Connect with us

Features

Unjustified hype on coming COVID-19 vaccines

Published

on

by Dr B. J. C. Perera

Specialist Consultant Paediatrician

Many portals of information of various types of media are agog, enthusiastic and terribly excited with the so-called ‘fantastic news’ of the possibility of the arrival of a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19. This little blight of a virus has been responsible for causing a pandemic that has spread through the entire world like an uncontrollable wildfire, practically causing chaos, disorder and bringing untold misery to virtually every nation on our planet. The Homo sapiens have been eagerly waiting and even praying, for something, be it a medicine or a vaccine, which can be used to tame this microorganism. They, the public, are practically wailing for a respite. There is intense expectation that a vaccine, against this bug would be the panacea for all ills of this nasty disease. There are reports of vaccines in the pipeline that are thought to produce intense protection against the disease. If that is the case, it would indeed be like ‘Manna from Heaven’ for suffering humanity.

There is intense expectation among the general public of the entire world and most definitely in the people of this emerald isle as well, that an effective vaccine against COVID-19 is just round the corner and would be available even within one or two months from now. Yet for all that, it is time, and time well spent at that, to somewhat critically examine the realities of the publicity and hype that has been catalysed by these reports. The general populace is of course totally justified in their expectations following these promulgations from a variety of sources. However, is it really the truth and nothing but the truth? Or is it somewhat far from the real and genuine truth?

Many claims have been made, at least by two of the purported manufacturers of vaccines that their trial vaccines are kind of around 95 per cent effective. These claims seem to be based on provisional and interim results of all phases of animal and human 

clinical trials, announced grandiosely in the public domain, even before proper completion of Phase 3 Clinical Trials. It is pertinent to remind people that Phase 3 Clinical Trials by sheer definition, should involve tens of thousands of human volunteers. By virtue of the lack of completeness of Phase 3 Clinical Trials, none of these claims have been substantiated through publication in reputed Scientific Journals. That really means that there has not been any intense and rigorous scientific scrutiny and peer-review of the results that have been claimed. What we have today are outwardly impressive and dazzlingly attractive statements made by the manufacturers of these vaccines, whose claims have not been

 validated and accepted by a discerning scientific community.

So far, no vaccin e against COVID-19 has been registered under any internationally recognized regulatory authority, or for that matter, even the World Health Organisation (WHO). True enough, the WHO has been examining the feasibility of securing an effective vaccine, its provision to the entire world and the tremendously complicated logistics of its distribution. However, that is really in anticipation of the arrival of a scientifically effective and safe vaccine. It is of course a very wise course of action to follow. If and when such a vaccine arrives, we should not be caught napping.

At least one manufacturer of a vaccine, that has claimed around 95 per cent effectiveness, has suggested that their vaccine would be available for the general public by the first half of 2021, which is just next year and perhaps just a few months from now on. Even then, are we likely to get it in Sri Lanka? Even if we manage to get it, is it for everybody in the country?

It is on record that millions and even billions of doses of the vaccine have already been contracted for and even paid for by some of the countries of the developed Western world. It will probably become a despicable tragedy of vaccine nationalism. ‘I’ and ‘We’ before all others seem to be the buzz phrase. The administration of one notorious leader from a very affluent Western country has compared the global allocation of vaccines against COVID-19 to oxygen masks dropping inside a depressurizing aircraft. They have so pontificated; “You put on your own first, and then we want to help others as quickly as possible”. Incidentally, Sri Lanka has no such contracts with the manufacturers of these vaccines. As these vaccines have not completed safety studies and as no recognized regulatory body has registered them, Sri Lanka is not in a position to make upfront payment and reservations for them either, even if we can garner the money in the face of an economic downfall caused by the virus itself.

At the time of writing of this article in the evening of 23rd November 2020, it was reported in the media that the G-20 Summit declared that their members would take all necessary steps to ensure equal and equitable distribution of a COVID vaccine to all countries of Mother Earth. To some in the know-how, this may definitely appear to be wishful thinking. Some of these very same countries that made this pledge are the same worthies who, not all that long ago and in the face of global shortages, hoarded supplies of respirators, surgical masks, and gloves for their own hospital workers’ use. Overall, more than 70 countries plus the European Union imposed export controls on local supplies of personal protective equipment, ventilators, or medicines during the first four months of the pandemic. That group also includes most of the countries where potential Covid-19 vaccines are likely to be manufactured. In fact it is well recorded that such hoarding of vital equipment, medicines and vaccines is not new. A case in point is that of a vaccine that was developed in just seven months for the 2009 pandemic of the influenza A virus H1N1, also known as swine flu. That contagion killed as many as 284,000 people globally. But wealthy countries bought up virtually all the supplies of the vaccine. After the World Health Organization appealed and intervened, several of these very same countries agreed to share just 10 per cent of their vaccines with poorer countries. However, the caveat of that ‘magnanimous’ gesture was the stipulation that they would do so only after determining that their remaining supplies would be sufficient to meet their domestic needs. As for the future behaviour patterns of these very same countries regarding a COVID vaccine, your guess is as good as mine. If history is anything worthwhile to go by, they would get up to their tricks, once again.

We have an organisation, The Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Forum of Sri Lanka, which was established over a decade ago. Its objectives are to educate healthcare workers and the public regarding vaccines and vaccination and to have a dialogue with the Ministry of Health on vaccine related matters. It consists of, among others, immunologists, microbiologists, paediatricians, community physicians and family physicians, who practice vaccination and/or have an interest in vaccines. In a recent communiqué, published in The Island Newspaper on 24th November 2020, they have decreed that the only way that Sri Lanka would get the COVID vaccine would be through COVAX, the initiative of the Global Alliance on Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), WHO and others. COVAX pledges to give all low and middle income countries equitable access to vaccines. The vaccines will be made available to priority groups. These include healthcare and social care workers, elderly, and persons with chronic non-communicable diseases. However, the most likely chances are that WHO/COVAX would be able to provide some vaccine doses to Sri Lanka only towards the end of 2021. WHO/COVAX has pledged that they would reserve a supply of vaccines necessary for only about 20% of our total population, and Sri Lanka will have to pay for them. They have also indicated that they do not wish to buy vaccines that exceed a cost of 20 US dollars per dose for any country. Apart from anything else, what the reaction of the general public would be to a scenario where only 20 per cent of the population is provided with a vaccine that is claimed to protect against a potentially fatal infection, is indeed mind-boggling. It would not be a surprise at all if the populace decides to get on to the roads in protest. There might even be combative riots.

In a truly scientific sense, the COVID vaccine research studies that have been carried out so far, apart from the claims of around 95 per cent efficacy, have not given us reliable information as to how long the immunity would last, how it might wane over time, the degree of protection in different age groups, whether yearly vaccination like the influenza vaccine would be necessary, whether the effectiveness would be just to prevent symptomatic disease rather than preventing infection by the virus, the absolutely essential logistics of transport of the vaccines, possibilities of major adverse effects that may come on after a protracted period of time, the manufacturing capabilities of the providers and the actual cost of bulk purchases of these vaccines. These are just a few among several other hitherto unanswered questions. In particular, we have no information about the use of the vaccine together with or without physical distancing, hand washing and mask wearing. Would the usage of even an effective vaccine contribute to our getting on with life as it was in the Pre-COVID era? Would it allow us to abandon all the measures advocated by health professionals as proven preventive strategies? These seem to be queries that need to be addressed most urgently and ever so decisively, well before a vaccine is released for general usage.

We need to face the spectre of stark reality in the face of many unknowns in this novel virus infection. There are many significant questions and very few answers. Real and rigorous scholarly science dictates that these have to be firmly and truthfully dealt with before we can claim that we would be able to defeat this marauding virus by using a vaccine. Scientifically unsubstantiated sensational proclamations that trigger public hysteria and the vision of a bright light at the end of the tunnel, are certainly not of the essence, and are very definitely not in the dominion of the desperate need of the hour.

In such a scenario, the general public should consider these contemplations ever so carefully and, of course, sanity should prevail. For at least the time being, it is vitally essential to implement mechanisms to educate the public on getting vulnerable persons to hospital early for management of complications of COVID-19 and to prevent unnecessary deaths. As so eloquently expounded by The Vaccine and Infectious Diseases Forum of Sri Lanka, it cannot be stressed too strongly that it is absolutely essential and undoubtedly crucial to continue vigorously with the public health recommendations on wearing face masks, physical distancing, hand washing and related mechanisms, which have stood the acid test of time, even from the era of the Spanish Flu of 1918.

There is a recent movement known as ‘BLACK LIVES MATTER’ in the Western world. It has taken those countries by storm to protest against injustices to people whose skin colour is black. The Westerners sometimes label South Asians as ‘Brown Sahibs’ because our skin colour is more akin to brown than to real black. In case there comes a time when this world has a safe and effective vaccine against COVID-19, all we can tell the foreign powers who control such a vaccine is that ‘BROWN LIVES MATTER TOO’.



Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

Features

Trump-Xi meet more about economics rather than politics

Published

on

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

The fact that some of the US’ topmost figures in business, such as Tesla chief Elon Musk and major US chipmaker Jensen Huang of NVIDIA fame, occupied as nearly a prominent a position as President Donald Trump at the recent ‘historic and landmark’ visit by the latter to China underscores the continuing vital importance of business in US-China ties. Business seemed to outweigh politics to a considerable degree in importance during the visit although the political dimension in US-China ties appeared to be more ‘headline grabbing’.

To be sure, the political dimension cannot be downplayed. For very good reason China could be seen as holding the power balance somewhat evenly between East and West. The international politics commentator couldn’t be seen as overstating the case if he takes the position that China could exercise substantial influence over the East currently; that is Russia and Iran, in the main. The latter powers hold the key in the Eastern hemisphere to shaping international politics in the direction of further war or of influencing it towards a measure of peace.

For example, time and again China has prevented the West from ‘having its own way’, so to speak, in the UN Security Council, for instance, in respect of the ongoing conflicts involving Russia and Iran, by way of abstaining from voting or by vetoing declarations that it sees as deleterious. That is, China has been what could be seen as a ‘moderating influence’ in international politics thus far. It has helped to keep the power balance somewhat intact between East and West.

At present a meet is ongoing between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in Beijing. This happened almost immediately after the Trump visit. Apparently, Beijing is in an effort to project itself as treating the US and Russia even-handedly while underscoring that it is no ‘special friend’ of the US or the West.

This effort at adopting a non-partisan stance on contentious questions in international politics is also seen in Beijing’s policy position on the Hormuz tangle and issues growing out of it. The Chinese authorities are quoted as saying in this regard, for instance, that China is for ‘a comprehensive and lasting ceasefire in the Middle East’.

Such a position has the effect of enhancing the perception that China is even-handed in its handling of divisive foreign policy posers. It is not openly anti-West nor is it weighing in with Iran and other Eastern actors that are opposed to the West in the West Asian theatre. A ‘comprehensive and lasting ceasefire’ implies that a solution needs to be arrived at that would be seen as fair by all quarters concerned.

On the highly sensitive Taiwan issue, President Xi was comparatively forthright during the Trump visit, but here too it was plain to see that Beijing was not intent on introducing a jarring, discordant note into the ongoing, largely cordial discussions with Washington. On the Taiwan question President Xi was quoted saying: ‘If mishandled, the two nations could collide even come into conflict.’ In other words, the US was cautioned that China’s interests need to be always borne in mind in its handling of the Taiwan issue.

The cautioning had the desired result because Trump in turn had reportedly conveyed to Taiwan that the latter’s concerns on the matter of independence had to be handled discreetly. He had told Taiwan plainly not to declare ‘independence.’

Accordingly, neither the US nor China had said or done anything that would have made either party lose face during their interaction. Apparently, both sides were sensitive to each others’ larger or national interests. And the economic interests of both powers were foremost among the latter considerations.

There is no glossing over or ignoring economic interests in the furtherance of ties between states. They are primal shaping forces of foreign policies and the fact that ‘economics drives politics’ is most apparent in US-China ties. That is, economic survival is fundamental.

Among the more memorable quotes from President Xi during the interaction, which also included US business leaders, was the following: ‘China’s doors will be open wider’ and US firms would have ‘broader prospects in the Chinese market.’

Xi went on to say that the sides had agreed to a ‘new positioning for ties’ based on ‘constructive strategic stability’. The implication here is that both sides would do well not to undermine existing, mutually beneficial economic relations in view of the wider national interests of both powers that are served by a continuation of these economic ties. That is, the way forward, in the words of the Chinese authorities, is ‘win-win cooperation.’

It is the above pronouncements by the Chinese authorities that probably led President Trump to gush that the talks were ‘very successful’ and of ‘historic and landmark’ importance. Such sentiments should only be expected of a billionaire US President, bent on economic empire-building.

One of the most important deals that were put through reportedly during the interaction was a Chinese agreement to buy some 200 Boeing jets and a ‘potential commitment to buy an additional 750 planes.’ However, details were not forthcoming on other business deals that may have been hatched.

Accordingly, from the viewpoint of the protagonists the talks went off well and the chances are that the sides would stand to gain substantially from unruffled future economic ties. However, there was no mention of whether the health of the world economy or the ongoing conflicts in West Asia were taken up for discussion.

Such neglect is regretful. Although the veritable economic power houses of the world, the US and China, are likely to thrive in the short and medium terms and their ruling strata could be expected to benefit enormously from these ongoing economic interactions the same could not be said of most of the rest of the world and its populations.

Needless to say, the ongoing oil and gas crisis, for instance, resulting from the conflict situation in West Asia, is taking a heavy toll on the majority of the world’s economies and the relevant publics. While no urgent intervention to ease the lot of the latter could be expected from the Trump administration there is much that China could do on this score.

China could use its good offices with the US to address the negative fallout on the poorer sections of the world from the present global economic crunch and urge the West to help in introducing systemic changes that could facilitate these positive outcomes. After all, China remains a socialist power.

Continue Reading

Features

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

Published

on

Xi and Trump

“Everything ever said to me by any Chinese of any station during any visit was part of an intricate design”

— Henry Kissinger

That design may already be complete before this week’s , a meeting that could shape the future balance of global power.

The wind arrives quietly. By the time it is heard, history has already begun to turn. Across Asia, that wind is no longer distant. It carries with it the exhaustion of an old order and the uncertain birth of another. The question now is not whether the world will change. It is whether those who hold power possess the wisdom to guide that change toward something less violent than the century behind us.

Since 1945, the United States has carried the burden of a global order built with its Western allies. To its credit, the world avoided another direct world war between great powers. The conflicts remained contained in distant lands—proxy wars fought in the shadows of ideology, oil, and influence. From Latin America to Asia, the American century expanded not only through prosperity, but through intervention. Yet empires, even democratic ones, grow tired. Fatigue settles slowly into institutions, alliances, and public memory. The role of global policeman no longer inspires certainty in Washington as it once did.

The “rules-based order” now confronts its own contradiction: it was built to be universal, yet it often appeared selective. During my recent visit to , a young researcher asked me quietly, “Does the West itself still believe in the rules-based order?” The question lingered long after the conversation ended. The rising century demands a more inclusive architecture—one that recognises the reality of Asian power, especially China.

My three years of field research across South and Southeast Asia, documented in , revealed a transformation too significant to dismiss as temporary. China has moved beyond being merely a competitor to the United States. In trade, infrastructure, technology, cultural diplomacy, and economic influence, Beijing has established itself as what may be called the world’s “US +1.”

Great powers often search for such a partner. History shows this tendency clearly. When an empire becomes overextended—burdened by wars, alliances, sanctions, tariffs, and crises—it seeks another center of gravity to stabilize the system it can no longer manage alone. The United States today faces disorder stretching from Venezuela to Iran, from Ukraine to the unsettled Middle East. In this landscape, China emerges not simply as a rival, but as a state powerful enough to broker peace where Washington alone no longer can.

Drawing from the lessons of the Nixon–Mao era, warned that “” The United States and China are now engaged in a long-term economic, technological, political, and strategic competition. Managing that competition wisely may become the defining challenge of this century. In such a deeply polarized and unstable world, recognising China as a “US +1” partner is not surrender, but strategic realism.

Donald Trump understood this reality before boarding his flight to meet Xi Jinping. Their meeting inside Zhongnanhai—the guarded compound where China’s leadership governs—was never merely ceremonial. It symbolized a deeper recognition already acknowledged quietly within the itself: China is the nearest peer competitor the United States has ever confronted. Before departing Washington, Trump seemed to reassess not only China’s strength, but its unavoidable position as a “” shaping the future global balance.

Yet the significance of a Trump–Xi meeting extends beyond trade wars, tariffs, or diplomatic spectacle. It presents an opportunity to confront two crises shaping the century ahead: global energy insecurity and regional instability. Washington increasingly understands the limits of direct engagement with Tehran. Decades of pressure, sanctions, and confrontation have produced exhaustion rather than resolution. In that vacuum, Beijing now possesses leverage that Washington does not.

For China, this is an opportunity to evolve from a development partner into a security actor. Xi Jinping’s (GSI) was never designed merely as rhetoric. It was intended as the next phase of Chinese influence—transforming economic dependence into strategic trust. The geopolitical spillover from the Iranian conflict now offers Beijing a historic opening to project itself as a stabilising force in the region, not against the United States, but alongside it as a “US +1” partner.

If China succeeds in helping stabilise the Gulf and secure energy corridors vital to Asia, it will reshape perceptions of Chinese power globally. Beijing would no longer be seen only as the builder of ports, railways, and industrial zones, but as a guarantor of regional balance. This transition—from infrastructure diplomacy to security diplomacy—may become one of the defining geopolitical shifts of the coming decade.

Xi Jinping does not seek open confrontation. His strategy is older, more patient, and perhaps more formidable because of its restraint. Beijing speaks not of domination, but of a “,” advanced through three instruments of influence: the Global Development Initiative (GDI), the Global Security Initiative (GSI), and the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI). These are not slogans alone. Across Asia, many governments increasingly trust China as a development partner more than any other power.

India, despite its ambitions, has not matched this scale of regional penetration. In both ASEAN and South Asia, China’s economic gravity is felt more deeply. Ports, railways, technology networks, and financial dependency have altered the geopolitical map quietly, without the spectacle of war.

In , I compared three inward-looking national strategies shaping Asia today: Trump’s MAGA, Modi’s emerging economic nationalism , and Xi’s strategy. Among them, China has demonstrated the greatest structural resilience. Faced with American tariffs and decoupling pressures, Beijing diversified its supply chains across Central Asia, Europe, and Southeast Asia. Rail corridors now connect Chinese industry to European markets through Eurasia. ASEAN has surpassed the United States as China’s largest trading partner, while the European Union follows closely behind. Exports to America have declined sharply, yet China continues to expand. Trump, once defined by confrontation, now arrives seeking a new “” with China—an acknowledgment that economic rivalry alone can no longer define the relationship between the world’s two largest powers.

Unlike Washington, which increasingly retreats from multilateral institutions, Beijing presents itself as the defender of multilateralism. Whether genuine or strategic matters less than perception. In geopolitics, perception often becomes reality.

What emerges, then, is not surrender between rivals, but interdependence between powers too large to isolate one another. The future may not belong to a bipolar Cold War, but to a reluctant coexistence. The United States now recognises that China possesses diversified markets and partnerships capable of reducing dependence on America. China, in turn, understands that its long march toward global primacy still requires strategic engagement with the United States.

This is where the true geopolitical shift begins.

Many analysts continue to frame China solely as a threat. Yet history rarely moves through absolutes. The next world order may not be built through confrontation alone, but through uneasy partnership. Artificial intelligence, technological supremacy, economic stability, and global governance now demand cooperation between Washington and Beijing, whether either side admits it publicly or not.

Trump will likely celebrate his personal relationship with Xi, presenting himself as the American leader capable of negotiating a “better deal” with China than his predecessors. But beneath the rhetoric lies something larger: the gradual acceptance of China’s indispensable role in shaping the future international order.

Even the question of war increasingly returns to Beijing. If Washington seeks an understanding with Tehran, China’s influence becomes unavoidable. Iran listens to Beijing in ways it no longer listens to the West. This alone signals how profoundly the balance of power has shifted. And Xi, careful as always, refuses to openly inherit the mantle of global leadership. He delays, softens, and obscures intention. It is part of a longer strategy: to rise without provoking the final resistance of a declining hegemon too early.

History rarely announces its turning point. Empires fade slowly, while new powers rise quietly beneath the noise of the old order. Washington still holds immense power, but Beijing increasingly holds the patience, reach, and strategic depth to shape what comes after.

The century ahead may not belong to one power alone, but to the uneasy balance between Washington and Beijing. And in that silence, a new world order is already taking shape.

By Asanga Abeyagoonasekera

Continue Reading

Features

Egypt … here I come

Published

on

Chit-Chat Nethali Withanage

Three months ago, 19-year-old Nethali Withanage, with Brian Kerkoven as her mentor, walked the ramp at Colombo Fashion Week. On 06 June, she’ll walk for Sri Lanka in Hurghada, Egypt, as the country’s delegate to Top Model of the World 2026._

I caught up with Nethali as she prepares to fly out, this weekend, and here’s how our chit-chat went:

1. Tell me something about yourself?

I’m someone who blends creativity with ambition. I’ve always loved expressing myself, whether it’s through fashion, styling, or the way I present myself to the world. At the same time, I’m very driven and disciplined, especially when I was working, as a student counsellor, at Campus One, at a young age, where I’ve learned how to connect with people, understand them, and communicate with confidence. I believe I’m still evolving, and that’s what excites me the most … becoming better every single day.

2. What made you decide to be a model?

Modelling felt natural to me because it combines everything I love – fashion, confidence, and storytelling without words. I realised that modelling isn’t just about appearance, it’s about presence and how you carry your energy. I wanted to be part of an industry where I could express different sides of myself, while inspiring others to feel confident in their own skin.

3. What sets you apart from other models?

I would say my ability to connect. Whether it’s with the camera, a brand, or an audience, I bring authenticity. I also have a strong background in communication and sales, which gives me an edge in understanding how to represent a brand, not just wear it. I don’t want to just model clothes, I want to bring them to life.

4. What clothing do you prefer to model?

I enjoy modelling versatile styles, but I’m especially drawn to elegant and expressive fashion pieces that tells a story. I love looks that allow me to embody confidence and femininity, whether it’s a structured outfit or something soft and flowing.

5. What is the most important aspect of modelling?

Confidence combined with professionalism. Confidence allows you to own the moment, but professionalism ensures that you respect the work, the team, and the brand you represent. Both are equally important.

6. If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?

I would say I’m learning to trust myself more and not overthink. I’ve realised that growth comes from embracing who you are, not constantly trying to change it. So instead of changing something, I’m focused on becoming more confident in my own voice.

7. School?

I did my O/Ls at Seventh Day Adventist High School Kandana, and, while at school, I was actively involved in creative activities. I enjoyed participating in English Day events that allowed me to express myself and interact with others. Those experiences helped me build confidence, teamwork, and communication skills, which continue to shape who I am today.

8. Happiest moment?

One of my happiest moments is realising how far I’ve come from being unsure of myself to stepping into opportunities, like modelling, and representing myself with confidence. That feeling of growth is something I truly value, and also a dream come true!

9. Your idea of perfect happiness?

Perfect happiness for me is peace of mind, being surrounded by people I love, doing what I’m passionate about, and feeling proud of who I am becoming.

10. Your ideal guy?

My ideal partner is someone who is respectful, supportive, and confident in himself. Someone who values growth, understands my ambitions, and encourages me to be the best version of myself.

11. Which living person do you most admire?

I admire strong, self-made individuals who have built their identity through hard work and resilience. People who stay true to themselves, despite challenges, inspire me, because they show that success is not just about talent, but also about strength and consistency.

12. Your most treasured possession?

My most treasured possession is my confidence. It’s something I’ve built over time, and it allows me to face challenges, take opportunities, and believe in myself, even when things are uncertain.

13. If you were marooned on a desert island, who would you like as your companion?

I would choose someone who is calm, positive, and resourceful, someone who can turn a difficult situation into an adventure. The right mindset matters more than anything.

14. Your most embarrassing moment?

I’m 19 and still haven’t faced any most embarrassing moment. But I would say I’ve had small moments where things didn’t go as planned, but I’ve learned to laugh at myself. Those moments remind me that perfection isn’t necessary; confidence is about how you recover, not how you avoid mistakes.

15. Done anything daring?

Pursuing modelling and stepping into competitions is something I consider daring. It pushed me out of my comfort zone and challenged me to grow, both personally and professionally.

16. Your ideal vacation?

My ideal vacation would be somewhere peaceful, yet beautiful, like a beach destination where I can relax, reflect, and reconnect with myself, while enjoying nature.

17. What kind of music are you into?

I choose music that matches my mood at that time, whether it’s calm and relaxing or energetic and uplifting. Music is something that helps me express emotions and stay inspired.

18. Favourite radio station?

Usually I don’t listen to radio stations but whenever I get into a car I would search for Yes FM because it has a refined balance of contemporary hits and timeless music. I appreciate how it maintains a vibrant yet sophisticated energy, keeping listeners engaged while creating a consistently uplifting atmosphere. It’s something I enjoy because it adds a sense of positivity and elegance to my day.

19. Favourite TV station?

At the moment, I don’t have a television at home, but growing up, my favourite TV station was ‘Nickelodeon’. I genuinely loved the shows and series it aired; they were fun, creative, and full of personality. It was something I always looked forward to, and those memories still bring a sense of joy and nostalgia, whenever I think about it.

20. Any major plans for the future?

My future plans are to grow in the modelling industry, work with international brands, build a strong personal brand and finish completing a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Studies. At the same time, I want to explore my creative side further, especially in fashion and business, so I can create something of my own one day.

Continue Reading

Trending