Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) has withdrawn a notice to a century-old Hindu temple to be vacated so that it can be demolished, after a protest outside its headquarters.
“They did not give a reason (for the withdrawal) but clearly, the reason is public pressure and I think also their own realisation that what they are doing is wrong,” said PKR vice-president N Surendran, who led the protest.
However PPP information chief A Chandrakumanan disputed this, saying his party had been working behind-the-scene since last month and today’s victory was due to Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s intervention.
“After the PPP and the temple committee appealed to the prime minister on this matter, the prime minister personally sent a letter to (Federal Terrritories Minister) Raja Nong Chik Zainal Abidin on Oct 4 (to keep the temple).
“So it is not because of any pressure from the opposition,” Chandrakumanan told Malaysiakini when contacted after the protest.
He also slammed PKR for instigating the protest and stealing the limelight.
Asked why the protest was held if the matter was already resolved, Chandrakumanan (left), who is also the PPP Federal Territories head, said the temple committee had demanded documentation on the withdrawal of the eviction notice, but he could not provide them with a copy of it.
“(Even) when I met Raja Nong Chik, he told me they (DBKL) would be withdrawing it (the eviction notice) but it is a matter of time.
“Since they went to the protest, maybe they thought we won’t be giving them the letter, but I understand the letter was given at 3pm today,” Chandrakumanan added.
The 50-strong protest started about 11am and ended about 80 minutes later when DBKL urban design and building department deputy director Alias Marjoh emerged from the DBKL headquarters to inform protesters that the temple committee chairperson could collect the withdrawal letter from DBKL at 3pm today.
“After the PPP and the temple committee appealed to the prime minister on this matter, the prime minister personally sent a letter to (Federal Terrritories Minister) Raja Nong Chik Zainal Abidin on Oct 4 (to keep the temple).
He also slammed PKR for instigating the protest and stealing the limelight.
Asked why the protest was held if the matter was already resolved, Chandrakumanan (left), who is also the PPP Federal Territories head, said the temple committee had demanded documentation on the withdrawal of the eviction notice, but he could not provide them with a copy of it.
“(Even) when I met Raja Nong Chik, he told me they (DBKL) would be withdrawing it (the eviction notice) but it is a matter of time.
“Since they went to the protest, maybe they thought we won’t be giving them the letter, but I understand the letter was given at 3pm today,” Chandrakumanan added.
The 50-strong protest started about 11am and ended about 80 minutes later when DBKL urban design and building department deputy director Alias Marjoh emerged from the DBKL headquarters to inform protesters that the temple committee chairperson could collect the withdrawal letter from DBKL at 3pm today.
Speaking toMalaysiakini earlier, Teluk Intan MP M Manogaran said DBKL issued the notice on Sept 30 despite an ongoing court case regarding land issues affecting the Sri Muniswarar Kaliamman Temple, located within Kuala Lumpur’s Golden Triangle.
The notice, issued under Section 72(1) of the Street, Drainage and Buildings Act 1974, requires the temple to be demolished and the rubble cleared within 30 days, because it was built without permission.
Asked about the court case, he said the adjacent Menara Hap Seng had filed a suit against DBKL in the KL High Court several months ago, demanding an eight-feet-wide tract of temple land to build walkways, offices, and a showroom.
The suit was filed sometime in June or July, without the knowledge of the temple committee, Manogaran said, adding that the committee had applied to be an intervener. The case is to be heard on Nov 1.
“Earlier, part of the temple structure was on Menara Hap Seng’s land. We have gave it back already. So legally they are on their land; the temple is legally allowed on the government land, which it has been occupying for 101 years,” he added.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.