Features
Tennis History and its Holy Grail
US Open- 2021
by Anura Gunasekera
On Sept. 12, at Flushing Meadows, New York, tennis history was waiting to be re-written but Novak Djokovic, the designated author, failed an eagerly expectant tennis world, history and himself. Instead, the script of the day was seized by an upstart Russian, watched over from the stands by the 83 year old Rod Laver, the man who set that improbable bench mark 52 years ago. Most great champions are also fine, gracious human beings. Without doubt, had Djokovic emulated Laver’s great feat with a win over Medvedev at the Arthur Ashe stadium, Laver himself would have been the happiest of men.
Daniil Medvedev, a lanky, enigmatic Russian with an unorthodox technique and an unexciting game style, delivered an efficient, workmanlike display to steal the day from a surprisingly uninspired Serb. If Medvedev sensed the significance of the occasion and what a Djokovic win would have meant to the Tennis world and its history, his dour demeanour gave no such indication. In a very businesslike manner, Medvedev inflicted a straight sets defeat on the best Tennis craftsman the world has yet seen, in the most significant match of that man’s career. The only sign of nerves appeared at 5-2 in the third set when Medvedev, who had been serving with ruthless efficiency right through, faltered at his first championship point, squandering the opportunity and surrendering the game with two consecutive double faults.
Irrespective of what Djokovic may achieve in future as a tennis player, for him there will not be a more meaningful moment. In an encounter in which the world expected the Serb to deliver his greatest and defining performance, the Russian completely stifled Djokovic, reducing him to the role of fellow traveller in his personal journey to fame, the Russian’s first major singles tennis title. A new Czar has been crowned and the manner of his victory suggests strongly that it will be the first of many more.
The Chinese, traditionally, identify each year by assigning to each calendar period an animal; so we have the year of the Boar, the year of the Dog and so on. The current year, I believe, is the year of the Rat. However, In the Tennis world, 2021 seemed destined to be the year of the Djoker, set to culminate with the men’s singles title at Flushing Meadows, adding to the Australian, French and the Wimbledon titles, accumulated by him in the last eight months. The only blemish in an otherwise triumphant journey was at the Tokyo Olympics, when an inspired Zverev relegated Djokovic to a Bronze with victory in the semi-final and marched on to claim Gold. Fittingly, Djokovic avenged that defeat at the semi-final at Flushing Meadows by grinding out a win against Zverev in a gruelling five setter. In retrospect it would appear that when he entered the arena 48 hours later, for the most significant match of his storied career, the Serb’s tank was not quite full. Perhaps the Tokyo loss was also a portent, that the master mechanic of tennis was beginning to lose his aura of invincibility, as has already happened to Federer and Nadal who, together with Djokovic, have dominated men’s Tennis of the last two decades.
Djokovic’s loss will continue to be analyzed by Tennis pundits for years to come. How did one of the world’s most ruthlessly determined players and unarguably its technically most competent, lose the most important match of his career, that which would have set him, forever, above Nadal and Federer? Notwithstanding the mighty achievements of those two, the 2021 US Open trophy in Djokovic’s hands would have symbolized the Holy Grail of Tennis, the Majors’ Singles Grand Slam in the same calendar year. Djokovic now joins two other greats of the open era, Martina Navratilova and Serena Williams, who also fell at the last hurdle, in 1984 and 2015 respectively. It is most unlikely that Djokovic will have another opportunity. The realist in him will understand that.
In a sporting world in which the audience passes merciless judgement on its stars, Djokovic is a divisive element. He does not attract love and adulation in the measure that Federer and Nadal do. The Serb is controversial and his on court behaviour and histrionics divide opinion, whilst his off-court activities occasionally invite criticism. On account of his conflicts of opinion with the World Pro-Tennis administration, within the tennis fraternity itself he is seen as hurtfully adversarial, something of a loose cannon.
Djokovic is a master at invigorating the crowd during matches and feeding off that energy. He would be visibly angered, as was evident in the match against Zverev, when the crowd roots for his opponent. But that anger became his weapon, his motivator and his asset. However, in the match against Medvedev the normally vibrant Serb was muted, unusually controlled, except in the second set when, in a brief display of the real Djoker, he beat a racquet to death. Perhaps this self-imposed discipline, reinforced by the Russian’s composure, worked against him though, unlike in all the other matches, in the final the raucous and normally partisan crowd was fully with him. They too had come to witness tennis history being made and to share in the moment. But, strangely, Djokovic decided to be different, ignoring the exhortation of the crowd and imposing on himself a restraint unnatural to him.
During the games break at 5-2 in the third set Djokovic wept in to his towel. Perhaps he realized that the match had drifted beyond even his phenomenal capacity for retrieval. At 5-4 in the same set he smiled for the first time in the match, albeit ruefully, perhaps in resignation to the inevitable. Suddenly you realized that there was a sensitive human heart in the machine and made you warm to him. Djokovic endeared himself to the crowd later, when, clearly speaking from the heart, he thanked the crowd for their visible love and support in defeat, features often missing during his numerous victories. The irony of the episode is that Djokovic may be remembered more for this historic defeat, than for all his previous victories. International sport is a cruel domain.
If on that day Djokovic failed the call of history, two unheralded teen aged girls from different countries had re-written it a day earlier, with a fairy tale journey which ended for both in the women’s singles final; Leylah Fernandez, a feisty, excitable, slightly built girl with an infectious grin, out of Canada, the daughter of an Ecuadorean father and a Filipino- Canadian mother, and the gracile, athletic Emma Raducanu with a sunburst of a smile, born in Canada to a Romanian father and a Chinese mother, domiciled in England since the age of two.
Raducanu was perhaps better known than Fernandez, but for the wrong reasons. As a wild card entry at Wimbledon 2021 she fought her way to the fourth round, only to concede, on medical grounds, with a mid-play walkover to Alja Tomljanovic. This capitulation earned her the wrath of a number of well known British armchair critics and even some less than kind comment from John McEnroe. At the US Open, starting off with a ranking of 150, she was compelled to enter the main draw through qualifying rounds. By the time she finally paraded the US Open women’s singles trophy before an ecstatic crowd, she had come through ten consecutive matches in all without losing a set. No man or woman had done it before.
The 19 year old Fernandez, ranked 60 in the world, on her way to the final defeated, amongst others, Kerber (no 16), Sabalenka(no 2) , Svitolina (no 5) and the reigning champion Naomi Osaka, all matches going to three sets. Her path to the final was certainly much tougher than Raducanu’s. It was also fitting that the regal Virginia Wade, the last British woman to win a major title- Wimbledon in 1977- was on hand to witness the victory of her successor 44 years later, ending a long drought for the British sporting public.
Britain, with its constant and desperate search for sporting heroes, has crowned the 18-year old Raducanu with a princess’ tiara. Typical of the confused thinking of the British media and the public is the raging debate on Raducanu’s identity. Is this mixed race Advance Level student a typical British teenager or a brown-skinned symbol of British multiculturalism? It is not dissimilar to the dialogue surrounding Andy Murray, the first British man to win a major title in 78 years. It was said that when Murray won he was celebrated as a Britisher and when he lost, identified as a Scot! Whatever the answer to the questions about Emma Raducanu, she is destined for greatness, provided her future progress, both within and outside the court is managed prudently, ensuring that she does not become an early burnout, smothered by the weight of unrealistic expectations.
These two breakthrough finals have enriched world tennis, signaling the beginning of a new era. Djokovic’s wins were great for men’s tennis the sport will also benefit from his most momentous loss. Medvedev, on an epochal occasion, calmly dismantled one of the greatest tennis players in history whilst defying the highly partisan crowd, to graft for himself a decisive victory. The relatively unknown Raducanu and Fernandez, opponents in the final, despite the straight sets result, playing with great maturity, produced high quality tennis to demonstrate the depth and strength of the women’s game. That the 2021 US Open Men’s Singles final will be celebrated more for Djokovic’s defeat and less for Medvedev’s victory, is irrelevant. These two wins need to be encompassed as a singular moment in tennis history. The batons have been passed to an emerging generation, signaling the early end of the dominant actors, especially in the men’s game. The future of Tennis is in good hands.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
