Ramasamy wants DBKL to come clean by disclosing Hindu temple’s land sale agreement

THE disclosure of the 2014 Sales and Purchase (S&P) Agreement of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple land in Jalan Masjid India land to Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd is a crucial step in understanding the relationship between the temple and the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL).

The existence of the temple structure would undoubtedly have been acknowledged in the S&P Agreement.

More importantly, the document as requested by lawyers Datuk Ambiga Sreenivasan and N. Surendran who act on the Hindu temple’s behalf should clarify whether any provisions were made regarding the temple’s rights.

Given the temple’s long-standing presence – along with the municipal facilities it has enjoyed – it is difficult to classify it as an illegal structure.

During the same period that this temple sought approval for its existence, many other temples in Kuala Lumpur were granted approvals. Yet, DBKL refused to recognise this temple officially.

Ramsamy and his Urimai team visit in a recent visit to the 130-year-old Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Hindu temple in Jalan Masjid India, Kuala Lumpur

Why the reluctance?

Was this a deliberate act by the city council or was there a valid reason for withholding approval?

Did DBKL ever designate the land for non-Muslim worship or permit temporary occupation? These are pressing questions that need answers.

It is highly unlikely that a major textile company like Jakel Trading would have purchased land with a historic temple on it without first ensuring that DBKL would clear any encumbrances.

No commercial entity would willingly take on such a complication. This raises further questions:

• What were the terms of the land purchase?
• Why did Jakel Trading proceed with the transaction despite the temple’s presence?
• Was the land acquired with the intention of building a mosque?
• Were there clauses in the agreement regarding the temple’s future?
• Did DBKL provide assurances to Jakel Trading about handling the temple issue?

Onus on DBKL

While DBKL might argue that it has no involvement in the current dispute since the land was sold 11 years ago, it cannot evade responsibility.

The public deserves to know the details of this sale and whether DBKL played a role in the on-going conflict.

Full disclosure of the S&P Agreement would clarify the circumstances under which the land was sold and the commitments – if any – made by DBKL.

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s assertion that the temple must make way for the Madani Mosque appears premature.

He was quick to label the temple as illegal without fully understanding the complexities of the case. Perhaps a deeper examination of the S&P Agreement would lead him to reconsider his stance.

The temple committee firmly believes that this historic and heritage-rich temple which has stood for 130 years will remain where it is.

To those who view this issue purely in black and white – legal or illegal – I urge caution. This is a matter that requires deeper understanding, not simplistic judgments.

DBKL must come forward and disclose the agreement. Transparency is the only way to ensure justice for all parties involved.

Former DAP stalwart and Penang chief minister II Prof Ramasamy Palanisamy is chairman of the United Rights of Malaysian Party (Urimai) interim council.

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia.