Dear Editor,
Stabroek News of Wednesday, July 11 last, carried correspondence from Imran Khan which sought to denigrate President Donald Ramotar’s “alleged unqualified advisors” and discredit the President’s remarks at the opening ceremony of the 33rd Meeting of the Conference of Heads of Government of Caricom in St Lucia a few days ago (‘An internationally embarrassing episode’).
The issue concerned the President’s views and complaints with respect to the “problems in the administration of the game” of cricket in the region, and his criticism of the West Indies Cricket Board (WICB) for hosting matches in Florida, USA recently, whilst various cricketing member states are being denied the opportunity of hosting games when international tours and tournaments are held in the region.
Firstly, the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport notes Mr Khan’s ‘noble‘ declaration that he wrote “in no official capacity, only as a citizen of Guyana” and his assertion that it is “regrettable” that President Ramotar has by implication, allegedly staff of poor quality as his “aides and advisors” to advise him on issues such as he pronounced upon on this occasion. We find it passing strange that Mr Khan was too shy – or deceptive – to reveal that he is an important employee of the Board and not as impartial as he wishes to imply.
We wish to respond, however, briefly but pointedly, to the gist of his contention.
Groups with competing views and interpretations in relation to a subject, will choose the sections of a document which suit their position, ignoring other relevant sections and advice that is equally admissible and significant. Similarly, in calling for the implementation of the Patterson Report, with its recommendations for the overall reform and improvement in the administration of West Indies Cricket, President Ramotar had no intention of ignoring or dismissing the quite constructive recommendations on pages 106 and 107 quoted by Mr Khan as these pertain to the marketing of the game outside of the region.
Rather, President Ramotar chose to direct his colleagues’ attention to the crucial socio-economic fact that the “economics” of the beloved game is vital to the sustenance and longevity of cricket within the Caribbean.
This ministry is actively aware of the importance of sponsorship, television rights and crowd attendance, which translate into support from the financial/commercial perspective. Was it necessary to remove the games to the USA at this time to the exclusion of regional venues where internationally T/20 games are guaranteed whole- hearted support?
The President of Guyana, whilst actively aware of the long-term positives of marketing West Indies Cricket and the game itself far and wide, reminded his fellow heads of the millions invested in the period leading up to 2007 in building new cricket stadia throughout the Caribbean’s cricketing region.
This upgrading and modernization of cricket’s infrastructure is a practical demonstration of governmental support for the future of the game within the Caribbean. Guyana and the island territories – all members of the WICB, now or in the future – do not all feel that the distribution of games during recent and current tours is in any way equitable.
Therefore the more games played within the region, the better.
In conclusion, the Board and Mr Khan must be aware that the American economy will be negligibly affected if the USA is made to wait a while longer for official International Cricket Council cricket tours.
However the economic losses faced by Caribbean territories when a cricket tour is lost is significant, to say the least. America’s NBA would hardly consider shifting games to the Caribbean to jeopardize their franchises’ profitability locally.
Critics must objectively seek to clearly understand a speaker’s intent, along with the fundamental concepts of an argument, before rushing to print.
Yours faithfully,
Neil Kumar, MP
Director of Sport
