Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s characterisation of the Hindu temple in question as illegally constructed must not be allowed to go unchallenged because it was at the root of the dispute and accounts of what happened differ.
His contention is that the temple in the Jalan Masjid India area in Kuala Lumpur had been built there without the permission of its owners, including the current owner textile company Jakel Group and the previous owner Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL).
The controversy was over a piece of land on Jalan Munshi Abdullah off Jalan Masjid India, which houses the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple, built in 1893, the demolition of which is being opposed by many groups.
Soon after Anwar made his announcement today, the temple committee, in a surprising turn of events, said it had agreed yesterday for the temple to be relocated to a nearby location.
However, there are still many unanswered questions remaining in this issue.
Conflicting claims
Considering that there are conflicting claims, Anwar should have been much more circumspect and looked at the issue in greater detail before making an announcement.
He said the temple was erected on a piece of land without permission from its previous and current owners: “Some people do not want to use the term illegal, it’s okay, it is just a term. But the temple did not get permission from the land owner, be it DBKL as its previous owner or the company that owns it now.
“So, our country has laws and we have to follow the laws. But because we want to maintain a good relationship between the multiethnic groups in this country, we are doing something that we did not have to do, which is engaging in peaceful negotiation, because this is their (Hindus) house of worship and should be relocated properly,” he added.
Surely, the approval in 1893 for the temple could not have been given by the current owners?
Let’s look at the facts of the case. This is laid out in a comprehensive Malaysiakini article, which stated: “The temple was built in 1893 and its main deity, Dewi Sri Pathra Kaliamma, stands over six feet tall.
“Initially, it was reported that the temple had been relocated just a short distance in 2008 at DBKL’s request. However, it has since been clarified that the temple was not moved. Instead, a part of the temple - notably its kitchen and priests' living quarters - was demolished to make way for road expansion works.”
The article goes on to say that Malaysiakini sighted an application signed by the temple committee dated Nov 15, 2012, submitted to the Federal Territories Land Administrator under Section 14 of the National Land Code, for the land to be gazetted as a reserve land for a non-Muslim house of worship.
This was an attempt to legalise the land on which the temple was located. DBKL had registered its ownership only on July 19, 2010, following which the application was made. There is no indication who was the owner before that.
But apparently with no notice to the temple committee, the land was sold to textile company Jakel Group in 2014, some two years after the temple committee submitted its application. It was only in 2016 that the temple committee became aware of the sale.
Unanswered questions
It has become an issue since then. The article explains it in detail. There are many unanswered questions:
How could permission have been given by the current and previous owners when the temple was built in 1893? Was there any other owner before DBKL registered its ownership, only in 2010?
Why did DBKL in 2014 allow the sale to another party while the application by the temple committee was pending from 2012? Why did it not exclude the temple land from the sale?
Was there an open tender for the sale or was it a sale made directly to Jakel? If there was no open tender, why not?
Should there be a deep investigation as to how DBKL conducts its affairs with respect to land sales, bringing in investigative authorities?
With such uncertainties surrounding this issue, is it right for Anwar to just say that the temple is illegal even though it has remained there since 1893, over 130 years ago?
Make no mistake, Anwar’s hardline stance - which appears to have been taken without due consideration to the positions and interests of all parties - will lose him a lot of votes and support, even given the (surprising) decision of the temple committee to relocate.
What DBKL should have done is to legalise the temple when the application to do so was submitted, not hand over the land to someone else who had no prior claim on it.
Since the temple occupies only part of the land, the most obvious solution is to give that part of the land to the temple because it has been occupied for such a long time. The mosque can be built adjacent to it and both can co-exist harmoniously as they do in many other areas.
Where is the rule of law? Who do you go to legalise the 1893 temple? DBKL of course. But the land was sold to Jakel by DBKL in 2014 after the temple had applied to legalise it in 2012. DBKL itself registered its ownership only in 2010. Was DBKL deficient?
That’s what Anwar needs to explain. If he can’t explain it, he must have the political courage to let the temple be as before and build the mosque adjacent to it.
Building a Madani mosque on the site of a century-old, long-standing Hindu temple is not the way to go, even if the temple will only be “nearby”. - Mkini
P GUNASEGARAM says politicians think about staying in power, and statespeople think about the country. Politicians lose power because they do not care enough about the country.
The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.