Features
The Murder of a Journalist
By Anura Gunasekera
Commencing with Premakeerthi de Alwis in 1986 and concluding with Lasantha Wickrematunge in 2009, 40 accredited Sri Lankan journalists and media personnel, 31 of them of Tamil, have been murdered or died violently. Of these, 31 occurred between April 2004 and March 2009, during the Mahinda Rajapaksa tenure, initially as Prime Minister and then as President. His younger brother Gotabaya, later president himself, was the Defence Secretary of the country from 2005 to 2015.
During the above period, apart from those killed, many were abducted, assaulted and /or tortured, and intimidated in various other ways. A few left the country in fear of their lives. Most, if not all of those journalists, unsurprisingly, had been vocal critics of the government. With the defeat of the Rajapakse government in 2015, all harassment of journalists ceased, abruptly.
Of the above killings, those of Lasantha Wickrematunge (LW) and that of Richard de Zoysa in 1990, as well as the disappearance of Prageeth Ekneligoda in 2010 are, for a variety of reasons, not least the international outrage and condemnation, considered the most prominent. The most disturbing commonality across all these crimes is that none have been comprehensively investigated and the perpetrators punished.
In fact, despite pointers regarding the identity of the masterminds- circumstantial but compelling – and the very public nature of most of the actual incidents themselves, investigations have been either obstructed or stifled, through intimidation of potential witnesses, misleading autopsies, the enthusiastic pursuit of patently false lines of investigation, deliberately disingenuous official statements and, not infrequently, the suppression or disappearance of physical evidence.
The murder of Richard de Zoysa is again in the limelight on account of the recent film, “Rani”, although any hope of the crime being solved is almost zero. The murder of LW has been publicly profiled in the last few weeks, due to the order for the discharge, by the Attorney General (AG), of three suspects linked to events consequent to the murder, on the grounds of insufficient evidence.
Since the murder of LW, four successive governments have assured the country and the international community, that the case would be comprehensively investigated and those responsible punished. The slain Lasantha Wickrematunge had become an international metaphor for delayed justice. The present NPP government, led by president Anura Kumara Dissanayake, made the investigation of previously unsolved crimes, including that of Lasantha’s murder, and the cleansing of corrupt government systems, a cornerstone of its election manifesto. The sweeping victory of the NPP at the recent general elections was largely due to the faith that the electors placed in those promises.
Why is the case of Lasantha Wickrematunge so important?
Investigative Journalists play a vital role in maintaining a free and open society, by providing the public with critical information, holding power to account and exposing corruption and injustice. In that context, LW played a major role through his paper, “The Sunday Leader” which, week after week, exposed the massive corruption within the Rajapaksa regime, citing specific transactions and quite often linking acts of malfeasance to then President Mahinda Rajapaksa, his brother and Defence Secretary Gotabaya, or to close associates of the Rajapaksa family and the regime.
LW’s silence was worth more to the Rajapaksa family in particular, than to anybody else in the country. In fact, LW’s murder was apparently preceded by an unsuccessful attempt, in 2007, by Mahinda Rajapaksa himself, to broker the sale of the paper to an investor of his choice, the offer being made to Lal, LW’s brother (Page 234- Unbowed and Unafraid- Raine Wickrematunge). The only possible reason for a president of a country to personally seek the divestment of ownership of an outspoken newspaper, is control of its narrative content and direction.
Two years later Lasantha’s assassination paved the way for the exercise of this option.
In Sept 2012, businessman and alleged Rajapakse associate, Asanga Seneviratne, many of whose property development and investment deals had been criticized at various times by the “Leader”, bought a 72% stake in the “Leader” and its sister newspaper, “Iruresa”. In the same month Frederica Jansz, then editor of the “Leader” and long-time colleague of LW, was summarily dismissed from her position. In May 2015 the “Leader”, now under a decidedly Rajapaksa-friendly dispensation, tendered an unconditional apology to Gotabaya Rajapksa for a series of articles it had run, during LW’s tenure as editor, on the indisputably questionable method of purchase of MiG-27 aircraft from Ukraine, for the Sri Lanka Air Force. Udayanga Weeratunga, relative of the Rajapaksa family, as then Sri Lanka’s ambassador to Ukraine, allegedly played a major role in facilitating the said transaction. According to Ahimsa, LW’s daughter, LW was on the verge of exposing the highly complex and sordid details of the deal in entirety, when he was murdered (The MiG deal; Why My Father Had To Die- Groundviews-01/08/21).
The above is just one of the hundreds of expose’s featured by LW and he very rarely got it wrong. Very few other journalists in recent decades – the late Victor Ivan was one other- so courageously and in such minute detail, addressed the sins of those in power as LW did. They were issues that many journalists avoided, a self-regulation on truthful journalism brought about as a conditioned survival mechanism, in response to the brutal repression of those who dared to write the truth about power.
LW’s last writing- “Then They Came For Me”– published posthumously and now a classic of Asian journalism, was a chillingly prophetic prediction of his own death, pointing an accusatory finger at his erstwhile friend, then president Mahinda Rajapaksa.
The death of any human being diminishes society but the death of a fearless journalist, who holds a mirror to the foibles of society and power, diminishes our world in a special way; especially a world such as ours where leaders, irrespective of political colour, have proved to be treacherous, unreliable, corrupt, mercenary and nepotistic.
On the 27th of January, Parinda Ranasinghe Jr, Attorney General (AG) of Sri Lanka, ordered the release – citing lack of evidence to proceed with indictments – of Ananda Udalagama, implicated in the abduction in August 2009 of Karunaratne Dias, LW’s driver, and DIG Prasanna Nanayakkara and Sub-inspector Sugathapala, both implicated in the disappearance of a notebook recovered from LW’s vehicle after his murder. Consequent to immediate and widespread criticism and physical demonstrations against this order, it has since been rescinded.
In this episode the primary, indisputable principle, is that it is entirely at the AG’s discretion, to decide whether or not to charge a suspect, taking in to account the validity of admissible evidence available, and the prospect of securing a conviction. The political body has no right suggest a review of such a decision, or to compel the AG to consider such a review, irrespective of the importance of the case. At the same time it is also assumed that the AG and his department will carry out their duties impartially, irrespective of past loyalties – if any – and current personal prejudices, especially in relation to sensational cases involving those previously and currently in power.
Assuming that the release order was issued after a comprehensive analysis of the available evidence, the subsequent reversal is baffling, to say the least. Is it that the AG, or the legal officers responsible, consequent to a re-assessment of available material, suddenly realized that they had a made a serious error of judgment? Or did the AG’s department cave in to political and public pressure and decide to change its decision?
If the AG had braved both public and political displeasure and held fast to the original decision, it would have been perfectly acceptable and even commendable. However, it is now being reported in responsible mainstream newspapers, that the rescinding of the original decision is a response to a request by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), to give it more time to act on the AG’s order, on account of the controversy surrounding the issue. The official version now appears to be that what is now in place is a suspension of the original decision, and not a reversal.
In the meantime, Ahimsa, through her publicized letter of February 14 to Anura Meddegoda, President of the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, has censured him for his hypocritical support of the AG and his position in this episode. She has supported her position by reference to Meddegoda’s protest against a similar order by the AG, under very similar circumstances, when it involved the murder of one Indika Prasad, allegedly by members of the Special Task Force. The interests of the victim’s wife were represented by Meddegoda.
Ahimsa has condemned the AG’s position in this matter, in the said letter citing seemingly convincing evidence available against the three suspects named earlier. She has even called for the impeachment of the AG, on the grounds that in ordering the discharge of the suspects, he has deliberately chosen to ignore vital evidence.
For an ordinary citizen such as the writer, with only a minimal understanding of criminal law, an analysis of the legal validity of the AG’s management of the case in question is not possible. But, still, to the writer and to several million other citizens who helped to bring the NPP in to power, the delivery of justice in matters of public corruption, politically motivated murders and similar crimes, are issues of supreme importance.
Fearless journalists such as Lasantha Wickrematunge paid with their lives for their reportage and public exposure of the crimes of the politically powerful. The justice for such crimes is owed, not only to the family members of the slain, but to the nation itself. It ceased to be a private, Wickrematunge family project a long time ago.
President AKD has steadfastly maintained that his regime will not interfere with ongoing legal processes, unlike previous regimes which seemed to often guide the hand of the law, in cases which featured those in power, unfavourably. However, what may be prudent and necessary, if justice is to be finally done, is intervention and course correction at critical stages, to ensure that public officers entrusted with relevant responsibilities do not lose sight of both the principle and the objective.
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
