Sunday, December 23, 2018

Seafield temple - my take

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.

FMT reported that as part of the consent judgment, One City Development 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 Development gave it another RM1 million in compensation.

K. Chellappa 

FMT also reported: Chellappa said the temple was advised that Land A was not suitable for its new site, as it was situated on a piece of land for the construction of a highway interchange.

As such, he said the temple waived its rights to Land A to One City which paid it an additional RM1 million, and opted to move to Land B.

Chellappa said the facts of the dispute were clear, and hoped there would be no more misunderstanding.

“In the meantime, we will not be issuing any more media statements as the AG looks into the matter.”

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.

Despite Chellappa being declared the rightful administrator in a separate case, the unhappy alternative faction caused the delay in re-location since 2014 through protracted litigation to seize control of the temple administration, thus the legally recognised administrator of the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman was unable to take possession of the temple to effect the re-location.

Indeed, the numerous protracted litigations by the alternative unhappy faction was subsequently declared a vexatious litigant in matters concerning the temple.

MM 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.

As would have it, in recent times (2018) FMT reported that a group reportedly intruded into the temple causing a fracas in which several people were injured, the temple damaged and vehicles torched. This group was suspected to be friendly to the Developer.

That unruly event provoked temple devotees into rallying to the temple grounds to defend the holy abode of Sri Maha Mariamman. This faction turned ugly as some protesters torched a vehicle and then dragged a fireman out from his arriving vehcle and attacked him mortally. That hapless fireman was the late Muhammad Adib. Some rioters were reported to also vandalised the office of the developer nearby.

Apart from a horrendous undeserved death of a public service-oriented innocent fireman, what has been disappointing in the affair has been the victory for the pro-Stay faction, which was illegal in its obdurate stance right from the start.

As mentioned (reported by FMT), four parties, through a consent judgment on March 11, 2014 at the Shah Alam High Court, agreed to the relocation of the temple and to return the vacant site to the owner.

The four parties are the state government, One City and Chellappa and Nagaraju, who both claim to be the temple’s administrator, before Chellappa was eventually declared the rightful administrator in a separate case.

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?

On top of which, the historical pedigree of the temple is in doubt, as to whether it is over a century old or merely 44 years old?


  1. how I wish everyone is as clever as you who can control their emotions to think and act rationally wakakakakiki

    1. For the 'wise' cinapek, it's known as 马後炮 - the ever insightful hindsight!

  2. The civil land case is a totally separate matter from the criminal case of murder and violence.
    Up to before the night of November 26, no crime had been committed yet.

    Regardless that one of the parties may be regarded as a "vexatious litigant" or '"sellout" depending on which side, it was still a civil case.
    The first, Original Crime, if you like, was the hiring of thugs to attack the temple. The hiring of Malay thugs to attack an Indian temple was a monstrous act, and I do not believe it was accidental or incidental. It was a deliberate path of action.

    The person or persons or organisation who committed this monstrous act must be pursued with the full force of law.
    The riot on the first and second nights were also crimes which must be prosecuted.

    The murder of Adib stands as a separate crime, and the police need to identify the perpetrator/s and charge the with murder.

    The criminal cases must not be confused with the civil land case.
    The legal issues are different and separate.
    In fact, as happened before In other past cases, a person or party can win a criminal case and lose a civil one, or win a civil case and lose The criminal case.

  3. This piece IS a must after reading the laughable fart of the blogger:

  4. Apparently, at least one of the vehicles abandoned in panic at the temple, subsequently torched, was actually registered to one of the Developer's subsidiaries.
    What the Fuck was the Developer's car doing in the temple compound ?

    And the person identified as having paid the thugs to attack the temple worked for The Developer's lawyer.
    I don't believe in far-fetched coincidences , no matter how strenuously the Developer may deny any links.

    Given that the Developer or their agent is now seriously implicated of resorting to "Extra-Legal means" indeed illegal, violent means to forcibly possess the temple land, the original mutual Consent Judgement in the High Court is now practically a Dead Duck.
    It's no longer worth much more than toilet pape, and no point to keep dwelling on it.

    That is why the Attorney General was given the task to bring the parties back to rework the deal.

    This is in no way an excuse for murder, and Adib's killer or killers must be brought to justice.