Today's dailies reported the Chairman of Coaching Committee's disappointment of the MHF Council rejection of his clearance to the national coaches. Firstly there is no change of mind by the MHF Council because it would be the first time they would have come to know about it. In that sense the Council as the governing body has the right to decide.
More importantly the action of the Chairman of the Coaching Committee must be questioned. He has acted "ultra vires" of the constitution of MHF. He unilaterally made the decision without consulting his own Committee. This is not the first time he has done such an act. Over the period he has been Chairman, he has created enough blunders on a unilateral basis , which has turned his Committee meetings into "war" scenario.
Now in the heights of "showmanship", the Chairman in his action of calling for a meeting to discuss the issue of the national coaches, maybe taking on the MHF Council. Maybe he is trying to display who is the "boss" and calls the "shots". Probably this maybe an error of judgement on his part that may bring the whole MHL to disrepute. The point being such a meeting should have been held prior to his unilateral decision. At least he would have had the constitution on his side and more so the Affiliates representatives too. After "spilling the milk" he is trying to salvage his own pride.
If the Chairman of the Coaching Committee "tickles" his grey matter carefully, he would realise some of the facts he made known to the medis may not paint the right scene. He has to recognise the following:
- The number of national coaches who are on MHF payroll and suppose to be involved in MHL are only 3. They are the senior team assistant coach, The national Under 18 coach and his assistant.
- The above 2 assistant coaches are employees of TNB and they are adequately looked after by their employer. On a piecemeal, the issue of being paid a paltry RM$750 per month as national assistant coach and staying in KL may be dramatising the issue. Please check with the person concerned of his combined remuneration package for the truth.
- As for TNB, i am sure they have adequate coaches because of their corporate social responsibilities to hockey. The services of these 2 personalities may not be deemed necessary.
- The only person that remain an issue would probably be the national Under 18 coach. On the first place in taking the appointment he should have realise that he is moving to a different bracket and he should have made sure that he negotiated a reasonable remuneration package to make up for what he would not be earning.
- Finally the argument of precedent does not mean it is always right when time passes on. At that time there may have been grounds and whether the same grounds apply now may be questionable. Indeed if any, the Chairman should "weight" each circumstances on its own merits and not allow history alone to dictate the decisions.
Just because "one or two people decided to have dreams, it does not mean that they can impose nightmares" to MHF and Malaysian hockey. The strange thing is the Chairman of the Coaching Committee is "blind" to these facts and seem to be guided by "whims and fancies" of the situations.