Features
Premadasa vs Lalith: A recipe for conflict
I will not dwell in any detail about the numerous other issues that engaged the Minister’s (Athulathemudali) attention. That would add up to a book in itself. What I would do would be to briefly touch upon some selected matters. A structure of a Ministry is important and relevant as a facilitator or otherwise of work. There is also, in many ways a correlation between structure and achievement. In this vital area however, there was a major deficiency. At the political level, besides the Cabinet Minister, there were two Project Ministers, Mrs. Sunethra Ranasinghe, MP for Education Services and Mr. A.C.S. Hameed, MP for Higher Education.
Mr. Hameed, a senior party man and Minister was also the Cabinet Minister for Justice. Then there was the State Minister for Education Mrs. Pulendiran, MP. Project Ministers were considered higher in status to State Ministers, but all came under the Cabinet Minister. The structural problem really arose in the area under Mr. Hameed’s purview. Mr. Hameed, a former long serving Foreign Minister, was in the
recent past the Cabinet Minister for Higher Education and Science. Now, although he was still the Cabinet Minister for Justice, he was at the same time only the Project Minister for Higher Education, responsible to a much younger Cabinet Minister.
He was now Project Minister in an area where he had been Cabinet Minister before. In practical terms, this was a recipe for conflict, and that is precisely what occurred. Higher Education encompassed both University and Technical Education. The rest of the Ministry handled the vast area of general education. Mr. Hameed could not get over the fact that he was no longer the Cabinet Minister for Higher Education. He sought to act as if he was. The geographical severance, that prevailed, with general education at “Isurupaya” in Battararmulla, and Higher Education located at Ward Place in Colombo, only helped to reinforce this trend towards separation.
Soon we found that Mr. Hameed did not attend any meetings to which he was invited by the Minister. He also kept away from the Parliamentary Consultative Committee on Education, presumably because the Committee was chaired by the Cabinet Minister. The next thing that happened was that he lost his membership of that Committee, for absenting himself without leave on three consecutive occasions. He was probably unwilling to seek leave from Mr. Athulathmudali.
The Minister on his part was of the view that this whole arrangement was deliberately devised by the President to checkmate him, and so it appeared. No other Project Minister would have got away with this kind of action. The President for his part would definitely have known what was happening, because if there ever was a President or Prime Minister, who wanted to know everything that was occurring and had a network of people all over to keep him informed, it was Mr. Premadasa. In this, and in other actions lay the seed of greater conflicts to come.
The Minister was a strong personality. He was not prepared to meekly submit to any unilateral declaration of independence. He therefore set up an office for himself at Ward Place, and made it a point to go there and hold various meetings and discussions once or twice a week. To some of these meetings he summoned Vice Chancellors and the Chairman, University Grants Commission. They were obliged to come, even though the Project Minister was unhappy.
Mr. Athulathmudali, a trained lawyer, knew his legal rights. It must be said that those in the higher education sector welcomed opportunities to meet the Minister, although it was not a comfortable position for any of them, or for that matter for any of us. As Secretary to the overall Ministry, I too was placed in a most awkward and embarrassing position. I worked for the Cabinet Minister. The offices of the Project and State Ministers had senior public servants as Secretaries. But I had the responsibility of supervising their work. In the case of higher education, when I did that, there was a distinct possibility that I would tread om ministerial toes.
Mr. Abeygunawardena, the Secretary handling that area later to become Secretary to the Ministry of Health, was a disciplined public servant, who in spite of his own difficult position never attempted to by-pass me. He regularly consulted me and kept me briefed about all relevant matters. He regularly came to “Isurupaya” to meet me virtually in secret in order to discuss important matters. We both decided, that given the ground situation it was best that I avoided holding meetings at Ward Place.
Here again, I had every right to do so. But that was not the point. As Secretary to the Ministry, my responsibility as I saw it was not to take sides in an unfortunate tussle, but to devise practical ways and means to keep the work of the Ministry going.
Therefore, although the Minister wanted me to have a room at Ward Place and work from there too, I avoided this, even though a room was found for me. The Minister was quite correct in asserting his own rights. Asserting my own, would only have added to an unhappy situation. I therefore only went to Ward Place for meetings called by the Minister at which my presence was required by him.
The Chairman, University Grants Commission was Professor Arjuna Aluvihare. The UGC shared premises with the office of the Minister of Higher Education, or perhaps it was the other way round. Here, geographical and official proximity coincided The Chairman had to work closely with Minister Hameed, although he also had to attend meetings fixed by the Cabinet Minister. Everyone worked with an underlying degree of discomfort if not strain. Sometimes, affairs assumed almost comic proportions. There was a policy move to set up University Colleges, with a view to expanding opportunities for higher education. The concept however, had to be worked on.
A Senior Level Committee consisting of the UGC, academics, the Ministry and the private sector was envisaged to study all connected matters and to make recommendations. Naturally I had to be on that Committee as Secretary to the Ministry. One day Professor Aluvihare telephoned me in some distress and with evident embarrassment told me that Minister Hameed had not wanted me on the committee. He wanted to know what to do, although the whole thing was absurd.
I suggested that under these circumstances, it would be best to proceed in a practical way. I said that I didn’t have to be on the Committee in order to make myself available for any consultations that anyone may wish to have with me, and that it would make sense for him to proceed in the already established manner, which was discussion and consultation with me without formal meetings. The Chairman, UGC apologized and agreed. I said that the immediate challenge I faced was how to keep this away from the Cabinet Minister.
Had Mr. Athulathmudali heard of this he would have insisted that I served on the committee. In the end, this was how we functioned not only on this matter, but on all matters relating to higher education. We had to find ways and means to work effectively without generating conflict. The Vice Chancellors and others telephoned me from time to time, some times during the night, at home in order to discuss various issues. But I held no formal meetings at my level. The Minister of course did so, and these meetings we attended and follow up action taken.
These arrangements worked fairly satisfactorily in the area of University education, but not so well in the sphere of technical education. Here, with the merging of some Ministries and departments, technical education was being run from Additional Secretary Mr. Abeygunawardene’s office at Ward Place. This was an integral part of the Project Minister’s office and I did not therefore have a direct input. What I could see from a distance was that the whole structure was wrong and too bureaucratic to
deliver quality technical education. Information flows, decision making processes, supervising methods, the identification and fixing of accountability, all had to be attended to. I saw it as a major task. But in the prevailing climate, with a Project Minister who was also a Senior Cabinet Minister in the system, there was little that even the Cabinet Minister could do.
This important area therefore suffered from a considerable degree of neglect. It became a victim of the structure of the Ministry. Soon, donor agencies such as the ADB realized the problem. There were officials from these agencies who met me and expressed regret as to what was happening. However, they also had gone around and had a fairly clear notion of the real problem. They too were helpless. I did try a way out of this impasse. When I met the President on one occasion I mentioned to him the importance of technical education and suggested that he Chair a meeting on the subject at least quarterly.
The President did not disagree and in my recollection, much later a meeting was held. But he probably did not have the time to do this on a regular basis. My intention on making the suggestion to the President was to construct a forum where the Cabinet Minister, the Project Minister, the Secretaries and Senior Officials could have met in neutral territory and used the President’s clout to move technical education to a sustainable track. Unfortunately it did not work out.
Growing strains between Mr. Athulathmudali and the President
Meanwhile, the Minister was getting somewhat irritated and frustrated by all this. This was aggravated by deteriorating personal relations with the President. The reasons were several. Some were quite petty. For instance, Mr. Athulathmudali’s official car was relatively old and was breaking down from time to time. Some episodes reported related to times when Mrs. Athulathmudali was travelling in the car. This was naturally very upsetting to the Minister. On one celebrated occasion, the car broke down when the Minister was on his way to Parliament, and an MP passing by had to give him a lift.
The prevailing rule was that the President had to personally clear new cars for Ministers, and although I had spoken several times to a sympathetic Secretary to the Treasury, Mr. Paskaralingam, even he could not obtain a decision. This therefore, consisted a serious irritation on a daily basis. The Minister also felt that his visits abroad were being curtailed. For instance he was not permitted to go and deliver a lecture on an invitation from a prestigious international forum dealing with Agriculture. The logic presumably would have been that he was no longer Minister of Agriculture. But this was a personal invitation in recognition of his stature in this field.
This was not all. Ministers had to declare their assets to the President. This was a time there was litigation between the SLFP Member of Parliament Mr. C.V. Gooneratne and the Minister, during the course of which certain irregularities in the purchase of ships by the Ceylon Shipping Corporation were alleged by Mr. Gooneratne, at the time when the Minister was in charge of the subject of shipping. The Minister mentioned to me that he knew that a copy of his assets declaration was given to Mr. Gooneratne by the President. The point is not whether he in fact did so or not. The point was that the Minister believed that he had done so. Probably he had some inside information.
There were more issues that surfaced as time went on. One day the Minister told me that the President was getting a special team under the direction of his personal security advisor to investigate matters in his former Ministry of Trade and Shipping. “He is trying desperately to find something on me,” he said, adding, “He thinks that he can do this without my knowing!” The fact was that the Minister was at one time also Minister of National Security, in which position he worked closely with the Armed Services and the Police. He therefore, personally knew a large number of officers from the Police and the Services, and many liked him and were personally loyal to him. Obtaining information therefore was not a problem for Mr. Athulathmudali.
(Excerpted from In Pursuit of Governance, the autobiography of MDD Pieris) ✍️
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
