Whether Waytha deserves those condemnations of his role, utterance, action or non-action remains to be debated. But I once again refer to my previous post (23 Dec 18) Seafield temple - my take in which I opined (selected extracts):
Deep within the heart of the riots at the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman temple, lies the original cause of the turmoil that eventually resulted in the tragic death of fireman Muhammad Adib.
T'was the factional battle between two rival Hindu groups, one of which is supposedly the authorised-legal group representing the temple and another group opposed to the decisions of the (former) authorised group, namely to re-locate.
The authorised group headed by (as reported in FMT) K Chellappa, has on 11 March 2014 agreed to a re-location with approval by the Shah Alam High Court, the Selangor State Government, One City Development, and to return the vacant site to the owner.
However, another temple faction headed by (as reported by FMT) Nagaraju, who also claimed to be the temple’s administrator, opposed that re-location. The faction insisted that the temple should remain in its present location.
As part of the consent judgment, One City agreed to donate RM1.5 million for the construction of a new temple on one of two plots of land given by the company. After the temple gave up the rights to one of the two plots of land, One City gave it another RM1 million in compensation.
That was the lawful, legal and proper course of action to be taken, where it would have been a win-win-win situation for the 3 involved parties of the Temple, Developer and State government, with the mutual consent approved by the court.
Yet by unruliness and the tragic consequences of a rioting, the pro-Stay faction has won the day. I recall very distinctively that PM Mahathir said the law must be adhered to.
But the end result has gone the other way, where now the temple will NOT be re-located, despite and in spite of a court consent ruling.
Is this going to be the norm, that if we don't like the law, we get our way through unruliness?
Yet by unruliness and the tragic consequences of a rioting, the pro-Stay faction has won the day. I recall very distinctively that PM Mahathir said the law must be adhered to.
But the end result has gone the other way, where now the temple will NOT be re-located, despite and in spite of a court consent ruling.
Is this going to be the norm, that if we don't like the law, we get our way through unruliness?
The mayhem could have been avoided. The temple’s management should have settled the dispute among themselves and abided by the court’s settlement.
It was a win-win situation where more than one-acre of land was allocated for the temple to be relocated apart from 1.5 million by the developer, One City Development.
But when they refused to relocate despite taking the money and the land, and to abide by the court’s decision, it was a recipe for a commotion or rather a pandemonium.
It was a win-win situation where more than one-acre of land was allocated for the temple to be relocated apart from 1.5 million by the developer, One City Development.
But when they refused to relocate despite taking the money and the land, and to abide by the court’s decision, it was a recipe for a commotion or rather a pandemonium.
The above words parallel mine in my post Seafield temple - my take written 2 days earlier, though as I've written, I am not blaming Waytha for the riots or ensuing tragic fracas as yet.
Leaving the blame-game against Waytha aside, even Dr Ramasamy (DCM II Penang) agrees, stating (in FMT): It is true that if all the parties, including the temple authorities, adhered to the court settlement, the fracas could have been avoided.
But in his eagerness to defend Waytha and what happened to the temple riots and re-location after the death of poor Adib, he spoiled his above words by adding:
But the point is why the temple, which was promised a piece of land by the previous government, had to be relocated?
Why the temple had to be re-located???
Hello there my dear Dr Rama, have you read the narrative on the temple's re-location as approved the High Court in 2014? Let me re-iterate what is known, to wit:
The authorised group headed by (as reported in FMT) K Chellappa, has on 11 March 2014 agreed to a re-location with approval by the Shah Alam High Court, the Selangor State Government, One City Development, and to return the vacant site to the owner.
As part of the consent judgment, One City agreed to donate RM1.5 million for the construction of a new temple on one of two plots of land given by the company. After the temple gave up the rights to one of the two plots of land, One City gave it another RM1 million in compensation.
That was the lawful, legal and proper course of action to be taken, where it would have been a win-win-win situation for the 3 involved parties of the Temple, Developer and State government, with the mutual consent approved by the court.
That was the lawful, legal and proper course of action to be taken, where it would have been a win-win-win situation for the 3 involved parties of the Temple, Developer and State government, with the mutual consent approved by the court.
Is Dr Rama arguing that the UNauthorised faction has been correct in its refusal to adhere to a legal Court, temple, developer and state government agreement to relocate?
Why ask such a STUPID question like 'Why the temple had to be re-located'???
Muhammad Adib would have been alive today to marry his fiance if the UNauthorised faction had not stubbornly dug their heels in against a legal and Court sanction re-location, which subsequent actions snowballed the consequences into a tragedy?
Forget about Waytha and how much blame he has to bear? It's actually the refusal of an UNauthorised temple faction and its rebellious illegal objection to an agreement among the Temple, State, Developer, all overseen by the High Court, that has been the root cause.
Why is Dr Ramasamy supporting unruliness of the UNauthorised illegal pro-Stay faction? You are no longer in the Opposition but as part of the ruling Pakatan government of the day.
I also recall very distinctively that PM Mahathir said the law must be adhered to. Why wasn't it in the case of the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman temple?
It is wrong, unjust and legally-disgusting that the so-called "New" Malaysia is condoning disobedience to Court ruling and allowing the temple to NOT re-locate.
Yes, all that despite and in spite of a court consent ruling. This is DOUBLE INJUSTICE.
Is this going to be the norm in "New" Malaysia, that if we don't like the law, we get our way through unruliness?
Is this going to be the norm in "New" Malaysia, that if we don't like the law, we get our way through unruliness?
There is actually no Court Ruling as such, the way you normally think of a Civil Court Case where one party wins the case and is awarded a legal remedy by the Court.
ReplyDeleteThe consent judgement was a "mutually agreed" settlement made under the auspices of the Shah Alam High Court. Sometimes similar settlements are made totally out of court, but in this case it was made with the blessings of the court. It lacks the authority of a Court Order.
Subsequently, another committee avowed that the other group which had made the deal with the Developer had no such authority to do so, and refused to relinquish the temple and its grounds.
Who is the real authorised group ?
Don't jump to conclusions that Chellappa is the authorised group... .....or were they simply a group over eager to settle in return for lucre ?
Which was the legal mess up to the night of November 26. At that point, it was still strictly a Civil land dispute, and no crime had yet been committed.
The Developer or its agents could have taken the proper legal route to get an actual Court Order for the land to be vacated.
If they had done that, violence could have been avoided, and Adib would arguably be still alive today.
Instead somebody , allegedly the Developer's agent(s) paid a group of thugs to intimidate the temple on the night of November 26 and hold key temple officials at knife point. What they didn't count on was , they would in turn find themselves surrounded and outnumbered, armed with knives though they were. They fled in panic, but leaving behind evidence on who they were.
Given one party (allegedly, but with strong evidence pointing that way) resorted to violent , illegal means to "persuade" the temple grounds to be vacated, the original mutual consent judgement in the Shah Alam High Court is now a Dead Document.
The mutual consent judgement is unenforceable now, due to mala fide action by one of the parties.
So the Pakatan Harapan government's recent intervention is NOT a disrespect of or contempt of any Court Order.
And the Developer understood their new situation very clearly, that is why they agreed (no doubt very reluctantly) to the new agreement.
Adib's murder stands on its own, and the perpetrators need to be brought to justice, but it has no legal relationship to the Civil land dispute.
stop BS
DeleteMM Online reported on 29 Nov 2018: ... the High Court on July 25, 2014 declared that Nagaraju was not validly possessing and managing the temple since 2001.
The court also ordered that Nagaraju immediately hand over possession of the temple to Chellappa and the temple management committee elected in 2000/2002, and also issued a mandatory injunction on Nagaraju and all his agents or group to immediately hand over the temple to Chellappa upon receiving the court order.
Chellappa said Nagaraju did not appeal against the 2014 consent judgment or the 2014 decision that declared Chellappa as legally being the temple’s administrator.
see https://www.malaymail.com/s/1698165/the-subang-hindu-temple-its-history-and-legal-dramas
Regardless, the mutual consent judgement is now effectively a Dead Document, because of the alleged Developer (or their agent's) criminal actions.
Deletestop your persistent BS
DeleteIn the first place the temple is legal. No one has the right to extort a span of the hand of land unlawfully, eventhough it is for a place of worship. The land for the temple was fraudulently appropriated, thus, it is haram to pray in it. By praying in such a temple, the devotees are condoning acts of robbery and injustice and perhaps murder. Just relocate la, what's so difficult?
ReplyDeleteCan claim "authorised" / "legalised" by GOD ah!? Wakakakaka ..........
DeleteThere is and was no extortion.
DeleteThe temple has been legally there , at a minimum, for decades, with the permission of the original landowner. The temple was there because of the two trees at the location, which Hindus considered sacred, and it originally served the people who worked the land, and subsequently , the surrounding community.
It is Haram by some Muslims only because of their intolerance and disrespect of other Religion's places of worship.
Ktemoc is doing the "Wag the Dog" and it ain't going to work.
ReplyDeleteSooner or later, the real bigger plot and intentions of the Seafield temple incident as a precussor will be uncovered.
It just smells of corruption, abetment to murder and negligence and everyone is covering up their asses as a party involved in it.
The fireman was just collateral damage in a plot gone wrong?
You make me happy only. You are sure that cheebye motherfucker kaytee will be exposed.
DeleteMust expose cheebye kaytee identity, IC no, residential address especially in australia, GPS coordinates so that Singapore armed forces can accidentally drop a bomb there.
dei dei, I say again, I did NOT fCk your mother
DeleteI have often disagreed with Penang's P. Ramasamy, but his rebuttal of
ReplyDeleteAhmad Farouk Musa's FMT write-up is spot-on and excellent
https://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/opinion/2018/12/26/selective-amnesia-in-going-after-waytha/
Can you imagine the conflagration which would have occurred if a Chinese gang was caught trying to intimidate a Malay mosque congregation and holding up the Imam and others at knifepoint ?
ReplyDeleteThat's how ugly it was at the Seafield temple on the night of November 26.
The person who organised it was an employee of the Developer's lawyer and had a budget of RM 150,000.
No small amount of money for an individual, and I'm very sure its not his own money. It was provided by other individuals or organisations.
No prizes for guessing who or what organisation had a vested interest in getting the Temple cleared out Pronto, by whatever means necessary.
The original consent judgement was a balanced document. However, we are where we are.
In fact, it would be the height of injustice if the original consent judgement had proceeded as if nothing had happened.
Then in future any developer with a legal wrangle with existing occupiers of disputed land will have impunity to hire thugs to get its way.
The Federal Government is right to intervene as it has.
A force majeure has occurred, and the whole transaction cannot proceed as if business as usual.
By legal, moral and pure-just rights, the temple must be re-located. Her Divinity Sri Maha Mariamman would have wanted that, and definitely not the unjust ouitcome machinated by an illegal temple faction who just wanted to seize power
DeleteKT keeps referring to the 'original' court judgement as the base of his argument.
DeleteHe CLEARLY thinks that that judgement was fair & correct!
But by WHO'S understanding?
If it was, then WHY the 'illegal' temple faction's objection?
Wanted to seize power?
Wakakakakaka…… they ain't no zombies though many r just poor Hindus devotees!
guppies misled by power-crazy person
DeleteAs like u!!!
Deleteat least not a pompous BS like you, wakakaka
DeleteWakakakaka…
DeleteComing out from a known pompous BSitter?
Tau maruah ke?
Ktemoc. Seize power to do what? Claim the monies? Protect the temple? Mabe you could eleborate?
ReplyDeletein every club, temple, and civil organisation etc there are and will always be contesting factions attempting to seize power, control and jadi Raja
DeleteKtemoc condescending reply. My guess is too many parties had their plots upset and slowly being exposed due to corruption, land grab and abuse of the judiciary system. Add in blowing it up to be a racial crisis for political capital and coverups.
DeleteIt also exposes all the abuses of power by the previous judiciary, enforcement authorities, political parties, state govts, Land and Mines authorities etc. Does it not smell of the Agora case again? And this one is even bigger with criminal gangs being engaged.
Power grab to be Head of the Temple as Raja?
Wakakakaakakakaakkakka.
you're over-thinking - this is/was just about power tussle over control of the temple administration. Indians are renowned for their political and control competetiveness, whether over a political party, Hindu Board, Hindu temple, union or youth club, etc.
DeleteAh Moc is just projecting his racist prejudices ignoring the facts.
DeleteThe Police investigation will reveal who are the real culprits who instigated the spiral of violence.
My bet is people aligned with the Developer, and possibly in Cahoots with the Leave team.
Wakakka...The latest development is the supposedly "proper" temple committee head Chellappa has disappeared, with the RM 1.5 Million.
ReplyDeleteHe was asked to return the RM 1.5 Million to the Developer since the Consent Agreement is now effectively defunct...but the money is now allegedly Gone...
There has been a police report made....let's watch for latest developments...
https://m.malaysiakini.com/columns/458065
ReplyDeleteThe ugly propagandisation of Adib's death