top of page
Search

How Not to Be A Thomian

Writer's picture: Richard SimonRichard Simon

Updated: Mar 7, 2024

At this Royal-Thomian season, an unexpected challenge to the honour of Thomia



The hundred and forty-fifth Battle of the Blues is upon us, with even more fuss and fanfare than usual as Royalists and Thomians let off steam after the temporary retrenchment demanded by Covid and economic collapse. The streets of Colombo are awash again with match-goers and celebrants, all decked out for carnival and making a glorious nuisance of themselves, while charter flights from abroad disgorge more revellers to add to the heaving throng. Cricketing talk and argument run high, days of old are fondly recalled, tall tales are retold to make them even taller and many a glass is raised in toast to present company and absent friends. This is a time of year when Thomians and Royalists remember who they are and celebrate the grand institutional patrimony to which they are heirs. Most of the time, if not always, they remember that they are meant to be gentlemen, and conduct themselves accordingly.

       This year, we Thomians – Old Thomians in particular – are faced with an unexpected test of our honour. Circulating online among various STC-related social-media groups is an anonymous poison-pen letter headed ‘Rally Round the College Flag’. Many of my friends, mistaking my slight knowledge of Thomian history for familiarity with present-day Thomian community politics, have forwarded it to me, asking whether any of what it says is true.

       I have, I confess, read the letter. It contains several allegations against the present Anglican Bishop of Colombo, one of which concerns the wardenship of St Thomas’s College (the Bishop is head of the Board of Governors, which appoints the warden). I shall not repeat the allegations, still less give any opinion about whether or not they are true. I don’t know and I don’t want to know. Anonymous letters are the lowest and most contemptible form of libel and no-one, on principle, should give any credence to them. When the British ruled Ceylon, they often deplored the shameful propensity of educated Lankans for writing anonymous letters; Warden Buck of St Thomas’s College was particularly scornful of the practice, and once flogged a boy he caught writing such letters so hard that the offender’s parents took him to court. The case was thrown out, the presiding magistrate finding that Buck had not ‘exceeded his authority as a schoolmaster in any way whatever.’


*


Faced with allegations of bad faith, corruption and malfeasance involving their alma mater or members of its governing body, Thomians, young or old, are apt to take them seriously, whatever their source. Those unfamiliar with Thomian history tend to regard any talk of wrongdoing at College as a blemish upon a hitherto stainless reputation. Nothing wicked, they believe, ever happened in the great days of Miller or Stone or de Saram; controversy and division among the Thomian community are to them a modern phenomenon, redolent of the slough of selfishness, corruption and fraud into which poor Mother Lanka has lately fallen. We are shocked, disgusted, thrown into moral panic, and end up giving such accusations more attention and credence than they deserve.

       Those of us who have studied the history of the College know that controversy and division are far from new to Thomia. The experience of Warden Buck testifies to this, as do numerous other instances of ill-feeling and even litigation scattered through the years. No great, long-lasting institution can avoid such misfortunes. The first public scandal associated with the College occurred in 1851, when the school was barely six months old; and just to show that such mishaps are not confined to any one institution, that early public spat also involved the Colombo Academy, the future Royal College. You’ll be able to read all about it in Thomia, by the way, along with some of the other disasters and scandals that have plagued STC throughout her long history without ever really threatening her honour.

       Concerning the more recent past, most Thomians, young or old, have heard the oft-repeated claim that admissions to STC are rigged in favour of certain persons or groups. Mostly, such accusations arise from a poor understanding of the admissions process itself; it is rigged, sort of, but openly, with a ‘points system’ that awards extra credit to Anglicans and certain other groups. This simply reflects the mission of the College, which is in part to serve the Church of Ceylon and its members, for some of whom special provision has to be made. Thomia was never meant, nor does she ever want, to be an exclusive school for rich men’s sons – no matter that a few rich old boys, at least, have always wanted it to be just that. Indeed, another common – and opposing – charge is that rich boys are more likely to be admitted to STC than poor ones. This one is harder to deflect; it is, in fact, one of the perennial complaints against private education, one heard all over the world. Again, the pros and cons of the question – it is not as one-sided as some might think – are discussed in some detail in Thomia.


*


The controversy over admissions is an annual one, but minor. Only a few members of the Thomian community are involved, for only those with a son seeking admission have any direct interest in it. Less regular, though far more virulent whenever it does surface, is factional rivalry over the appointment of wardens and the extension of their terms. As well as being the greatest secular honour subsisting in the gift of the Church of Ceylon, the wardenship of St Thomas’s College is one of the most important appointments controlled by any private institution in Sri Lanka. Thomian influence on society is still considerable, so the appointment is a matter of interest not only to Thomians but to others, including politicians of all stripes. It is therefore subject to intense partisanship, aggressive lobbying and, sadly, occasional attempts by old boys and others to interfere with and, if possible, influence the selection.

       There is nothing new about this, either. Save for Samuel Anandanayagam, the unusual circumstances of whose appointment rendered it impervious to criticism, every warden since Charles Davidson has been appointed over a cacophony of disagreement. Sometimes the chorus is muted, sometimes it is loud enough to endanger the chapel roof, but since the early 1980s it has grown ever more audacious and uncouth. John Selvaratnam was merely subject to gossip about his unpolished diction, his outsider status and his allegedly reckless driving. Later candidates fared much worse. Accusations and complaints against Neville de Alwis formed an irritating counterpoint to his long wardenship, rising to a periodic crescendo whenever his contract came up for renewal; the controversy even spilled over into the national press. And when de Alwis eventually retired – reputation, in spite the his detractors, still very much intact – his appointed successor proved so unpalatable to large sections of the Thomian community that they sued the Board, preventing the warden-elect from taking up his post for three years and finally having his appointment declared null and void.

       Now, it seems, it is Warden Billimoria’s turn.

He is approaching his tenth year in office. He has been an effective warden and in many ways an inspirational one, and is still a relatively young man. Wardens tend to be contracted for a four-year term, extensible in multiples thereof, so he is now on his second notional extension. A successor has already been advertised for. Some, nevertheless, feel that Rev. Billimoria should continue in place. The wild spatter of assorted accusations, innuendoes and allegations that is ‘Rally Round...’ is clearly designed to undermine the reputations and credibility of some of the people involved in making the big decision. As usual, no real evidence of malfeasance is offered, just interpersonal connexions and conspiracy theories. Despite this, the letter is all over social media – on STC chat groups, flying back and forth in emails, and heaven knows where else: a scandal in and of itself.


*


And so, as Thomians prepare to enjoy the Royal-Thomian and the spirit of fellowship that comes upon us at this season, we are forced to deal with the ugly reality that some among us prize their factional or personal interests above the values we all were taught in school and are meant to hold in common. Whatever the intent of the person (or persons) who wrote ‘Rally Round...’, their action was perfectly timed to make this Royal-Thomian season marginally less enjoyable, marginally less unifying, marginally less Thomian than it would ordinarily be. No doubt they would argue that they are acting in the best interests of the College, but the fact that their allegations are unsubstantiated, as well as their reluctance to sign their names to the charge-sheet, suggest otherwise. In fact, their conduct offers the rest of us an object lesson in how not to be a Thomian. Let us take it, and ignore their letter.

       Enjoy the Royal-Thomian! No matter what the result of the match, there will still be plenty for all of us, blue-and-black and blue-and-gold alike, to enjoy. But please, do not seek to learn whether the allegations contained in ‘Rally Round the College Flag’ are true or false. Time will tell. As Warden Buck (or, indeed, any other warden of STC, including the present incumbent) would sternly assure you, paying undue attention to the contents of an anonymous letter is nearly as shameful as writing one. For more information and updates about my forthcoming history of STC, subscribe to the Thomia mailing list and blog here.

1,462 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comentários


© 2023 / Richard Simon. 

bottom of page