. Clearly, this did not happen.
Going forward, one of the things they recommend is a “sensible public investment program and a sound procurement process”. What does this say about this administration’s tardiness in exactly this urgent area? How can the authorities be made to address this without the regular excuses and promises?
The IMF report details many lessons that were learnt from Sri Lanka’s debt restructuring exercise. It would be an invaluable asset to those knowledgeable in the subject especially since there was such secrecy surrounding the process.
The timeline of the exercise given in detail in the report exposes certain uncomfortable truths. Even though the public was not part of the process, the IMF briefed parliamentarians, including Opposition parliamentarians. Consider this: when we were assured by the JVP/NPP Presidential candidate and his party JVP/NPP, both now in power on that basis – among other factors, that they would renegotiate with the IMF and insist on an alternative Debt Sustainability Analysis (DSA), get a much better ‘haircut’ etc., right up until election day, had they already concluded that they did not have the capacity, the expertise nor the required knowledge as individuals or as a party to do so? The quick signing off on all of the agreements already negotiated or negotiated-in-principle by the previous administration which the JVP-NPP persuaded the people were unsatisfactory, points to this uncomfortable truth: they never meant to deviate from those agreements, however reversible or alterable.
There are many such moments of truth, in the IMF report. Parliament would be well advised to study it with care, and familiarize itself with the numerous issues that led to, made inevitable, and proved to be an utterly complex debt restructuring, which due to many avoidable reasons continues to place the heaviest burden on the mass of citizens who were not responsible for it. They were mostly unaware of the policies, actions and inactions of the ‘authorities’ including the politicians they elected, who were entrusted with managing the economy on their behalf.
By Sanja de Silva Jayatilleka
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
