Change is a must, but it should be done consensually: Sidath
View(s):A long time ago my mother said, the most dangerous thing in life is to be undecided. She explained that when one is undecided, one is neither in nor out, one just keeps floating in a vacuum and one’s opinion is not worth a dime or worth a second to waste on. Yet, I see in this modern society with all the modern facilities at hand and information technology entering into unbelievable portals, a lot of modern people who are supposed to 
be learned, just carrying on with the status quo and not challenging it though they know the existing system is wrong.
Living by the field of sport, one may think that this is one discipline in life that is not complex — the one who wins takes it all and the loser lives to fight another day. May be it began in that manner, yet, the man being a complex person kept adding more and more clauses into the game and managed to make it more and more vivid.
Just imagine, the book says the game of cricket began between two shepherds who were tending their flock in England. Yet, the game kept on growing from that point and once when a woman could not deliver the ball in the normal accepted norm of underarm because of the garb she wore, she rolled the arm over. Then another clause was added to accommodate her plight, but a few centuries’ later Australia and New Zealand nearly went to war over a ball delivered underarm — cricket in its purest form.
So should we be open to changes or live in our little cozy cocoons that sometimes blind us to reality?Good, that the SLC also has set up a committee to “probe, investigate, inquire and report on any corruption, abuse of power and authority by any office bearer/office bearers and members of the Committee of the former Executive Committee of Sri Lanka Cricket.”
They must leave no stone unturned. Go on to both sides of the shore and see what they were upto. No crime is small. Even if someone sold cricket goods due to his interests in Sri Lanka Cricket, it is conflict of interest. If someone played out money from lunch packets while a Test match was on, it is misuse of authority. In short, all who have been up to no good should be punished. Then the people of this country will learn that it was done with good intentions and not a witch hunt.
Sidath Wettimuny
There is no argument; the existing system is not only flawed, but also archaic. If someone wants to be the head of the game of cricket he either should be rich beyond comprehension so that he is able to buy up the stakeholders’ vote or he should be close enough to the pedestal of power so that a message would be sent to the contenders to stay out of the way. Or he should just get air dropped as the head of an Interim Committee.
These are the prime anomalies that should be removed with a scalpel with minute precision so that none of them would plague this noble game ever again in the future.
My personal opinion may sit against Interim Committees and the powers vested in the sports ministers under the Sports Law. But, once a shepherd is placed to tend the flock, we should see how he sees the field and how he tends the grass.
Interim Committee chairman Sidath Wettimuny feels change is inevitable and we must begin to look at the status quo through younger eyes and modern opinion. However, we began our little chat with the burning issue – the IC-ICC marriage. We asked if the couple is living in harmony.
The new cricket chief said that both parties met each other and exchanged pleasantries while understanding where each of them stood. Yet, there were no alarming pitfalls on the way.
In response to reports that Lankan Cricket authorities had acted negatively when the ICC CEO David Richardson and President N. Srinivasan wanted to visit Sri Lanka on a fact finding mission, Wettimuny said that he was not aware of such a move and if they wanted to visit Sri Lanka they were welcome.
To be in the negative books of the world cricket authority is not a healthy situation by any means — and for any bad repercussion they would be held responsible. But, during the discussion there was no note of caution in Wettimuny’s voice.
Now let’s go to the positives of this episode. There is a question that I have asked from both parties: How are we going to prevent situations of this nature and magnitude from recurring?
Wettimuny said: “Just see the plight of our cricket since 1996, first Ana Punchihewa – the then President who was there when we won the Cricket World Cup was sent home when he came back to Sri Lanka. From that point onwards, how many Interim Committees that Sri Lanka have had? (In fact there have been more years of Interim rule than governance under the stakeholders’ choice). This means the system is flawed. We have a system that needs to be changed.
“So the system should be changed either by the stakeholders or by the government. It is a simple calculation. In New Zealand five or six votes to appoint a president. Australia has seven or eight votes to appoint a president. England maybe twenty two. South Africa seven or eight. Pakistan now have ten, I am told. India with 1.2 billion people have forty seven votes, if I am not mistaken. In little Sri Lanka with twenty million people, we have 147 votes, that is what is leading to all this chaos. Since 1996, we have all these problems; it means the system is not working. Then if the system is not working, change it into a better system. The prevailing system is wrong, I agree with you, but what are we to do?”
Moving on to the changing of the cricket guard – taking the Provincial system to the helm would it be the panacea for all ills in local cricket?
Wettimuny, once a stylish opening batsman for Sri Lanka, said, “First thing that we must understand is that change is the norm and nothing stays forever. So if there are changes being made there is something completely new being done. Anyway the premier cricket structure remains the same; talking of Provincial Cricket, that started so many years ago, it is just that I think and a lot of people think that it should be done in a more meaningful manner. That is the only thing that we are trying to suggest. We have discussed the matter with Mahela Jayawardena, Kumar Sangakkara – all of them, They all do believe that we need a better level of cricket as well. But, we are not going to do anything that would harm our club cricket. Club cricket is the backbone of our cricket so I do not know what this fuss is all about. Once we ran a successful Provincial Tournament with sponsors, but the sad thing is, whichever the good that is being done is disrupted.
“One thing that I have decided to do is I feel we need consensus in some of these moves. So I am going to wait till Mahela comes down and as soon as he is here I am going to get Sangakkara and Muralitharan also involved and I would like to have an open conference or a discussion with all the presidents starting from 1996 – that is Ana Punchihewa to date. I would like invite them and have an open chat and listen to some of the present day cricketers and their views and try and get some consensus as to how this game should go forward.
“A few days ago I met Haroon Rashid during the Pakistan ‘A’ series and he was telling me that recently they changed their constitution completely and they have a fantastic system. The stakeholders appoint ten persons and the President appoints two or three persons and their system now works. Basically there is nothing to fear in change as long it is done keeping the game at heart.
Wettimuny said Mahela Jayawardena has come out with a proposal and we should delve into it and see if it could work. He said that is why he wanted to put it forward at this proposed forum.
Wettimuny then explained that England has brought in Andrew Strauss as CEO, a guy who has just retired from cricket. They did it because they believe that the game is changing and one needs fresh thinking — and because they need to know the modern game’s requirements.