Features
Sportsmanship – Australian Style
by Vijaya Chandrasoma
I am neither a cricketer nor a sports writer, just an avid enthusiast of the game. I am in total agreement with the sentiments expressed in the excellent letter penned by Mr. S. Skandakumar to legendary English umpire, Mr. Simon Taufel, on his comments about the incident relating to the dismissal of Jonny Bairstow during the second Ashes test at Edgbaston a couple of weeks ago.
Though Taufel argued that this controversial decision changed the complexion of the entire match, he said, “Correct decision made. They (England) just didn’t like it. For that ball to be considered dead, both sides need to disregard it is in play. Clearly, the fielding side hadn’t”.
I am not trying to dispute the opinion of one of the greatest umpires ever to grace a cricket field. However, strictly according to the rules of cricket, there is one aspect of this dismissal which is definitely a grey area, which should have played an important role in the final decision of the third umpire. A grey area is defined as “an ill-defined situation or area of activity not readily conforming to a category or set of rules”. In other words, a matter of doubt.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the batsman is not merely a tradition in the game. It is the Law. This is especially true of the LBW rule. LBW is governed by Law 36, which states that “the striker is out LBW if he intercepts the ball with any part of his person and but for the interception, the ball would have hit the wicket”. Unfortunately, the decision that the umpire is faced with making within seconds is not humanly possible. No one, not even modern technology, can predict to a certainty the path the ball will take after it hits the pad. There are too many extraneous factors – the wind, the degree of the spin and turn of the ball – which make a 100% accurate decision well-nigh impossible.
Today’s technology, in the form of the Decision Review System (DRS) has made matters infinitely easier for the field umpire in the decision of most dismissals. For example, DRS is invaluable in the event of a snick, to determine whether the ball had taken even a minute edge with the bat before being caught by the wicket-keeper, an edge at times not discernible to the human eye.
However, where an LBW appeal is concerned, the DRS confirms or overrules the decision based often on the “umpire’s call”. If the umpire puts his finger up, then the batter is out, if DRS determines that the ball would have hit any part of the stumps and bails. But if the umpire rules NOT OUT, the batter is deemed NOT OUT if the ball hits the outside half of the leg stump, the off stump or the top of the bails.
So in the event of the umpire’s NOT OUT decision, even the DRS gives the benefit of the doubt to the batsman.
According to the Laws of Cricket, the ball is considered dead once the fielding side and both batters have ceased to regard it as in play. At Edgbaston, the batter, Bairstow clearly regarded the ball as dead, having ducked under an innocent bouncer from bowler Cameron Green and seeing the ball nestled in wicketkeeper Carey’s gloves. He was in no way trying to steal an unfair advantage to get an extra run. On the other hand, Carey having caught the ball, saw that Bairstow had wrongly assumed the ball was dead, took unfair advantage of a justifiable misconception and threw the ball at the stumps.
There is no way that Marais Erasmus, the third umpire could have made a certain decision that the ball had settled in the wicketkeeper’s gloves for the required time to be called a dead ball. I have seen many catchers in the field throw the ball in the air immediately after making the
catch, in exultation, in less time than the ball had nestled in Carey’s gloves.The correct thing for Carey to do would have been to warn Bairstow before the stumping. The correct thing for Aussies’ Captain Cummins to do, after the dismissal was confirmed by the third umpire, would have been to call Bairstow back. But these are Australians. To expect them to do the gentlemanly thing is optimistic, to expect them to even do the legal thing is a matter of hopeful conjecture.
Remember Sandpapergate, the 2018 ball tampering scandal in an Australian test match against South Africa. The then Australian captain, Steve Smith and vice-captain, David Warner were both found guilty of collusion in that dastardly attempt by the bowler to sandpaper the ball to enhance its swing. This was not a misdemeanor of bad sportsmanship; it was a cricketing felony of a heinous nature. An illegal attempt to gain a distinct advantage by altering equipment with the specific motive of bowling out the opposing batters.
These two “gentlemen” are now playing for Australia in the current Ashes series, having escaped committing an act of brazen cheating with a mere slap on the wrist. English Seamer, Stuart Broad told Carey, “You’ll be forever remembered for that.” No, he won’t. This is an incident which will probably never happen again. Carey will be remembered as just another Australian who is a stranger to the concept of sportsmanship.
It would be interesting to compare the punishment meted out to one of the most respected cricketers of his time, Indian all-rounder, Vinoo Mankad with the Edgbaston fiasco. Mankad was regarded as one of India’s greatest-ever all-rounders. In 2021, he was inducted to the ICC Hall of Fame, one of the ten iconic cricketers so inducted, including household names like Sir Learie Constantine, Ted Dexter, Stan McCabe and our own Kumar Sangakkara.
In spite of his illustrious career, Vinoo Mankad is best and unfairly known for one incident on a test match during an Indian tour of Australia in 1947/8. He ran out Bill Brown, the batsman at the non-striker’s end, who was backing up too far and out of the crease at the point of delivery. This was an obvious violation of the rules by the batsman, who was clearly trying to steal an unfair advantage.
This act of supposed poor sportsmanship infuriated the Australians, who introduced a contemptuous term, “Mankading” for anyone who used this perfectly legal method of running out the batsman at the non-striker’s end who was out of his crease at the point of delivery. Australians, and other cricketing nations, contend that a warning should be given before such a run out was contemplated. No such warning is required according to the rules; it had been traditionally regarded as a courtesy to warn the batsman that he was breaking the rules and would be run out if he persists in trying to steal an advantage of a few yards.
In fact, two warnings had already been given by Mankad, but Brown persisted in backing up and was well out of the crease at the point of Mankads’s delivery when he ran him out. Even the great Don Bradman slammed the critics of Mankad, saying, “For the life of me, I can’t understand why (the press) questioned his (Mankad’s) sportsmanship. The laws of cricket make it quite clear that the non-striker must keep within his ground until the ball has been delivered…. By backing up too far or too early, the non-striker is very obviously gaining an unfair advantage”.
Both Carey and Mankad acted well within the rules. Unlike Carey, Mankad warned the batsman Brown twice before running him out, a courtesy not offered to Bairstow by Carey. Most importantly, there is one salient point which should have been taken into consideration by the third umpire. Bairstow was not trying to steal an advantage by his actions. Brown was.
Carey’s name will fade into obscurity for the mediocre cricketer he is; Steve Smith and David Warner, who tacitly endorsed Carey’s action, really have no reputation for sportsmanship to lose. But Mankad’s great career will always have an asterisk against his name because of a perfectly legal action, originally stigmatized by the Australian press. A stigma which followed him throughout his illustrious career.
The point I am laboring to make is that the old rules and lessons Mr. Skandakumar and I (I am taking the liberty of using his distinguished name with mine in the same sentence, because we both attended Royal Prep) learnt at our alma mater are lost. The truisms we learnt at the School of our Fathers (inaccurate in my father’s case; sadly, he went to Ananda), do not seem to hold true today. Axioms like “The umpire’s word is law”; “the benefit of the doubt always goes to the batsman”; “it’s not that you won or lost but how you played the game”. Or most simply, “It’s not cricket, old man”. All gone.
I am an enthusiastic follower of the game of cricket, but the one match etched in my memory is one in the 1950s, which to my pre-teen mind, represented the very epitome of sportsmanship.
Royal was playing St. Joseph’s at Reid Avenue. Nearing the end of the game, when Royal had to make a few runs to win, the umpires called a halt to the game because of rain/bad light. The Josephian captain elected to continue playing in heavy rain to enable Royal to score the few runs necessary to win. In his mind, Royal should not have been deprived of a well-deserved victory because of the vagaries of the weather. In appreciation of his sportsmanship, he was cheered and carried on Royal shoulders after the match. Today, of course, he would have been lynched by the Josephians.
O tempora O mores.
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
