by Rex Clementine
The proposed new constitution for Sri Lanka Cricket has gathered considerable momentum over the past fortnight, with the Bill presented to Parliament, debated by MPs and now facing judicial scrutiny. The courts are examining whether the proposed reforms are consistent with the laws of the land.
The Island learns that a lawyer has challenged certain provisions of the proposed constitution, while former cricket board chief Thilanga Sumathipala has also sought judicial intervention.
The learned judges will hear their submissions and determine whether the proposed legislation passes legal muster. It is possible that the courts may require the authorities to amend certain provisions should they be found incompatible with existing laws.
Among the concerns raised by stakeholders is the proposed exclusion of district associations from having a say in SLC elections. Others are uncomfortable with the prospect of appointed members, rather than elected representatives, heading the board.
These are legitimate concerns and deserve a fair hearing. But there is a larger issue that cannot be swept under the carpet. It is the very system that has governed Sri Lankan cricket for decades that has brought the game to its knees. Unless bold decisions are taken, we will continue to languish near the bottom of the rankings, wondering where it all went wrong.
Opening the door for appointed members offers the possibility of having a well educated, professionally accomplished individual at the helm, rather than leaving the administration of a multi billion rupee organisation in the hands of individuals whose qualifications have sometimes barely extended beyond the GCE Advanced Level.
Some of those who have occupied the hot seat in recent years have spent money like drunken sailors on shore leave. The figures emerging from SLC are enough to make your eyes water.
It has emerged that SLC’s catering bill alone over the past three years has amounted to a staggering Rs. 1.2 billion. During roughly the same period, SLC has reportedly spent more than Rs. 600 million on legal fees. That is an extraordinary amount of money for an organisation whose primary responsibility is to develop and promote cricket.
Giving independent directors a greater say in the affairs of the board would also help curb the tendency of club representatives to put their own interests ahead of the greater good.
Take, for instance, SLC’s recent decision to upgrade club grounds with floodlights. The first beneficiary happened to be the very club represented by the board President. Such decisions inevitably raise questions about priorities and conflicts of interest.
The parliamentary debate on cricket reforms also provided its share of entertainment.
One former Sports Minister was busy blowing his own trumpet, claiming that cricket had flourished during his tenure. The reality, however, tells a rather different story. Far from presiding over a golden era, his constant interference in the affairs of the board did little to advance the game and on occasions, stalled much needed progress.
MP Ravi Karunanayake’s assertion that politicians should have no place in sports administration also raised a few eyebrows.
The senior parliamentarian may well have made the observation with the best of intentions, but history suggests that painting every politician with the same brush would be a mistake. Some of the finest administrators Sri Lankan cricket has produced have come from the political establishment, including several stalwarts of his own party.
J.R. Jayewardene served as President of the cricket board, while Gamini Dissanayake remains one of the most outstanding administrators the game has known. It was under Dissanayake’s leadership that Sri Lanka secured the coveted Test status in 1981, opening the doors to cricket’s most exclusive club.
Tyrone Fernando was another influential figure in cricket administration, while Lalith Athulathmudali, a former President of NCC, was widely regarded as a future cricket board President before his life was tragically cut short.
Nor was the affection for cricket confined to the political right. The leftists had their own distinguished association with the gentleman’s game. Dr. N.M. Perera and Lakshman Jayakody both served as Presidents of the cricket board.