What began as concern over timing has widened into a broader issue involving governance, appointments and accountability.

At the centre is the coaching and development committee, led by Majid Manjit Abdullah.

When Manjit agreed to take charge in 2024, he did so on one condition that his panel would have full authority over coaching matters.

It was a clear mandate built on trust, and that understanding shaped Sarjit’s appointment.

The panel advertised the position, shortlisted candidates and carried out interviews. Several applicants, including foreign coaches, entered the race. South African Brendon Carolan was among them.

It selected Sarjit and forwarded its recommendation to the executive board, which gave its approval.

Sarjit took on a 2+2-year deal (2024–2028) with a clear target: qualify for the 2026 World Cup.

He delivered that target at the World Cup qualifier in Ismailia, Egypt but the same framework did not guide his exit.

Call settled before assessment

Soon after returning from the tournament in Egypt, Manjit met MHC president Subahan Kamal.

Subahan informed him that the executive board had already decided not to retain Sarjit. He asked Manjit to pass the message to the coach.

By then, the direction had been settled.

The coaching panel did not assess Sarjit’s performance beforehand. It did not examine his report from the qualifier and it did not submit any recommendation.

Instead, members met on Tuesday — after the outcome — and only then reviewed the report.

That sequence has raised concern within hockey circles, particularly as technical evaluation falls under the panel’s role.

Sources said discussions at leadership level centred on Malaysia’s world ranking, with concern it could drop from No 15.

However, those involved in Sarjit’s appointment said ranking never formed part of his KPI, which focused on World Cup qualification.

Successor installed without input

The same pattern appears in the appointment of Sarjit’s successor.

Carolan had earlier applied for the top job before joining the national side as assistant coach.

Sources said that move came through a directive from the top, not through the coaching committee.

Sarjit accepted Carolan’s inclusion, and the panel chose not to object.

MHC has now elevated Carolan to head coach.

The committee did not evaluate candidates. It did not propose the appointment. It has not been briefed on the new coach’s targets.

Sources said members also remain unclear about the terms of Carolan’s deal.

Departure from past practice

Those familiar with the committee’s work point to a distinct contrast.

When Arul Selvaraj left the national setup in 2024, it reviewed his performance and submitted its recommendation to the executive board.

That step did not take place in Sarjit’s case.

His employment terms have also drawn attention.

He agreed to a two-year arrangement with a two-year extension option, with a clause requiring MHC to inform him at least three months before expiry whether it intended to renew.

MHC informed him on March 18 that it would not continue with him.

Sources also highlighted a gap at the start of the year, noting that Sarjit remained in charge after Dec 31 without a new written agreement in place.

While termination clauses allow notice or payment in lieu, those familiar with the matter said the concern lies in whether the governing body followed its own framework from start to finish.

Discontent, but no resignations

Members of the coaching committee have made their position clear.

They are unhappy with how the matter unfolded and have questioned both the outcome and the lack of consultation.

Yet they will not walk away.

Sources said they intend to pursue the issue through the proper channels — not only in relation to Sarjit, but to safeguard how future coaching matters are handled.

They are expected to present their position to the executive board.

As one source put it: “You can change a coach. But if the way you make decisions keeps changing, then nothing really changes.”