Loud Thinking

Archive for the ‘Pakistan’ Category

An advice to the Pakistani cricket team’s management and players

Rather than going for criticising the players, who are failing in their performances, I want to change the attitude and infuse passion and intensity in the team.

The attitude of the players must be changed, so that each player thinks he is playing for the country; and must display the maturity and responsibility, as if, he was the PM of Pakistan and captain of the team.

According to Nido R. Qubein,
Quote. “Literature and history are full of people who suffered from handicaps, had talents that were inferior to those around them, lived in the worst of circumstances, or faced many defeats. Yet, many of these people are listed among the winners in life’s Hall of Fame.

The secret is this: Whether you reach success or failure in life has little to do with your circumstances; it has much more to do with your attitude…with your faithful courage…with your choices!

You see, non-achievers blame their circumstances; winners rise above their circumstances. Some concentrate on the blank wall that boxes them in; winners always look for a way to get under it, over it, around it, or through it.

Moreover, the tour team management must emphasise to the players that “You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, prepare to win, and expect to win.”

Surround yourself with positive influences. When you are surrounded by negative thinkers, image, or materials, it is easy to get bogged down in hopelessness.

Read inspiring books and magazines. Listen to motivational recordings and speakers. Attend positive-thinking seminars or programs. Make it a point to read or watch or listen to something positive and inspiring at least once every day.

Associate with positive people. Look for friends who feel good about themselves, people who have the attitude of gratitude. People who need to tear down others are not happy with themselves and are not good for you or your attitude.” Unquote.

Moreover, the tour team management must emphasise to the players that “You were born to win, but to be a winner, you must plan to win, prepare to win, and expect to win.”

Players must give their best, forget about the result and leave it to Allah.

Players should and must also support and cover up the weaknesses of each other, so that it becomes the duty of the comrades to convert the failure (s) of a colleague into the success of the team.

My letter published by the daily “Dawn” today on 5 November, 2013.

Link:- http://dawn.com/news/1054254/cricket-rules-some-questions

Cricket rules: some questions

FROM THE NEWSPAPER

Share Email 0 Comment(s) Print
Published

2013-11-05 07:51:35

THE question before everyone, particularly the International Cricket Council (ICC) and match referee David Boon, is that whether the umpires changed the ball and granted five penalty runs to the Pakistani team, under the latest ICC Test match playing conditions coming into effect from Oct, 1, rule 42.1.1 or 42.1.2?

If rule 42.1.1 (quoted as below) was applied, then why didn’t the umpires allow the batsman at the wicket to choose the ball as per clearly specified law (a) and did the bowler’s-end umpire inform formally the captain of the batting side of what did occur as per (d) below?

a) Change the ball forthwith. The batsman at the wicket shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.

Additionally, the bowler’s end umpire shall:

b) Award five penalty runs to the batting side.

c) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.

d) Inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.

e) Together with the other umpire report the incident to the ICC match referee who shall take action as is appropriate against the player(s) responsible for the conduct under the ICC Code of Conduct.

However, if rule 42.1.2, quoted as follows, was applied:

If it is not possible to identify the player(s) responsible: a) change the ball forthwith. The umpires shall choose the replacement ball for one of similar wear and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.

(b) The bowler’s end umpire shall issue the captain with a first and final warning, and (c) advise him that should there be any further incident by that team during the remainder of the match, steps 42.1.1 a to e above will be adopted, with the captain deemed under e) to be the player responsible.Why did the bowler’s end umpire not issue first and final warning as per 42.1.2 (b) to G.C Smith? And if the warning was issued to the South Africa captain, then why after the match AB de Villiers said the following on record, as reported by ESPN cricinfo, quoted as below:

“De Villiers said there was uncertainty as to what they were being penalised for: ‘I don’t even know where the message came from. There were no warnings, no talk of it. I still don’t know the facts’.”

As such, all the above mentioned facts must be cleared by the ICC and the match referee. It should also be explained that whether De Villiers was speaking a white lie, or did the elite ICC umpires, miserably failed in the performance of their duties as per law and gave undue advantages to the South African team at the expense of the Pakistani team?

S. NAYYAR UDDIN AHMAD
Lahore

Rather than going for criticising the players, who are failing in their performances, I want to change the attitude and infuse passion and intensity in the team.

The attitude of the players must be changed, so that each player thinks he is playing for the country; and must display the maturity and responsibility, as if, he was the PM of Pakistan and captain of the team.

According to Nido R. Qubein,
Quote. “Literature and history are full of people who suffered from handicaps, had talents that were inferior to those around them, lived in the worst of circumstances, or faced many defeats.

Yet, many of these people are listed among the winners in life’s Hall of Fame.

The secret is this: Whether you reach success or failure in life has little to do with your circumstances; it has much more to do with your attitude…with your faithful courage…with your choices!

You see, non-achievers blame their circumstances; winners rise above their circumstances. Some concentrate on the blank wall that boxes them in; winners always look for a way to get under it, over it, around it, or through it.

Surround yourself with positive influences. When you are surrounded by negative thinkers, image, or materials, it is easy to get bogged down in hopelessness.

Read inspiring books and magazines. Listen to motivational recordings and speakers. Attend positive-thinking seminars or programs. Make it a point to read or watch or listen to something positive and inspiring at least once every day.

Associate with positive people. Look for friends who feel good about themselves, people who have the attitude of gratitude. People who need to tear down others are not happy with themselves and are not good for you or your attitude.” Unquote.

Players must give their best, forget about the result and leave it to Allah.

Players should and must also support and cover up the weaknesses of each other, so that it becomes the duty of the comrades to convert the failure (s) of a colleague into the success of the team.

PCB must immediately contact ICC, to ban cricketers dress with zippers, in all future matches including the ensuing ODI and T20 matches, scheduled in the next few days between Pakistani and South African teams; and also REPLACE THE BAISED AND APARTHEID MINDED REFEREE FOR THE UPCOMING ODI AND THE T20 SERIES MATCHES, IN THE UAE.

Height of ICC’s double standards… Apartheid is also double standards.

Can Mr. David Boon, the ICC’s match referee for the Pakistan vs South Africa 2nd Test, being played at Dubai, explain his following statement reported today, by the ESPNcricinfo.

“Match referee David Boon said: “After discussions with Mr du Plessis, he has elected not to contest that charge, but I am also satisfied that this was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball, and that the imposition of a fine of 50% of his match fee is appropriate considering the circumstances.”

Now following questions must be answered by the ICC.

1. When Du Plessis elected not to contest the charge, what does it mean? Obviously he pleaded guilty and the player himself admits he was NOT innocent.

2. Then why the match referee David Boon declared him innocent and Not guilty by saying the following words “but I am also satisfied that this was not part of a deliberate and/or prolonged attempt to unfairly manipulate the condition of the ball”?

3. If the illegal act of the SA cricketer was NOT DELIBERATE AND THERE WAS NO UNFAIR MANIPULATION, then what for the poor and innocent SA player has been fined and penalised so HEAVILY, with a 50% match fee fine?

4. Here, isn’t it a case of giving the offender a safe passage and letting him scot free, in a most honourable manner?

5. Hope ICC remembers very well that during the Oval Test match, neither the Pakistani denial was accepted (there was also no TV fottage or any other evidence of any Pakistani player’s involvement in the alleged ball tampering) nor later on, when it was officially CONFIRMED that no ball tampering was done, the result of the match was awarded against Pakistan, which in any case was the innocent team.

6. Last but not the least, ICC must also recheck and confirm if the guilty Proteas player was tampering the ball with closed eyes, then please remit his heavy fine, as well, absolutely in line with the treatment meted out to the South African captain GC Smith, when he claimed an unfair catch in 1st Test at Abu Dhabi; and was allowed to go Scott free, on the excuse that his eyes were closed, although, he claimed the catch by raising his both hands and jubilantly ran directly towards the umpire.

The question before everyone particularly the ICC and the match referee David Boon, is that whether the umpires changed the ball and granted 5 penalty runs to the Pakistani team, under the latest ICC Test match playing conditions coming into effect from 1st October, 2013 rule 42.1.1 or 42.1.2 ?

If rule 42.1.1 (quoted as below) was applied, then

why the umpires did not allow the batsman at the wicket to choose the ball as per clearly specified law (a) and did the bowler’s end umpire inform formally the captain of the batting side of what did occur as per (d) below?
a) change the ball forthwith. The batsman at the wicket shall choose the replacement ball from a selection of six other balls of various degrees of usage (including a new ball) and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
Additionally the bowler’s end umpire shall:
b) award 5 penalty runs to the batting side.
c) Inform the captain of the fielding side of the reason for the action taken.
d) Inform the captain of the batting side as soon as practicable of what has occurred.
e) Together with the other umpire report the incident to the ICC Match Referee who shall take action as is appropriate against the player(s) responsible for the conduct under the ICC Code of Conduct.

However, if the rule 42.1.2 was applied quoted as below:

42.1.2 If it is not possible to do identify the player(s) responsible:

a) change the ball forthwith. The umpires shall choose the replacement ball for one of similar wear and of the same brand as the ball in use prior to the contravention.
b) the bowler’s end umpire shall issue the captain with a first and final warning, and
c) advise him that should there be any further incident by that team during the remainder of the match, steps 42.1.1 a) to e) above will be adopted, with the captain deemed under e) to be the player responsible.

Why did the bowler’s end umpire, NOT issue first and final warning as per 42.1.2 (b) to GC Smith? And if the warning was issued to the SA Captain, then why after the match AB de Villiers said the following on record, as reported by ESPNcricinfo, quoted as below:

Quote “De Villiers said there was uncertainty as to what they were being penalised for: “I don’t even know where the message came from. There were no warnings, no talk of it. I still don’t know the facts.” Unquote

As such, all the above mentioned facts must be cleared by the ICC and the match referee. It should also be explained that whether De Villiers was speaking a white lie, or did the elite ICC umpires, miserably failed in performance of their duties as per law; and gave undue benefits and advantages to the South African team, at the expense of the Pakistani team?

RJ Tucker didn’t gave out LBW to AB de Villiers, on an appeal from Saeed Ajmal, when the TV footage showed that the ball was really missing the leg stump, but alas..! It was hitting the middle stump.

It looks for ICC, any illegal act done by the foreign players and foreign umpires with CLOSED eyes, are PARDONABLE acts and they can get away, even with murder.

However, the eyes of the umpires are always wide open to warn Pakistani players for overstepping on the pitch, for which even the third umpire, constantly reminds over wireless communication, to the on field umpire.

They say love is blind…. It looks so is the ICC (Indian Cricket Council)… When it comes to dealings with Pakistan.

In this connection, till date, no action has been taken against South African captain GC Smith, for claiming a false catch in the 1st Test played at Abu Dhabi, on the pretext that when he took the catch, his eyes were closed, notwithstanding the fact that after taking the catch he immediately claimed it, by raising his both hands (in hands up position) in the air and jubilantly ran towards the umpire. But then who will dare punish captain of the Proteas team, as both GC Smith and the ICC CEO David Richardson, are from the same country i.e., South Africa.

Under the situation the word “APARTHEID” comes to mind very painfully, which is very appropriately defined as below, by the www.vocabulary.com

Apartheid was a racist political policy in South Africa demanding segregation of the nation’s white and non-white populations. This law requires separation in all forms, reminiscent of parts of the United States before the Equal Rights Amendment.

The law of apartheid came into being with the South African election in 1948. So it makes sense that the word’s history goes back to that date, from the Afrikaans word for “separateness.” It comes from the Dutch, with the “heid” part meaning “hood,” for “apart-hood.” Many people referred to it as “apart-hate,” an apt description for a policy that brutally oppressed an entire people based solely on their skin color. The system was ended in 1993.

Link:- https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/apartheid

Why Hullabaloo only on CNG and Fertiliser gas usage?

Why no audit of IPP’s for maximum waste in Pakistan of gas and furnace oil compared to the rest of the world?

Why total income tax free profit allowed to the IPP’s? This means rewarding the IPPs for colossal wastage of oil and gas and consequently producing very expensive electricity.

Pakistan must ensure that the efficiency of the (independent power producers) IPP’s is improved immediately, if not to the world level, at least to the level of India.

Our gas-fired power plants consume up to 17,000 BTUs to produce one kWh, while India produces one kWh with 6,000 BTUs. We are wasting 11,000 BTUs just for nothing as compared to India.

Our furnace oil fired IPPs are consuming almost twice as much oil, to produce the same amount of electricity, than other comparable power plants in the world.

Now, calculate the monetary value of this waste of the oil and gas (as compared to India\world) and imagine the saving in cheap production of electricity to the government; and its consequential benefits to the people.

Increasing the IPPs efficiency will sharply bring down the cost of production of the electricity and greatly reduce the high power tariff burden on the general public. This can only be done by an energy audit of the IPPs, which the NEPRA has avoided, for the last eight years.

Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif Sahab, these are the management and governance issues; and if attended properly by your government, will result in huge relief to the masses. But some how, I apprehend that your bureaucracy\advisors are not giving you the true picture of the state of the affairs; and the power cartel is so strong that you look absolutely helpless. These people will never allow you to act on the out of box solutions. They just want you to keep on increasing oil, gas and electricity prices, according to their mad dictation.

Mr. PM of Pakistan, it is high time you reshuffle and also change your entire team, repeat entire team, else be ready for not many rosy days in future.

Syed Nayyar Uddin Ahmad

Lahore.

Sent from my iPad3 4G LTE
PS:- The information regarding high usage of gas and furnace oil by our IPPs, its comparison of production efficiency with India and the world and matter of NEPRA energy audit was quoted from the article of Mr. Farrukh Saleem, titled “Power Cartel” published by the daily “The News” dated October 6, 2013.

Helen Keller said : ‘The most pathetic person in the world is some one who has sight but no vision.’

Mr. Ahsan Iqbal, if we have no home grown vision for Pakistan it means we are not only blind but nincompoop, as well.

If we can’t give future direction for Pakistan, than better outsource the country to China, rather than hiring a western firm, to provide vision 2025 for Pakistan.

Moreover, if Planning Commission of Pakistan can’t perform this basic job for the nation; and wants it done through consultants, then why not close this ministry and allocate the relevant assignments to the Finance Ministry?

This situation is a farce and looks like a joke with the nation; and is synonymous with the situation, where a husband hires another man, to perform his own responsibilities.

An Express Tribune news…

Shaky ground: Govt considers McKinsey for help with Vision 2025

By Shahbaz Rana / Creative: Jamal KhurshidPublished: October 9, 2013

The Planning Commission (PC) is considering engaging the global management consulting firm ‘McKinsey & Company’ – a company that has in the past failed to produce a quality report on Pakistan despite charging $5 million − to prepare Vision 2025 for the country.

The PC’s desire to involve McKinsey in preparation of a policy document that it believes will set the priorities of a nation of 180 million people for next 12 years, has raised questions of aligning such policy prescription with ground realities.

Mckinsey had been engaged by the previous government, and paid $5million by the Asian Development Bank on behalf of Pakistan, a huge sum for just one report of questionable quality.

“The McKinsey’s report was fancy but a terrible one in terms of content”, said former deputy chairman Planning Commission Dr Nadeem ul Haque. Haque said he had contacted the McKinsey’s partners thrice and asked them to defend their work, but no one turned up. On one occasion, he said, one of the McKinsey partners admitted the poor quality of the work and promised to revisit the report.

Dr Haque said his predecessor Salman Faruqi had sanctioned $5 million payment to McKinsey.

The timing of giving McKinsey a stake in the new ‘visionary’ document coincides with a three-year International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) programme that has already set policy directions at least for the programme period. The ministry of finance is in the driving seat at the moment and has kept the planning ministry out of the loop. It did not engage the planning ministry when it was finalising the IMF programme that carries far reaching adverse implications on economic growth.

In a conference organised by the PC recently, Salman Ahmad, a partner at McKinsey had claimed that the previous government had shelved his company’s work.

When contacted, Asif Sheikh, the spokesman for the PC, said the government has not yet decided to formally engage the McKinsey.

Federal Minister for Planning, Development and Reforms, Ahsan Iqbal, was keen on preparing a new vision for the country aimed at stabilising economy and ensuring sustainable inclusive growth. However, the biggest obstacle for the commission, according to the minister, was the PC’s capacity constraint.

He has promised to develop the vision by the end of this year but so far the blueprint of the vision is not ready. Sources close to the minister said that Iqbal was upset about the slow pace of work and wanted to hire consultants from the private sector to complete the exercise.

Despite McKinsey’s poor work, Iqbal wanted to engage the firm to overcome capacity constraints, a strategy that is not received well in the PC, according to sources. While acknowledging capacity constraints, PC officials said that the continued indifference of the policymakers towards strengthening the PC led to demise in the working of the Commission.

They said that instead of doling out millions of dollars to these international consultants the government should focus on the Commission or else it should be closed down. The previous government turned the Commission into a project processing unit while compromising on its policy role.

Ahsan Iqbal was not available for comment.

In a similar case, the PC has also engaged Dr Khalid Ikram as a consultant on Vision 2025. Dr Ikram was also involved in the preparation of the Framework for Economic Growth (FEG), prepared by the previous government.

Asif Sheikh said that the PC had requested the ADB to provide assistance in preparation of the Vision 2025 and Dr Khalid Ikram was selected by the ADB. “We have accepted the ADB’s choice”, he added.

Published in The Express Tribune, October 9th, 2013.

How to get billions of USD easily, cheaply and quickly for Pakistan?

H’able Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif Sahab,

AoA.

As per latest reports of media today Pakistan’s total foreign exchange reserves have fallen below $10 billion to $9,92 billion; with SBP having only $4.6 billion and commercial banks $5.32 billion.

Considering the country’s precarious level of foreign exchange reserves, it is suggested that the MOF may be directed to adopt the following scheme (with suitable amendments as Pakistan’s requirement) launched by India, to enhance its foreign exchange reserves, basically to control the fast depreciating Indian Rupee, which has now come back from IR 68 to a dollar to IR 61.44 to a dollar.

Further, India expects gathering additional $30 billion with this scheme, detailed at below.

MUMBAI: Reserve Bank of India governor Raghuram Rajan’s doubling of borrowing limits for banks and the easier norms to tap non-resident bonds may draw as much as $30 billion in the next three months, providing a much needed breather to fix the currency.

Private banks such as ICICIBSE -0.79 %, Axis and even the State Bank of IndiaBSE -0.42 % may be among the lenders which may use the window opened by the new governor to raise US dollars by bond sales which could fetch as much as $20 billion, said analysts. No bank has declared its intention to use the window so far. Rajan’s offer to hedge foreign exchange deposits of the banks at a fixed 3.5% for three years may lure another $10 billion, estimate economists.

“An enhancement in the overseas borrowings would mean additional borrowings possible for the banking sector in foreign currency,” said Mohan Shenoi, treasury head, Kotak Mahindra BankBSE -0.72 %, who had estimated that even if a quarter of it is used about $25 billion could flow into the country. Rajan, on Wednesday, moved to shore up the rupee which was among the worst-performing currencies in the world after foreign investors began to pull out funds as tapering of the quantitative easing in the US turned imminent.

Banks can now borrow up to 100% of their Tier I capital, from 50% forex-denominated FCNR B of three years and above at a fixed hedge cost of 3.5 %. The rupee gained 1.6% to 60.01. The special swap window for the so-called FCNR (B) deposits, probably to offset the US dollar sales to oil companies under a swap agreement, could lead to substantial flows as it did during previous such moves.

This should add about $10 billion to forex reserves and rein in rein expectations around current levels,” said Indranil Sen Gupta, economist, Bank of America Merrill Lynch. “This brings to fruition our standing call that the RBI would need to mobilize forex reserves by launching a NRI deposit scheme in which the rupee risk is borne by it or the government.”

During April-June there were net outflows of $101 million compared to an outflow of $696 million in the same period last year. The outstanding FCNR B deposit in the system is $15 billion, almost one-third of the NRE deposit. According to Sengupta, the cost of FCNRB deposit mobilisation will come to 8.5%. RBI has liberalised norms on NRI deposits to get inflows.

In April, it had exempted deposits under the scheme from the requirement of cash reserve ratio and statutory liquidity ratio. If banks lend at 11%, they will likely make the entire 250 basis points spread as FCNRB deposits will not attract CRR or SLR for now. The currency is expected to gain from the inflows. Similar schemes, like the 1998 Resurgent India Bonds and the 2001 India Millennium Deposits were effective in the past. They had raised $5 billion each.”

With best wishes and kind regards.

Syed Nayyar Uddin Ahmad