Features
Sri Lankans can learn from Mandela’s visionary thinking
Excerpts of the Nelson Mandela
memorial lecture delivered by
Premakumara de Silva,
Chair Professor of Sociology, University
of Colombo
on 18 July 2023 at the Tharangani Hall, Sri Lanka Film Co-operation, Colombo. The lecture was organised by The Ministry of Higher Education and High Commission of South Africa, in Colombo.
As we all know, Mr. Nelson Mandela was an antiapartheid activist, politician and philanthropist who became South Africa’s first black President from 1994-1999. He was born in Cape Province, South Africa, on 18th July 1918, day like this. He died at age of 95 on 5th December 2013 in Johannesburg. Nelson Mandela was an extraordinary leader, who fought for the citizen’s rights and was the main influence in removing apartheid, which was practiced as the law of the land in South Africa since 1948. This law not only created a social gap between the Whites and the Blacks in the country but also fuelled the discrimination against the black population.
The policies during his leadership (1994-1999) were mainly aimed at improving the economy while reducing the social inequalities. One such policy is the Reconstruction and Development Programme (RPD). The purpose of this RPD is to overcome the social and economic problems faced by South Africans, such as violence, lack of jobs, of housing, equal access to adequate education, and healthcare. At the time of Apartheid, there was a division of cities where White people were placed in developing cities while Black people were placed in cities that were marginalized and neglected, even their housing was in the form of huts. So South Africa was a structurally unequal society where Black people were visibly marginalized and discriminated on the basis of colour of their skin.
Nelson Mandela joined the African National Congress (ANC), in 1942, the organization that was aiming for the independence of the South African people from apartheid and bringing equal rights for all groups. Mandela was one of the important figures in this movement and played a major role. He has directed peaceful campaigns, challenging violence against the government of South Africa and its racial policies for over 20 years. Nelson Mandela presented several important strategies related to his struggle against apartheid through the ANC under pressure from the South African government at the time. He launched the M-Plan (Plan Mandela). He was also a member of the People’s Charter for Congress and Freedom. The Pan African Congress, PAC, was formed under Robert Sobukwe’s leadership in 1959. The ANC and PAC responded by setting up a military wing in 1961. Nelson Mandela was instrumental in creating the ANC group in what was a radical departure from the ANC policy.
On 30th July 1952, under the Law on the Eradication of Communism, Mandela was arrested and tried in Johannesburg as part of 21 defendants. Convicted of violating this law, their forced labour sentence of nine months was extended to two years. Mandela was banned for a period of six months in December from attending meetings or talking to more than one person. On July 11, 1963, he was arrested again with other leaders. In the trial, Nelson Mandela was charged with more than 200 charges of “sabotage, preparing for guerrilla warfare in SA, and preparing for SA’s armed invasion.” Mandela was one of five (out of 10 defendants) to be sentenced to a life sentence and was sent to Robben Island.
Strong protests against Mandela’s arrest were increasingly voiced to the government through the ANC’s continuing movements. The world also supported the liberation movement of Mandela, including the UN. The UN obviously set out to fight Apartheid on 1 January 1976. Resolution 554 (UN 2014) was also issued on 17 August 1984. At that time, various violent protests were directed at the government of South Africa. Nelson Mandela’s 70th Birthday Tribute at Wembley Stadium was made on June 11, 1988. The concert, broadcast to 67 countries with over 600 million audiences, was one of the protests against Nelson Mandela’s imprisonment by the South African government.
Nelson Mandela was finally released from Victor Verster Prison on 11th February 1990. ANC and Nelson Mandela’s struggle was not in vain. South Africa finally succeeded in holding a democratic presidential election on October 3rd, 1994, without any racial differentiation of rights. Nelson Mandela’s inauguration as the first black President of the country on May 10th, 1994, at the age of 77, with Willem de Klerk being the first Deputy, was one of the ANC’s goals in carrying out resistance to Apartheid politics. Mandela worked to bring the transition from minority rule and most Black Apartheid rules, from 1994 to June 1999.
During the Mandela era, ANC’s strength was its ability to portray itself as a more racially inclusive alternative to South Africa’s racially segregated colonial and Apartheid ruling parties. Mandela did not respond to narrow African nationalism. His outlook for African nationalism was far more inclusive than those of many leaders in today’s Africa.
South African National Reconciliation
Let me say something about his national reconciliation project. As Sri Lankans we certainly can learn a lesson from his visionary thinking. On many occasions after being elected President, Mandela made more speeches about the beginning of the struggle to make improvements in various fields of life in South Africa based on democracy and respect for equal rights between Whites and Blacks, and other racial groups in South Africa. New challenges for South Africa can be described as “Crafting representative social institutions of deep-seated ethnic rivalries and economic inequalities.” Establishment of institutions representing various parties and obtaining public trust in societies divided by economic, ethnic and social rivalries that ran very deep was a very heavy homework for transitional government. It shows how complex the problems faced by the new South African regime. Mandela’s main concern after being elected President was to create a new pattern of relations that was more harmonious among various different races and ethnicities in South Africa. In the transition period 1990-1994, Mandela and de Klerk played an important role in preventing the occurrence of wider conflicts and violence. It was described that Mandela and de Klerk shared the same essential character of leadership, namely the willingness to change South African political legitimacy based on Proportional Representation, one thing that had never existed in previous South African political history. De Klerk and Mandela began the process of negotiation and power sharing which made the process of political transition in South Africa peaceful and a model that should be learned by other countries particularly by a country like ours.
Efforts to create a more harmonious and conducive relationship for the development of South Africa in the future began with reconciliation of various cases of State violence that occurred during South Africa still shackled in Apartheid politics. The term “reconciliation” itself became very popular in discussing conflict studies precisely because of what various parties and actors in South Africa had tried. The South African phenomenon seems to be a kind of textbook for the development of the concept of post conflict reconciliation because it is considered successful in developing methods to build more stable relationships between previously conflicting actors, more durable peace and strong legitimacy for post-conflict policies. But efforts to see the phenomenon of reconciliation in South Africa are not based solely on optimistic voices.
Concerns also emerged regarding efforts to eliminate Apartheid in South Africa. Apartheid as a systematic state policy based on the differentiation of treatment of the State based on race or skin colour may be easier to erase or replace, but as an ideology that has been practiced for years and based on patterns of racial relations that have been built for centuries, it was not an easy task. Apartheid is a complex problem. So those who tend to be pessimistic are not arguing about the problem of the possibility of the elimination of Apartheid but more of the continuous processes needed to carry out the overall elimination of the existence of Apartheid at the State level as a policy, or at the social level as values that shape individual behaviour in context of social interaction.
The initial stage of the South African reconciliation process began with the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). This institution was formed after Mandela received and listened to proposals from various groups, especially civil society organizations in South Africa. Through the public selection process, commissioners were chosen to lead the institution. The commission was led by the South African archbishop, Rev. Desmond Tutu, a respected black Christian figure. TRC is based on several thoughts as follows:
A non-Racial Ideology of Reconciliation:
The view that South African reconciliation was based on efforts to abolish the racial identity created by Apartheid
An Inter-communal Ideology of Reconciliation:
Reconciliation is seen as an attempt to bridge community groups divided by Apartheid by creating a shared understanding of democratic values on both sides of the community or society.
A Religious and Human Rights Ideology of Reconciliation
: Reconciliation is a strengthening of religious and humanitarian values to apologize and use Apartheid’s past as an important lesson so that it does not happen again in the future.
These ideal rationale shows that the important orientation of the reconciliation effort to be carried out by TRC is emphasized on creating harmony for the lives of the people of South Africa to build in the future, not only focusing on the issue of disclosing violence and achieving justice for victims. The view of justice in the context of reconciliation will threaten the perpetrators of violence in the past in the present context. The view that they are guilty parties, solely, will actually hinder the participation of perpetrators of violence in the process of reconciliation, to those who are disadvantaged (Blacks) but also relates to those who benefit from the Apartheid system. This goal is far broader than just dealing with the problems of violence that occur, but also related to efforts to form new foundations for the people of South Africa.
Let me wind up my brief intervention here by saying something that relates to our country. Nelson Mandela is no more, but his legacy would hopefully inspire people, particularly the young, for some generations to come all over the world, including Sri Lanka. His book “A Long March to Freedom” must be a text book for every Sri Lankan. The story of his life, his determination to struggle for justice, his vision for a reconciled society or nation, and, most importantly, his exceptional human quality to see the others to be worthy of forgiveness are crucially important historical lessons for all communities in Sri Lanka in achieving a better future for their apprehension.
In a sense, South Africa’s conflict was much more complicated than Sri Lanka’s one. It was mainly a racial conflict between the indigenous ‘Blacks’ and the migrant ‘Whites,’ underpinned by vast economic and class differences. Racial prejudices are naturally much deeper and difficult to reconcile, although equally superficial. There are no racial differences between the Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslims. They all come, more or less, from the same ‘racial’ stock, if you want to claim so. The economic differences are much less, except in the case of the plantation Tamils.
This is not to undermine the feelings of discrimination by minorities in Sri Lanka often equated to ‘Apartheid,’ but to get a correct comparative picture of the two situations. Perhaps Sri Lanka is much more complicated at least in one major aspect with majority sanctions for discrimination, naturally difficult to unravel. Mandela said “people are undoubtedly at fault, but the systems are more at fault than the people. We all are victims of systems.” He appreciated Willem de Klerk’s goodwill, and if not for that goodwill or pragmatism he wouldn’t have been able to achieve what he expected. Mandela realized that freedom in South Africa could have been long delayed perhaps even after his death. Mandela had a deep sense of justice not as ‘revenge’ but as ‘correcting the wrong’ and ‘empowering the victims’ through truth and appropriate compensation.
The South African transition or reconciliation was primarily an internal process and as a result it was healthy and sustainable. This is the primary lesson that Sri Lanka should learn. It was a learning process to the people to do away with prejudices, animosity and hatred. There are five summary lessons that perhaps Sri Lanka should try to emulate.
After a transition, and in this case, the end of the war in Sri Lanka, reconciliation should take priority. Economy is undoubtedly a supportive factor for reconciliation but not a primary mover.
Reconciliation is foremost a political matter for the leaders to resolve and for the people to support. It is best that the leaders of all sides should take the lead without waiting for another disaster of the kind. The primary responsibility, however, being on the part of the leaders of the majority community, as Nelson Mandela himself embodied.
Talk directly, as Nelson Mandela did with Willem de Klerk without neglecting all the stakeholders or their leaders. Justice is primary. Justice, however, does not mean revenge, but correcting the wrongs and empowering all the victims through truth and appropriate compensation.
Never resort to violence or intimidation, never again. This is the primary lesson of Mr. Nelson Mandela.
Six months into the term of office of the new government, the main positive achievements continue to remain economic and political stability and the reduction of waste and corruption. The absence of these in the past contributed to a significant degree to the lack of development of the country. The fact that the government is making a serious bid to ensure them is the best prognosis for a better future for the country. There is still a distance to go. The promised improvements that would directly benefit those who are at the bottom of the economic pyramid, and the quarter of the population who live below the poverty line, have yet to materialise. Prices of essential goods have not come down and some have seen sharp increases such as rice and coconuts. There are no mega projects in the pipeline that would give people the hope that rapid development is around the corner.
There were times in the past when governments succeeded in giving the people big hopes for the future as soon as they came to power. Perhaps the biggest hope came with the government’s move towards the liberalisation of the economy that took place after the election of 1977. President J R Jayewardene and his team succeeded in raising generous international assistance, most of it coming in the form of grants, that helped to accelerate the envisaged 30 year Mahaweli Development project to just six years. In 1992 President Ranasinghe Premadasa thought on a macro scale when his government established 200 garment factories throughout the country to develop the rural economy and to help alleviate poverty. These large scale projects brought immediate hope to the lives of people.
More recently the Hambantota Port project, Mattala Airport and the Colombo Port City project promised mega development that excited the popular imagination at the time they commenced, though neither of them has lived up to their envisaged potential. These projects were driven by political interests and commission agents rather than economic viability leading to debt burden and underutilisation. The NPP government would need to be cautious about bringing in similar mega projects that could offer the people the hope of rapid economic growth. During his visits to India and China, President Anura Kumara Dissanayake signed a large number of agreements with the governments of those countries but the results remain unclear. The USD 1 billion Adani project to generate wind power with Indian collaboration appears to be stalled. The USD 3.7 billion Chinese proposal to build an oil refinery also appears to be stalled.
RENEWED GROWTH
The absence of high profile investments or projects to generate income and thereby take the country to a higher level of development is a lacuna in the development plans of the government. It has opened the door to invidious comparisons to be drawn between the new government’s ability to effect change and develop the economy in relation to those in the opposition political parties who have traditionally been in the seats of power. However, recently published statistics of the economic growth during the past year indicates that the economy is doing better than anticipated under the NPP government. Sri Lanka’s economy grew by 5 percent in the year 2024, reversing two years of contraction with the growth rate for the year of 2023 being estimated at negative 2.3 percent. What was particularly creditable was the growth rate for the fourth quarter of 2024 (after the new government took over) being 5.4 percent. The growth figures for the present quarter are also likely to see a continuation of the present trend.
Sri Lanka’s failure in the past has been to sustain its economic growth rates. Even though the country started with high growth rates under different governments, it soon ran into problems of waste and corruption that eroded those gains. During the initial period of President J R Jayawardene’s government in the late 1970s, the economy registered near 8 percent growth with the support of its mega projects, but this could not be sustained. Violent conflict, waste and corruption came to the centre stage which led to the economy getting undermined. With more and more money being spent on the security forces to battle those who had become insurgents against the state, and with waste and corruption skyrocketing there was not much left over for economic development.
The government’s commitment to cut down on waste and corruption so that resources can be saved and added to enable economic growth can be seen in the strict discipline it has been following where expenditures on its members are concerned. The government has restricted the cabinet to 25 ministers, when in the past the figure was often double. The government has also made provision to reduce the perks of office, including medical insurance to parliamentarians. The value of this latter measure is that the parliamentarians will now have an incentive to upgrade the health system that serves the general public, instead of running it down as previous governments did. With their reduced levels of insurance coverage they will need to utilise the public health facilities rather than go to the private ones.
COMMITTED GOVERNMENT
The most positive feature of the present time is that the government is making a serious effort to root out corruption. This is to be seen in the invigoration of previously dormant institutions of accountability, such as the Bribery and Corruption Commission, and the willingness of the Attorney General’s Department to pursue those who were previously regarded as being beyond the reach of the law due to their connections to those in the seats of power. The fact that the Inspector General of Police, who heads the police force, is behind bars on a judicial order is an indication that the rule of law is beginning to be taken seriously. By cost cutting, eliminating corruption and abiding by the rule of law the government is removing the obstacles to development. In the past, the mega development projects failed to deliver their full benefits because they got lost in corrupt and wasteful practices including violent conflict.
There is a need, however, for new and innovative development projects that require knowledge and expertise that is not necessarily within the government. So far it appears that the government is restricting its selection of key decision makers to those it knows, has worked with and trusts due to long association. Two of the committees that the government has recently appointed, the Clean Lanka task force and the Tourism advisory committee are composed of nearly all men from the majority community. If Sri Lanka is to leverage its full potential, the government must embrace a more inclusive approach that incorporates women and diverse perspectives from across the country’s multiethnic and multireligious population, including representation from the north and east. For development that includes all, and is accepted by all, it needs to tap into the larger resources that lie outside itself.
By ensuring that women and ethnic minorities have representation in decision making bodies of the government, the government can harness a broader range of skills, experiences, and perspectives, ultimately leading to more effective and sustainable development policies. Sustainable development is not merely about economic growth; it is about inclusivity and partnership. A government that prioritises diversity in its leadership will be better equipped to address the challenges that can arise unexpectedly. By widening its advisory base and integrating a broader array of voices, the government can create policies that are not only effective but also equitable. Through inclusive governance, responsible economic management, and innovative development strategies the government will surely lead the country towards a future that benefits all its people.
by Jehan Perera
Former Minister Ali Sabry’s recent op-ed, “Why Sri Lanka must continue to pursue a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy,” published in the Daily FT on 3 March, offers a timely reflection on Sri Lanka’s foreign policy trajectory in an increasingly multipolar world. Sabry’s articulation of a “non-aligned yet multi-aligned” approach is commendable for its attempt to reconcile Sri Lanka’s historical commitment to non-alignment with the realities of contemporary geopolitics. However, his framework raises critical questions about the principles of non-alignment, the nuances of multi-alignment, and Sri Lanka’s role in a world shaped by great power competition. This response seeks to engage with Sabry’s arguments, critique certain assumptions, and propose a more robust vision for Sri Lanka’s foreign policy.
Sabry outlines five key pillars of a non-aligned yet multi-aligned foreign policy:
- No military alignments, no foreign bases: Sri Lanka should avoid entangling itself in military alliances or hosting foreign military bases.
- Economic engagement with all, dependency on none
: Sri Lanka should diversify its economic partnerships to avoid over-reliance on any single country.
* Diplomatic balancing
: Sri Lanka should engage with multiple powers, leveraging relationships with China, India, the US, Europe, Japan, and ASEAN for specific benefits.
- Leveraging multilateralism
: Sri Lanka should participate actively in regional and global organisations, such as UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC.
- Resisting coercion and protecting sovereignty
: Sri Lanka must resist external pressures and assert its sovereign right to pursue an independent foreign policy.
While pillars 1, 2, and 5 align with the traditional principles of non-alignment, pillars 3 and 4 warrant closer scrutiny. Sabry’s emphasis on “diplomatic balancing” and “leveraging multilateralism” raises questions about the consistency of his approach with the spirit of non-alignment and whether it adequately addresses the challenges of a multipolar world.
Dangers of over-compartmentalisation
Sabry’s suggestion that Sri Lanka should engage with China for infrastructure, India for regional security and trade, the US and Europe for technology and education, and Japan and ASEAN for economic opportunities reflects a pragmatic approach to foreign policy. However, this compartmentalisation of partnerships risks reducing Sri Lanka’s foreign policy to a transactional exercise, undermining the principles of non-alignment.
Sabry’s framework, curiously, excludes China from areas like technology, education, and regional security, despite China’s growing capabilities in these domains. For instance, China is a global leader in renewable energy, artificial intelligence, and 5G technology, making it a natural partner for Sri Lanka’s technological advancement. Similarly, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) offers significant opportunities for economic development and regional connectivity. By limiting China’s role to infrastructure, Sabry’s approach risks underutilising a key strategic partner.
Moreover, Sabry’s emphasis on India for regional security overlooks the broader geopolitical context. While India is undoubtedly a critical partner for Sri Lanka, regional security cannot be addressed in isolation from China’s role in South Asia. The Chinese autonomous region of Xizang (Tibet) is indeed part of South Asia, and China’s presence in the region is a reality that Sri Lanka must navigate. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would seek to balance relationships with both India and China, rather than assigning fixed roles to each.
Sabry’s compartmentalisation of partnerships risks creating silos in Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, limiting its flexibility and strategic depth. For instance, by relying solely on the US and Europe for technology and education, Sri Lanka may miss out on opportunities for South-South cooperation with members of BRICS.
Similarly, by excluding China from regional security discussions, Sri Lanka may inadvertently align itself with India’s strategic interests, undermining its commitment to non-alignment.
Limited multilateralism?
Sabry’s call for Sri Lanka to remain active in organisations like the UN, NAM, SAARC, and BIMSTEC is laudable. However, his omission of the BRI, BRICS, and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) is striking. These platforms represent emerging alternatives to the Western-dominated global order and offer Sri Lanka opportunities to diversify its partnerships and enhance its strategic autonomy.
The BRI is one of the most ambitious infrastructure and economic development projects in history, involving over 140 countries. For Sri Lanka, the BRI offers opportunities for infrastructure development, trade connectivity, and economic growth. By participating in the BRI, Sri Lanka can induce Chinese investment to address its infrastructure deficit and integrate into global supply chains. Excluding the BRI from Sri Lanka’s foreign policy framework would be a missed opportunity.
BRICS and the SCO represent platforms for South-South cooperation and multipolarity. BRICS, in particular, has emerged as a counterweight to such Western-dominated institutions as the IMF and World Bank, advocating for a more equitable global economic order. The SCO, on the other hand, focuses on regional security and counterterrorism, offering Sri Lanka a platform to address its security concerns in collaboration with major powers like China, Russia, and India. By engaging with these organisations, Sri Lanka can strengthen its commitment to multipolarity and enhance its strategic autonomy.
Non-alignment is not neutrality
Sabry’s assertion that Sri Lanka must avoid taking sides in major power conflicts reflects a misunderstanding of non-alignment. Non-alignment is not about neutrality; it is about taking a principled stand on issues of global importance. During the Cold War, non-aligned countries, like Sri Lanka, opposed colonialism, apartheid, and imperialism, even as they avoided alignment with either the US or the Soviet Union.
Sri Lanka’s foreign policy, under leaders like S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike and Sirimavo Bandaranaike, was characterised by a commitment to anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism, opposing racial segregation and discrimination in both its Apartheid and Zionist forms. Sri Lanka, the first Asian country to recognise revolutionary Cuba, recognised the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and the Provisional Revolutionary Government of South Vietnam, supported liberation struggles in Africa, and opposed the US military base in Diego Garcia. These actions were not neutral; they were rooted in a principled commitment to justice and equality.
Today, Sri Lanka faces new challenges, including great power competition, economic coercion, and climate change. A truly non-aligned foreign policy would require Sri Lanka to take a stand on issues like the genocide in Gaza, the colonisation of the West Bank, the continued denial of the right to return of ethnically-cleansed Palestinians and Chagossians, the militarisation of the Indo-Pacific, the use of economic sanctions as a tool of coercion, and the need for climate justice. By avoiding these issues, Sri Lanka risks becoming the imperialist powers’ cringing, whingeing client state.
The path forward
Sabry’s use of the term “multi-alignment” reflects a growing trend in Indian foreign policy, particularly under the BJP Government. However, multi-alignment is not the same as multipolarity. Multi-alignment implies a transactional approach to foreign policy, where a country seeks to extract maximum benefits from multiple partners without a coherent strategic vision. Multipolarity, on the other hand, envisions a world order where power is distributed among multiple centres, reducing the dominance of any single power.
Sri Lanka should advocate for a multipolar world order that reflects the diversity of the global South. This would involve strengthening platforms like BRICS, the SCO, and the NAM, while also engaging with Western institutions like the UN and the WTO. By promoting multipolarity, Sri Lanka can contribute to a more equitable and just global order, in line with the principles of non-alignment.
Ali Sabry’s call for a non-aligned, yet multi-aligned foreign policy falls short of articulating a coherent vision for Sri Lanka’s role in a multipolar world. To truly uphold the principles of non-alignment, Sri Lanka must:
* Reject compartmentalisation
: Engage with all partners across all domains, including technology, education, and regional security.
* Embrace emerging platforms
: Participate in the BRI, BRICS, and SCO to diversify partnerships and enhance strategic autonomy.
* Take principled stands
: Advocate for justice, equality, and multipolarity in global affairs.
* Promote South-South cooperation
: Strengthen ties with other Global South countries to address shared challenges, like climate change and economic inequality.
By adopting this approach, Sri Lanka can reclaim its historical legacy as a leader of the non-aligned movement and chart a course toward a sovereign, secure, and successful future.
(Vinod Moonesinghe read mechanical engineering at the University of Westminster, and worked in Sri Lanka in the tea machinery and motor spares industries, as well as the railways. He later turned to journalism and writing history. He served as chair of the Board of Governors of the Ceylon German Technical Training Institute. He is a convenor of the Asia Progress Forum, which can be contacted at asiaprogressforum@gmail.com.)
by Vinod Moonesinghe
Cancellation of shows has turned out to be a regular happening where former Backstreet Boys Nick Carter is concerned. In the past, it has happened several times.
If Nick Carter is not 100 percent fit, he should not undertake these strenuous world tours, ultimately disappointing his fans.
It’s not a healthy scene to be cancelling shows on a regular basis.
In May 2024, a few days before his scheduled visit to the Philippines, Carter cancelled his two shows due to “unforeseen circumstances.”
The promoter concerned announced the development and apologised to fans who bought tickets to Carter’s shows in Cebu, on May 23, and in Manila, on May 24.
The dates were supposed to be part of the Asian leg of his ‘Who I Am’ 2024 tour.
Carter previously cancelled a series of solo concerts in Asia, including Jakarta, Mumbai, Singapore, and Taipei. And this is what the organisers had to say:
“Due to unexpected matters related to Nick Carter’s schedule, we regret to announce that Nick’s show in Asia, including Jakarta on May 26 (2024), has been cancelled.
His ‘Who I Am’ Japan tour 2024 was also cancelled, with the following announcement:
Explaining, on video, about the
cancelled ‘Who I Am’ shows
“We regret to announce that the NICK CARTER Japan Tour, planned for June 4th at Toyosu PIT (Tokyo) and June 6th at Namba Hatch (Osaka), will no longer be proceeding due to ‘unforeseen circumstances.’ We apologise for any disappointment.
Believe me, I had a strange feeling that his Colombo show would not materialise and I did mention, in a subtle way, in my article about Nick Carter’s Colombo concert, in ‘StarTrack’ of 14th January, 2025 … my only worry (at that point in time) is the HMPV virus which is reported to be spreading in China and has cropped up in Malaysia, and India, as well.
Although no HMPV virus has cropped up, Carter has cancelled his scheduled performance in Sri Lanka, and in a number of other countries, as well, to return home, quoting, once again, “unforeseen circumstances.”
“Unforeseen circumstances” seems to be his tagline!
There is talk that low ticket sales is the reason for some of his concerts to be cancelled.
Yes, elaborate arrangements were put in place for Nick Carter’s trip to Sri Lanka – Meet & Greet, Q&A, selfies, etc., but all at a price!
Wonder if there will be the same excitement and enthusiasm if Nick Carter decides to come up with new dates for what has been cancelled?
Showers or thundershowers will occur at several places in Western, Sabaragamuwa, Southern and Northwestern provinces after 2.00 p.m.
One in three SL adolescents not attending school: Report
RW blames NPP govt. for failing to secure Adani investments
-
Business4 days agoCargoserv Shipping partners Prima Ceylon & onboards Nestlé Lanka for landmark rail logistics initiative
-
Features2 days agoThe US, Israel, Palestine, and Mahmoud Khalil
-
News2 days agoScholarships for children of estate workers now open
-
News2 days agoSeniors welcome three percent increase in deposit rates
-
Business4 days agoSri Lankans Vote Dialog as the Telecommunication Brand and Service Brand of the Year
-
News3 days agoDefence Ministry of Japan Delegation visits Pathfinder Foundation
-
Features4 days agoThe Vaping Veil: Unmasking the dangers of E-Cigarettes
-
News2 days agoJapanese Defence Delegation visits Pathfinder