This refers to the letter of Mr. M. B. Weerasekera of Kandy which appeared in the issue of your journal on August 31, 1998 on the above caption. In reading through it, the impression one gets is that the writer is either totally ignorant of the history behind the proposed security fence around the Maligawa premises or he has maliciously distorted the facts. Therefore, it appears necessary to enlighten Mr. Weerasekara on this subject and also efface any adverse impressions created in the public mind by his letter.

There is evidence that down the annals of history spanning over two and half millennia, it has been the duty of the king or the state to protect the Sacred Tooth Relic from being destroyed or captured. It was so as there grew up a blief around it that whoever who possessed the Sacred Relic had the divine power to rule the country; besides, it being a priceless object and an object of antiquity unparalled in the whole world.

Some attempted to destroy it and yet some others waged war to capture it. When Prince Bhagineyya declared war on King Guhasive in whose possession the Sacred Relic was afraid of losing it and, therefore, entrusted it to his own daughter Hemamali and her husband Danta Kumara to be taken to Sri Lanka. On its arrival in Sri Lanka, King Kithsirimevan built a special palace where it was enshrined and kept for public veneration. Whenever the kingdom was shifted from place to place, the Sacred Tooth Relic too, was shifted and always kept under royal protection. It was in keeping with this tradition, the tradition of extending royal protection, that the government considered it fit and proper to give state protection to the Sacred Relic (Dalada Maligawa).

When terrorism arose, both J.V.P. and LTTE, the government set up a special police post and stationed an army unit in the Maligawa premises to protect it. In spite of these protective measures, the LTTEers bomb blasted the Maligawa in January this year: immediately, President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga appointed a presidential task force to go into the question of restoring the building complex. However, not being satisfied with the existing security arrangements, the government has now decided to construct a security fence around the Maligawa premises without curtailing the facilities for the public to visit.

Such being the history behind the security fence, I was hurt when I read Mr. Weerasekera's letter where he has twisted the facts of history to impress the public that "This is yet another attempt by the DN to isolate the Buddhist public from the Sri Dalada Maligawa".

Further, the tone of his letter goes on to suggest that after the construction of the security fence, Sri Dalada Maligawa will be out of bounds for the poor Buddhists but not for the rich and the tourists.

In fairness to DN, it must be said that the writer's attempt to discredit DN and set up the public against him is a feeble one as the present day public is intelligent enough to realise the good work he has started with the organisation of the Buddhist Welfare Fund to help the poor Buddhists rather than isolate them. No other DN in the past has attempted, leave alone accomplish, such socio-religious activities.

P. Ratwatte,
Ukuwela.

The general public do not expect politicians, of whatever shade, to speak words of wisdom while harangueing the public.

A rare exception was the speech of the Chief Minister N.W.P. Mr. Nimal Bandara at the monthly meeting of the Provincial Councils reported in 'The Island' of the 31st August '98.

His bold and enlightened view on 'A degree sans English' deserved greater prominence in your paper.

The need for English was ignored by politicians who were too arrogant or too ignorant to foresee our future and considered only political gain. The 'Sinhala Only Act' gave rise to the 'Anti-Sri campaign and the resentment of the non-Sinhala group initiated the resistance which we now encounter. In India, with independence, the upsurge of nationalism made a similar demand, but Shri Nehru, being more of a statesman than a politician, would not yield.

Here we have dissipated much energy to stall the decline of a language. It has happened to Sanskrit, Pali, Latin or Cuneiform or Hieroglyphics. Perhaps, in the distant future English would yield its place to another language.

The Tar-Brush campaign following the Sinhala Only Act, saw the Sinhalese tar the Tamil nameboards and the Tamils tarring Sinhala letters, leaving English untouched - an indication to the future needs. With the bill the division was between the Sinhalese and the Tamils but now there is a division between the Sinhalese too - those Sinhalese who know English and those who do not, with one group resenting the others progress.

We hope that more politicians will support Minister Bandara to provide the younger generation with a key to knowledge and progress through the teaching of English.

V. P. Ratnayake,
Colombo 05.

Yes-it is luvly as long as it is played by gentlemen.

Obviously-use of foul language especially in international games should be punished by heavy fines and suspension. (If it is a cultural defect-then it must be limited to home and home games)

Negative bowling especially at a time when the game has reached a critical stage should be dealt with by a warning and, if persisted with, an award of 4 runs to the batting side for each wide-bodyline ball. The critical stage can be determined by the match referee and announced.

Negative batting should also be discouraged-cricket is not football. Lbw rules must be suitably amended.

Umpires are only human, true, but we must know that they are selected because they have special talents and are expected to be extra vigilant and also be uniform in their decisions. If in doubt they should be allowed a referral where it appears to lie.

Justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.

This applies to match commentators as well. Do not damn with faint praise..and do not glorify a one run stroke after 20 or more dot balls!

There should be a bar to continued groundless appeals by the fielding side.

The batsman should have a right of appeal to the third umpire when he is well aware that the ball did not touch his bat. He will not excercise this right unless he is sure-otherwise he will be shown out by an adverse decision of the third umpire.

And a word or two to our victorious champions-keep it up! Hypnotise yourselves (or go in for a professional shrink) not to hang out the bat; not to try a six/four with every ball; not to loft unless it is clearly safe to do so; - certainly not before you have got your eye in and are middling the ball.

And to our specialist bowlers-learn to bat better and keep the tail up!

And if I were the Lord at Lords (at the oval, in fact) the one - off test recently concluded, I would have sent in a lower middle order pair to open our second innings...

Xenelphon