Seafield Indian Temple - Is "New" Malaysia condoning disobedience to Court ruling?

The Malay-Muslims of all sectors including some Pakatan Harapan racists (eg. Pribumi Party) are out to get Waythamoorthy for his much-criticised part in the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman temple riots and also in the associated tragic death of an innocent and public-service dedicated fireman, Muhammad Adib.

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?

Yesterday FMT published In defence of Syed Saddiq, Waytha’s head must roll; selected extracts follow:

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.

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.

I had also written that another temple faction, the unauthorised faction (unauthorised and a vexatious ligigator as determined by the court) opposed that agreed re-location. The faction insisted odurately that the temple should remain in its present location.

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?