I wish to convey my deepest disappointment in the manner the age group for Sukma 2008 was decided even though the feedback from most of the States is that they are against it. This decision is not very democratic and does not reflect the voice of the majority. As a matter of principle, it shows the lack of consistency in the decision making process of the
In all due respect, Dato’ has set the ball rolling again for uncertainty in Sukma all over again. Or is it set to stay at U-23? Will the next host have a say in what age group they want? The manner in which the decision was made was also shrouded in a dark cloud and not transparent.
I am not against the change of age group but against the manner it was done. The States should have a say in this very important decision as it affects all of them. The changes should have taken place in the following edition whereby all teams will have ample notification and time to prepare for it. Even then how many teams actually have players older than 21 years of age? Most of these players are in the national back-up team anyway. So what development are we talking about? And in
Dato’ has personally said that it is too late if they don’t make it at the U-19 level to me personally in front of all SDO’s and Coaches during our meeting in the Cititel in Penang 2 years ago.
Again, I convey my deepest disappointment and lost of confidence in the leadership and transparency of the
Allan Pete Soyza
Now here is the funny part, instead of looking into the complain that I have put forward, they instead are obsessed with the last paragraph of the email. Apparently, action is to be taken against me for what is my personal feeling towards the Management Committee. Now this shows how our so called leaders of the game thinks, more interested in getting their hands on me rather than to look into the issue and address it.
The reason the email was written was a matter of principle, policy and manner it was decided. SRAM has set a precedence before by rejecting the request of other host for Sukma recently (2002) but now allows a change for 2008 at the request of the host. Smell something fishy?There's more... the manner it was decided was at a sub-committee level and not at the main management level. And it is clearly stated in the constitution that the decisions that affects national interest needs to be discussed at the main management level. No notice or even a consensus was ever sent out or done.
So now they didn't even look at the procedure that they took to reach the decision but instead spent 1.5 hours discussing the last paragraph and what action should be taken against me, and the priority is sacking. Well done SRAM. Too bad they do not have the jurisdiction in that matter as I am an employee of NSC under the Core Sport Department. Even then, I wrote that letter as an individual and not as the employee of NSC. So far, all my duties have been performed well and proper. Nothing major can be done and if they do, well, legally it will be settled.
I have other options and am not too worried at the consequenses of my action. Let's see how mature the leadership of SRAM is. But I bet you, the real issue will be swept under the carpet. So if you are looking for a job with SRAM, you better be a "Yes" man, "Blind", "Deaf" or "Dumb" as not to offend the leadership no matter how wrong they are. If you have those qualities, you'll surely be employed. FAM, you got a partner coming your way soon....
Cheers for now.
Disclaimer: This is my opinion and should not be construed as facts.