More from malay language press, pls use google translator : http://www.bharian.com.my/bharian/articles/INGundur_Protonpenajautama/Article http://www.hmetro.com.my/myMetro/articles/AlasanNadzmi/Article Basically Proton is back is title/main sponsor. Discussions on ING sponsorship after TC/Uber, whether ING still sponsoring not confirmed. As I said bf, dont think Proton would let go being main sponsor(not surprising), unless new sponsor offers double or triple the amount.
I think you are not familiar with how large corporations work and BAM can be considered a corporation. Everyone in BAM who is not in the Executive council are junior officers or executives. The roles of the secretary, his assistant, and the treasurer are simply to be at the beck and call of the president. They are like his personal attendents. This is spelled out in the constitution-the president has the sole power to hire and fire these 3 positions without even telling anyone! When your position is no more than to be the president's doormat consider yourself lucky to even rub shoulders with executive councillors. Maybe Ganga should have become a full-time executive like another general manager. A corporation can have multiple general managers.
I am familiar with BAM for a very long time, and personally knew the BAM President that won Malaysia its last Thomas Cup when he was in office. But I am not talking so much about the interpretation of junior officers or executives, but the tone at which Nadzmi is using to say that he can pretty much hire and fire Ganga without giving reasons, whether or not it is within his constitutional rights. Even constitutional rights can be challenged in court if there is evidence of foul play. Nadzmi must still look upon Ganga as someone who had significant mileage in BAM and BWF. That had to be respected. Never mind if he was only a so-called junior officer. Thus when making statements to the press, Nadzmi shouldn't be showing the superior tone because it would just make people draw the conclusion that Ganga is made as a scapegoat and Nadzmi is hiding something to protect the rest of the BAM including Nadzmi himself. Surely it's not rocket science to find a good enough explanation for the removal of Ganga in a more amicable tone.
I thought it was the other way and that he was simply being ethical by using the rod or cane-clean and simple. Sometimes this type of strategy is to defuse some other more potentially serious misdeed by someone he wants to protect to avoid or even preempt a messy public scandal. I am of the opinion that none of the executive council members knew or was in any way responsible for getting a 3rd party involved. So I don't think he was protecting the people you are referring to. If Ganga feels that he is used as a scapegoat then he is indeed very lucky because he can always sue for damages. The BAM president is a pretty young fellow for a large corporation president and he has some impressive credentials by being among a select group of 3 businessmen representing Malaysia in the G20 group meeting. I would certainly feel confident about the steps he has taken in this case.
My if BAM is run meticulously like a corporation with emphasis on procedure and red tape, it might be difficult to cope with change. Maybe that's why countries like maybe Denmark can instill change faster being lean and mean, instead of being dominated and ruled by bureaucrats. Still Msia badminton is faring well in spite of all that red tape, with world no 1 in MS,MD , at some time WD and inroads in MXD. Would BAM be more successful being run strictly as a corporation by bureaucrats like the dinosaur Japanese corporations or by being lean like Microsoft? Certain corporations are only successful in Msia because they enjoy the protection of the government, left to their own devices, they would fail to exist. At a certain point corporations which fail to deliver can do better by allowing more autonomy and a flatter structure for example, maybe the time will come.
I thought it was the other way and that he was simply being ethical by using the rod or cane-clean and simple. Sometimes this type of strategy is to defuse some other more potentially serious misdeed by someone he wants to protect to avoid or even preempt a messy public scandal. I am of the opinion that none of the executive council members knew or was in any way responsible for getting a 3rd party involved. So I don't think he was protecting the people you are referring to. If Ganga feels that he is used as a scapegoat then he is indeed very lucky because he can always sue for damages. The BAM president is a pretty young fellow for a large corporation president and he has some impressive credentials by being among a select group of 3 businessmen representing Malaysia in the G20 group meeting. I would certainly feel confident about the steps he has taken in this case. taneepak is online now Reply With Quote Wow, interesting deduction. The BAM president is the chairman of a government linked company.He is also the President of the BAM. Common interests and synergy,both polishing each other.! Suddenly someone brings in a foreign sponsor to displace the GLC, depriving it of its agenda to link the sport to the GLC and national strategic interests. Now who do you think is actually doing more to promote badminton?
Perhaps you should read that bit about the door still being open to ING as a sponsor provided it deals directly with the BAM and not through a 3rd party. Involvement of a 3rd party through the back door unknown to the president looks suspicious. I think the BAM did approve ING as a direct sponsor, not through a 3rd party. In fact BAM did say the more sponsors the better. It was the 3rd party spanner that wrecked the ING deal. In my opinion I think BAM should create a sponsors/development body to bring in future streams of big bucks to go hand in hand with the sports' development like making the game where everyone can and will play, just like the way they do it in Denmark. What is lacking in Malaysia is the absence of any badminton league for the elites and non-elites, for all ages from 7, 9, 12, 16, 19, adults, to senior citizens all through the whole year. Once you reach the stage where everyone plays the game, the old, the elites, the parenst will ensure there will be a constant supply of future champions.
Perhaps the following may explain why the BAM president was reluctant to give the real reasons for sacking the secretary: The president says neither he, his fellow executive members nor ING knew anything about a 3rd party being involved. Even ING questioned why their sponsorship deal has to go through a 3rd party (A Singapore company) instead of a direct deal with BAM; BAM was also asking the same question on why ING could not deal directly with them. The chap responsible was caught with his pants down. Now that 3rd party gets nothing from what would have been some easy money?
Are we talking facts or merely speculating.Someone is hurling accusations at someone, in Msia it would be followed with a lawsuit.What is the source? Papparazzi in HK? I would not speculate until I am in the know or involved with the people. It is laughable that people could make money out of sponsorship deals.Sponsorship is giving away money in return for intangibles,in badminton one has to beg sponsors to part with their money. To me, looking at the big picture I am very suspicious when someone who devoted his life to Msia badminto could be disposed off because of some procedure.Dont you think it is a bit harsh and there is a bigger agenda.
You are right I did not read that part, but it is because I didn' t think it was worth reading like all the biased rhetoric we are bombarded with.Was Ganga ever given a chance to explain? To fire someone is something is something drastic , a warning or disciplinary action could have been possible, I thought we are a inclusive culture. Anyway I won't perticipate anymore in this discussion when it is all based on speculation,opinion and lop-sided views.More interested in the game and the upcoming World Cup.
All these were in the newspapers as reported by reporters based on interviews with the president. As the president said earlier Ganga was not sacked by him. However, after receiving more information subsequently he changed his mind and had to do what he had to do. To sack him under due process would drag out scandalous details, and will bog down BAM and divert their energy away from the Thomas Cup. It could also be a legal mess. So, the president did it the legal way, that is exercising the powers given to him by the constitution. This way it is clean and clinical and cannot be challenged. That was the same method he used to bring Ganga in.
A person is guilty until proven innocent? . My comment: It should be of the laws is to protect the innocent person/party. My question: What has Ganga done that he should be sacked? .
Wow we can believe the writings of journalistd. If someone states that he has no objection of a 3rd party entering,why not walk the talk and renegotiate with this 3rd party. Smacks of rhetoric. Most may be what was gleaned from the papers but a lot is personal interpretation and opinion. I think I would rather hear the views of the people close to the action, many of the people here have dealings with the BAM. Also we are gossiping about people, did they get a chance to defend themselves? I am not taking sides, after Ganga was the same person removed by Gunalan as COO of BWF, but neither should we be speaking on behalf of other parties, a more balanced view is in order and there are far more reliable people in rhis forum who understand local culture better . Would you take seriously when I comment about say China affairs based on what I hear from say CNN or The New Strauts Tines? Is it ethical for me to comment on China people based on what I read?
To sack him under due process would drag out scandalous details, and will bog down BAM and divert their energy away from the Thomas Cup. It could also be a legal mess. So, the president did it the legal way, that is exercising the powers given to him by the constitution. This way it is clean and clinical and cannot be challenged. That was the same method he used to bring Ganga in. Is this fact ,opinion or the judgement of a learned judge?
The constitution of BAM specifically says the president has the sole power to hire or fire its secretary, assistant secretary, treasurer. So the courts do not come in unless there is a law in the country that voids such a clause in a sporting organization. The president used this basis to "I appointed Ganga as secretary while he was only a junior officer, and I didn't give any reason. So I guess I 'll live to that". This statement is deceptively simple but fool-proof as it cannot be challenged in court. Looks like the lawyers have been through this. It however fans a lot of speculation and rumours initially, but now appears to taper off. No reason is given for the sacking because termination is not dependent on justification, unfair it may appear to be.
Despite a request from BAM to BAC to replace Ganga as Malaysia's representative in the recently concluded Badminton Asia Confederation AGM, Ganga was still re-appointed as head of development of BAC. The reason BAC gave for rejecting BAM's request was that the request did not meet the stipulated 2-weeks' notice, as required by the BAC constitution. So you see, two can play the same game.
It however fans a lot of speculation and rumours initially, but now appears to taper off. Now who are the people speculating and creating rumours and passing judgement based on opinions based on newspaper reports and acting as spokesman for certain people? Luckily this is not a court case otherwise people would be cited for contempt of court.
