Connect with us

Features

Pension for politicians, for what service they do to the country?

Published

on

Members of Parliament (MP) have to serve 10 years hereafter to qualify for pension as opposed to five years at present. (2022 Budget speech)

BY Dr. Sudath Gunasekara

While welcoming that policy decision of the Government, who can say that this is not another election ‘gundu’ to deceive the people aimed at the proposed Provincial Council Elections? If the Government was really honest and concerned about public good, what it should do is to abolish this joke immediately, particularly in view of the present hard times the country has fallen on, as Canada had done in 1995, without continuing an unwanted bonanza to trap politicians cunningly, used as a bait by party leaders, that bleed the nation.

The Mike Harris government eliminated MPPs’ pension plans following the 1995 provincial election. Even if it is allowed in exceptional cases like in Canada, a pension to a politician should be paid only after 65 years, in recognition of his or her distinguished service to the nation when they are disabled, to earn a living.

Why pay pensions to politicians at all, who volunteer and swear to serve the people at elections and on the contrary rob and destroy the entire nation after they come to power. It is to hoodwink.

Finance Minister Basil Rajapaksa in his Budget (2022) speech has proposed that MPs be eligible for a pension only after completing 10 years of continuous ‘service’. This too in my view is not warranted and justified at all, particularly in this country, where they come into politics for power and amass wealth and rob public assets and money in unethical ways. They don’t even declare their assets before nomination or even afterwards, deliberately, to enable themselves to justify their illegal earnings if someone questions their assets afterwards. What is more ludicrous is their claim to a pension, despite the enormous financial benefits and privileges afforded from the day they are elected, compared to what politicians in pre 70s got. For example, an MP those days got only an allowance of 500 rupees, a Junior Minister Rs 750 and a Minister Rs 1,000 a month. They were also not allocated official vehicles, duty-free vehicle permits, official residences in Colombo, other payments like sitting allowances or any other allowance or other perks like special allocations for seats, (in spite of the fact that none of these people have an electorate as they are only District MPs, which has made representative democracy a big farce).

My question is, under these circumstances, why pay a pension at all to any politician in this country. Because paying a pension to any politician is contrary to all basic principles, related to paying pensions, accepted all over the world. Because, originally people over 70 were paid a pension, who were unable to make a living, as a mark of gratitude for the continued and devoted service they rendered to the nation or a certain company. Those days it was public service and not self-service, as it is today.

The man behind the initiative called ‘The Old Age and Disability Bill’ was Otto von Bismarck of the German Empire. Germany was thus the first European country to establish a fully-fledged pensions scheme for workers aged 70 or above. The limit was lowered to 65 in June 1916.

In 1875, The American Express Co. created the first private pension plan in the US for the elderly and workers with disabilities. Early pension benefits were designed to pay out a relatively low percentage of the employee’s pay at retirement and were not designed to replace the employee’s full final income.

In Sri Lanka it was started by the colonial Government for the benefit of its aged employees, for the dedicated service they had rendered to the Empire. Subsequently it was extended to retired public servants who had completed 35 years of satisfactory service in public service. As such it was justifiable, as the only income of a man or a woman, who has devoted years in service to the nation, debarring any other job while one is engaged in public service, comes to an end the day he or she retires. But it should be noted that, to get that benefit they had to contribute a certain percentage monthly from their salary to which the Government contributed a certain percentage. Therefore, in fact, they are paid from a reserve fund maintained by the Government out of funds they have contributed throughout their service. What is more is that they have to complete 35 years of service to qualify for the pension. When someone retires prematurely the pension is frozen until he or she reaches the age of 55. This clearly shows that there is a very sound rationale behind paying a pension to a retired public servant and it is fully justified both rationally and ethically.

Now let us examine the rationale behind paying a pension to a politician in this country. Paying pensions to politicians started in 1977 by the JR Jayewardene Government. Curiously it was the first legal enactment of that so-called Democratic Socialist Government of JR, passed as a matter of priority, as if it was the most burning ‘public issue’ his government had to solve. Does this not show the degree of concern and commitment our politicians had towards the welfare of the people who elevated them to high positions by electing them with a 5/6th majority in 1977, hoping to get a better deal than from the previous government of Sirimavo Bandaranaike.

What is hilarious and despicable is that this piece of legislation marked the turning point in Sri Lankan political culture, when the interests of the politicians overtook those of the people in a country that inherited a rich legacy of public good enshrined in the Buddhist concept ‘Bahujana hitaya bahujana sukhaya’ (for the good of the many and for their happiness at large).

What is even more despicable is that it was awarded to all politicians who completed five years ‘service’ irrespective of whether they served the people or not. What was ludicrous was the payment of the pension to his or her spouse after the death of the MP. Further his family would get another pension or even more if his or her son or daughter had been appointed as the Private Secretary, Public Relations Officer or such, which has now become the norm, a tradition that had come to stay as a political privilege. Payment of pensions under this scheme was made with retrospective effect and it was payable even to politicians who served in the State Council, if they were living at that time, with arrears.

Only one man refused to accept this blood money, in the history of Parliament. He returned it to the Speaker. The man mentioned here was my good friend M.S. Themis, the third MP for Colombo Central in 1956. He was the first person and perhaps the only man to return it. I know it for certain as I was the one who prepared the cover letter to the Speaker.

This piece of legislation was also a complete violation of the Pension minute which nobody dared to challenge or even question up to date either in a court of law or Parliament, said to be the Supreme law-making body of the country.

Isn’t it interesting to note how our lawmakers make laws and for whose benefit they make them in this so-called supreme legislature of the country, expected to make laws for good governance for the good of the people and the good of the country at large?

JR did not stop at that. He did everything to enhance the fabulous benefit package to MPs with immediate effect. He dramatically increased salaries, increased the sitting allowance and official vehicles and duty-free vehicle permits were also provided, which they could sell in the open market and make a fabulous fortune. Official quarters in Colombo were also provided, whereas they had to be in Colombo only for eight days a month. Unlimited job permits for MPs to provide employment to their party supporters, monopoly of tavern licence, business permits and government contracts, nationalisation of land for a song, by Mrs B, through the establishment of Land Reform Commission (LRC); and government import permits; the sky was the limit to such privileges. Here I stop the list for brevity and lack of space. All this was done to buy over the MPs, to maintain the majority in Parliament, to embellish and consolidate JR’s dictatorial position as the Executive President which perhaps he thought was a lifetime job, but unfortunately not.

The same corrupt highway robbery still continues at increasing rates without being openly questioned or challenged by anyone in the ‘People’s Parliament’. So much so today the whole system of governance in this country has become a veritable national liability.

JR also increased the number of MPs in Parliament from 196 to 225 by introducing the National list, to provide a place in Parliament for their kith and kin and family friends, as backdoor MPs, bypassing elections, making Representative Parliament ‘Non-representative’, thereby rendering representative democracy a hilarious joke. Had it been reduced to the previous number, it would have saved billions for national development and reduced IMF and other foreign loan repayment burdens, thereby reducing the annual budget deficit and avoiding bankruptcy.

On top of this, JR also signed an agreement with Rajiv Gandhi, handing over the North and East, comprising 1/3 of the land of the country and 2/3 of the coastal belt, together with its maritime territory, as the Traditional Historical Homeland of the Tamil people.

What is more depressing is that this provincial council system has already wasted trillions of public funds for the upkeep of these superfluous new political establishments at no benefit to the country but only to the politicians, from 1987 to date. It is said that 85 percent of the national tax collection is spent on the upkeep of politicians and so-called public officials in this country, leaving only 15 percent to do everything else for over 21 million citizens. Meanwhile, lawlessness, corruption and international debt to the tune of US $ 56 billion, drags the country to the bottom of abject poverty and bankruptcy, forcing this once proud nation and second richest country in Asia, second only to Japan by 1948, to seek loans even from Bangladesh and Maldives.

This is the pathetic situation in to which this proud and rich nation, which gave Sterling loans even to the British Empire in the early 1950s, has been thrust, by our politicians who are supposed to have ruled this nation from 1948 up to date, a land further devastated by separatists Tamils and Muslims with their Tamil and Muslim dreamlands.

It is this kind of politicians, who have robbed the nation blind and continue to do so, who are responsible for making this country debt-ridden, while these parasitic and good-for-nothing governments continue to give fat pensions to MPs, extracting from the beggar’s bowl.

Against this backdrop, I strongly oppose a single cent being given to any politician, as a pension. In addition, I also suggest that all extraordinary benefits such as palatial official residences, official vehicles, security details and other benefits be withdrawn forthwith before the masses march in thousands and forcibly take over all these public assets as protest against what they have done to this country and the Sinhala nation over the past 73 years.

This includes all politicians including ex-Presidents and their rich widows. However, I am not against paying a pension to an honest politician like C.W.W Kannangara who devoted his entire life in service to the people and the country and who had done an indelible and memorable service to the nation, after passing a resolution in Parliament to that effect. That will definitely prevent self-seeking, wealth-mongering people in politics from receiving the pension, limiting it to men and women of outstanding character, dignity and commitment to the service of people, the noble vow of any honest politician.

Finally I propose first, the immediate abolition of the pension scheme to all politicians and second, appointment of a powerful Presidential or Public Commission to enquire into the illegal earnings of all politicians at all levels starting from 1977 up to date and confiscation of all assets proven illegal, both at home and abroad, such as ‘Pandora assets’. I propose that all that wealth be credited to the General Treasury Account so that people will get back all the wealth robbed by politicians at least from 1977 onwards, so that all those who aspire to be politicians in future will begin with a new political vision, opening the doors to a new political culture, setting a Sri Lankan model for the entire world and once again restore the ancient glory of the Sinhala nation.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics

Published

on

President Donald Trump meets President Xi Jinping in Beijing: Mutually beneficial ties aimed at. (CNN)

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.

Continue Reading

Features

The Quiet Shift: China as America’s “+1” in a Changing World Order

Published

on

Xi and Trump

“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

Continue Reading

Features

Egypt … here I come

Published

on

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.

Continue Reading

Trending