@lemuel
Well the guy who introduced the email said it was just a change in specifications, not scope. Those aren't the same things, granted specification is an incredibly vague term. The characters said check to what scope the specifications will change things; to what extent will these changes affect the project. That's not the same thing as changing the entire scope of a project or sprint. And I'm not sure I agree with calling developers stakeholders, that's an incredibly varied term, especially in software development. Developers are just as often not stakeholders, as they are stakeholders.
The owner / person bankrolling makes the decisions. Developers can say what's possible, what can be done with x resources, etc, etc, but it's not their decision. And considering we don't know if this is an in-house project and who did or did not speak on these changes, I can't see any grounding for what you've said beyond carelessness. And I don't see why you're bringing up sprints; I don't see how it ties into what you've said and I'm not sure they're even working within Agile. Agile does not mix well with Asian cultures. I brought up Agile as a response to events within the story and how that's playing out in the real world, not to suggest that's what's being practiced.
Considering how vague everything is because it's not majorly relevant to the story or the story themes, it's hard to judge exactly what happened, and there's certainly not enough information to label anything "the height of unprofessionalism" or "screamingly unprofessional". At this level, and from what we know, I'd say you're overreacting.