Connect with us

Features

Playing blind man’s bluff with tariff man

Published

on

President Trump unleashing the tariff tsunami

While the whole world was waiting anxiously for President Donald J. Trump, a self- proclaimed “tariff man”, to present his plan for “reciprocal tariffs” on his “Liberation Day”, an American commentator Jon Stewart declared on “The Weekly Show” podcast that he knew what “Donald Trump’s whole plan” was. Since Trump was elected, I have been closely following the developments in Washington but didn’t come across any other such claims. Yet, I was not surprised by Jon Stewart’s claim because he is a highly paid comedian and his podcast was recorded on the day before President Trump unveiled his plan. But now I know Jon Stewart was not the only person who knew how Trump’s plan for “reciprocal tariffs” would unfold. Most of our politicians (other than those in the government) had known what the plan was, much in advance of the official announcement. Now they are on our evening TV news blaming the government for not taking measures to pre-empt Trump’s move and providing their expert advice on how the government should engage with the US!

Tariff Tsunami

Unlike these politicians and their advisers, I did not expect President Trump to slap punitive tariffs of 44 percent on our exports. Our garment exports to the United States expanded from the early 1980s to December 2004, due to a very generous textile and apparel quota extended by the United States under the now-defunct Agreement on Textiles and Clothing. It was a clear and very successful example of providing trading opportunities as development aid by a development partner. However, we were also paying high tariffs for these exports but remained competitive in the US market as quotas ensured a reasonable market share. But after 2004, with the end of the quotas, the Sri Lankan exporters started to face strong competition in the US market, particularly from countries that had duty-free market access. So, in December 2004, Sri Lanka was hit by two tsunamis, the Asian Tsunami and the Tariff Tsunami.

On 06 January 2005, The Wall Street Journal published on its op-ed page an opinion piece titled, “Tariff Tsunami,” highlighting this: “… some eye-popping statistics showing how U.S. tariffs discriminate against world’s poor, including in particular those in Sri Lanka. The duties paid on Sri Lankan garment exports to the US in 2003 were $238.5 million – which was more than the total duties ($227 million) paid that same year on every product exported to the U.S. from all six countries of Scandinavia. That’s despite the fact that Scandinavia exports roughly 12 times more to the US than does Sri Lanka – $23.8 billion versus $1.8 billion in 2003. The average US duty rate from products from those rich nations of Northern Europe is about 1%, while the average rate on Sri Lankan goods is 13.8% and 16.6% on the bulk of its exports, which happens to be clothing.”

Twenty-one years later, if one checks the US Customs data for 2024 a similar pattern will be observed, as our exports’ basket to the US and the import duties in the US have not changed much. Though, some of our exports, like tea, gem stones and rubber products, have duty free access. for some apparel products we pay 25% tariff resulting in very high average tariff.

When Trump promised, during his campaign for the White House, a 10 percent tariff on all imports from all countries and a higher tariff on China, I expected Sri Lanka to improve her competitiveness and anticipated a shift in sourcing from China to other Asian countries. I also believed that the “slow surge in orders” received by Sri Lankan apparel exporters after the US elections, as well as the investment by an American engineering technology group at Wathupitiwala, could have resulted from this discreet shift of sourcing. (Please read my article published on 8th January in “The Island.”). It also appeared that when US Ambassador Julie Chung stated, last October, at the foundation stone laying ceremony for a new American factory at Wathupitiwala, “SHIELD’s decision to shift its facility in China to establish a manufacturing facility here in Sri Lanka is a testament to the growing interest of US investment in Sri Lanka …. If the new government can strengthen the investment climate, implement anti-corruption measures, and strengthen business-friendly governance and transparency, there is potential for even more manufacturers to make similar moves,” she, too, didn’t expect that, six months later, the United States would hit us with punitive tariffs. Because no American investor would ever think of investing in Sri Lanka with an over 44% tariff.

A guessing game on the tariff plan

When President Trump announced, in early February, his “Fair and Reciprocal Plan” on Trade, he did not provide much information about the plan. Then a few weeks later, the Director of the National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, stated that 10 to 15 countries accounted for America’s “entire trillion-dollar trade deficit” and the Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, mooted a plan for a higher tariff for the ‘Dirty 15’, a group of countries that have large trade imbalances. But they did so without naming the countries they were planning to target. Based on these two statements a guessing game started all over the world on the composition of this group. Still, most of the observers expected these countries to be those with highest goods trading deficit with the United States. In 2024, the United States faced highest trade deficits with China ($291 billion), the EU ($236 billion), Mexico ($172 billion), Vietnam ($124 billion), and Taiwan ($74 billion). Compared to these countries, Sri Lanka’s trade deficit with the United States is relatively insignificant.

However, with these declarations, there was a remote possibility of Sri Lanka getting hit by a higher tariff due to our relatively large trade deficit as a percentage of the total trade. For many years this was always raised by the American negotiators during the negotiations at bilateral multilateral levels. Though we had always managed to settle it amicably, with mutually acceptable explanations, the issue had remained as an irritant in our bilateral relations. Therefore, the Sri Lankan Embassy in Washington, and appropriate government agencies in Colombo, with inside knowledge of the views of the US trade officials on the bilateral trade deficit, should have prepared for this worst-case scenario, however remote it was, and strategised on possible responses.

Highest tariff on countries “which nobody has ever heard of”

A few weeks after the American elections, at a birthday party, I bumped into a Sri Lankan expert on the United States who works on these issues for the government. During our conversation I raised Trump’s proposed tariff with him, and inquired whether they had initiated any study on it, particularly any possible adverse impact on Sri Lanka. “Don’t worry,” he quipped, “…

Trump doesn’t know where Sri Lanka is. So, we will be the last to get hit!” As we were standing at the bar, sipping our first round of drinks, I didn’t take the conversation any further. But what he said reminded me of my first visit to the office of the United States Trade Representative, in Washington. That was in January 1998. After examining my freshly issued State Department diplomatic ID, the security guard inquired, very politely, where Sri Lanka was. And I explained, with the help of a quick sketch, where we are located. During the next three years, during my frequent visits to that building, she always welcomed me with a broad smile and remembered my name and where I was from. During my tour in the United States, I met few other people who had never heard of a country called Sri Lanka.

Unfortunately, predictably unpredictable Donald J. Trump had decided to impose the highest reciprocal tariffs on countries “which nobody has ever heard of,” Lesotho and the French Archipelago of Saint Pierre and Miquelon! Both got 50% tariffs under the new reciprocal tariff plan. Since the beginning of the century, Lesotho, a tiny landlocked African country, managed to expand her exports to the US under the African Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA) and is considered as one of the success stories under that programme. But during his annual address to Congress last month, President Trump, while defending his extensive cuts in the US aid budget, singled out a past aid project of “eight million dollars to promote LGBTQI+ in the African nation of Lesotho … a country that nobody has ever heard of.” In spite of its size, Lesotho refused to ignore the comment or take the matter lightly.

Foreign Minister Lejone Mpotjoane declared that the Lesotho government was “shocked and embarrassed” by the comments because Lesotho “… did not expect a head of state to refer to another sovereign nation in such a manner” and had sent an official protest note. Now, Mr. Mpotjoane must be a contented man. With the highest tariffs in place, the entire world has heard of a country called Lesotho! Saint Pierre and Miquelon, with a population of roughly 6,000 people and very limited trade with the US was the other country to get hit by 50% tariff. However, for this a tiny French archipelago, located off the shores of Canada, the time under the global limelight was short-lived as soon after the announcement the US administration made a U-turn and reduced the tariff to 10%.

Some of the other countries in this group with highest tariffs are not so tiny and are more well known. The table illustrates the United States imports from these countries and trade balance (in USD million) during 2023. (See Table 1)

Although President Trump has declared that these reciprocal tariffs are necessary to tackle America’s massive $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit, from this group of countries only Vietnam with $109 billion surplus and Cambodia with $11.8 billion surplus can contribute meaningfully towards a reduction of that deficit. The US trade deficit with all other countries in the group are minimal and together accounts for less than $5 billion. Based on 2023 statistics it is difficult to even understand Syria’s inclusion in the list. Then how did these countries end up with highest reciprocal tariffs?

Calculation of reciprocal tariffs

President Trump, while presenting his new tariff plan, stated that “reciprocal means they do it to us, and we do it to them. Very simple. Can’t get simpler than that,” and according to his Executive Order on the reciprocal tariffs, these are based on the average tariff rate charged to US exports, plus currency manipulation and other trade barriers. However, in many countries it is very difficult to quantify the tariffs, currency manipulation and other trade barriers. So, the calculation was simply done for each country by taking its trade in goods deficit for 2024, then dividing that by the total value of imports which provides the size of the trade imbalance in percentage terms. The US administration simply presumes that persistent trade deficits are due to a combination of tariff and non-tariff factors that prevent trade from balancing. Therefore, it divided that percentage number by 2 to fix the amount of reciprocal tariff. If the presumption on which the tariff is fixed is inaccurate then the burden of proof is with the country affected by the tariffs.

Way forward – ‘Make Haste Slowly’

With a 90-day grace period, Sri Lanka has sufficient time to move forward thoughtfully, appropriately, and discreetly. However, it is essential to negotiate with the American Administration the removal of the reciprocal tariffs, and if that is not negotiable, then reduce them to the global average. As the livelihood of thousands of poor workers are dependent on it, the government should act fast without making any wrong moves. In other words, it is time to make haste, slowly. But it is important to understand, as of now, it is a guessing game like blind man’s bluff, with modified rules: only two players at a time, and you are blindfolded. You have to guess where the other player stands and catch him, while the game is played on a cliff edge.

By Gomi Senadhira

(The writer, a former public servant and a diplomat, can be reached at senadhiragomi@gmail.com)



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