`


THERE IS NO GOD EXCEPT ALLAH
read:
MALAYSIA Tanah Tumpah Darahku

LOVE MALAYSIA!!!


 


Sunday, November 18, 2018

We don’t own the land, govt tells group opposed to temple relocation

The Sri Maha Mariamman Temple is slated for relocation on Nov 22, but several Hindu activists are refusing to abide by the court decision.
PETALING JAYA: Putrajaya has shot back at a group of activists who accuse it of ignoring their plea to stop the relocation of a temple in Subang Jaya next week, saying the government was powerless to go against a court settlement reached between the temple and a private developer.
R Sivarasa.
Deputy Rural Development Minister R Sivarasa also reminded them that the Selangor state government was bound by the consent judgment issued by the High Court in 2014, in which the temple agreed to move out from the land owned by One City, which in turn has pledged RM1.5 million to build a new temple some 3 km away.
“The state government was named as a party in the earlier litigation and had agreed to gazette the new site for the temple, so it has no legal power to compel the developer to stop the eviction,” Sivarasa told FMT.
His comments come as a faction from the Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in Seafield, Subang Jaya, urged for Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad to intervene in the issue.
The Save Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple said it would also mobilise Hindus to gather outside the Parliament building on Nov 21, a day before the temple’s relocation.
The relocation was seen as a win-win solution to a land dispute between the temple and One City. The settlement was also agreed on by two claimants to the temple management, K Chellappa and M Nagaraju.
Under the settlement, One City would donate RM1.5 million to build a new temple on one of two plots of land given to the temple by One City.
Chellappa has since been named as the rightful temple manager. Nagaraju, in an about-turn, is now seeking to stop the relocation.
The temple’s relocation last month was postponed to Nov 22 after a six-hour standoff with devotees who refused to allow the removal of the main deity.
Among the issues raised by opponents of the temple’s relocation was a Banyan tree, which they said was 147 years old, and considered by devotees as sacred.
Last week, former Hindraf activist N Ganesan threw his support behind those against the temple’s relocation, and warned Putrajaya of trouble if it allowed the court decision to be implemented.
“If the developer pursues a non-compromising and aggressive approach touting the court order and pushing ahead, attempting to demolish the temple, and the government does not intervene, we are probably looking at an extremely explosive situation as what happened in previous years under Barisan Nasional,” he had said.
Ganesan had also hit out at Mahathir, accusing him of misleading the Indians by giving more Cabinet positions to those from the community.
Sivarasa said if the temple had been sitting on government land, it could be gazetted for use as a place of worship, or given an alternative location if a public project was involved.
“In the case of temples on private land, the outcome depends on what the owner agrees to,” he said.
C Sivarraajh.
Meanwhile, an MIC leader has also joined the group calling for the temple to remain.
“I think the state government should handle this matter tactfully, this temple should remain there as it involves historical and religious sentiments,” said Cameron Highlands MP C Sivarraajh.
He said Selangor Menteri Besar Amirudin Shari should negotiate with One City.
RSN Rayer.
“I think this problem can be resolved and a beautiful temple can be built like the one in Midvalley Megamall, and serve as a tourism spot.”
Meanwhile, DAP leader RSN Rayer said the consent judgement should be adhered to.
Charles Santiago
He accused MIC and pro-Barisan Nasional NGOs of trying to aggravate the situation.
But Klang MP Charles Santiago said the developer could consider accommodating the temple, saying it was the last of 15 temples built by estate workers in the area.

“I think there are ways the commercial development can coexist with the temple on the grounds. We can look at new ways of doing things.” - FMT

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.