ADUN SPEAKS | Temples predate federal territories
by P Ramasamy
by P Ramasamy
Hindu temples existed long before the federal territories came into existence.
It is indeed shocking that 115 Hindu temples and shrines in the federal capital have been identified as illegally built on government land.
This fact was disclosed by Deputy Federal Territories Minister Edmund Santhara.
Apparently, according to him, eight cases were resolved after they were granted occupation letters and alternative sites reserved for non-Muslim places of worship (Ribi).
Out of the balance of 107 temples/shrines, 56 have been identified for Ribi sites in the federal capital.
To resolve the problem posed by these illegal places of worship, the Federal Territories director of Land and Mines have created a Ribi executive committee to look into the question of illegal temples and shrines.
What was shocking about the revelation is the fact after more than 60 years of political independence, non-Muslim places of worship have not been given a fair deal.
If federal territories have not resolved the problem of land for non-Muslim places of worship, then one can only imagine in the other states.
A committee such as Ribi that should have been formed many years ago is just being formed in the federal territories.
In other words, these territories have no permanent committees or structures to resolve the myriad problems faced by non-Muslim places of worship.
In Penang, Ribi was formed many years ago to secure land for temples and other religious faiths.
This is the reason why Penang presents a successful case of a state that amicably resolves or settles land ownership for non-Muslim places of worship.
This is why there are no temple demolitions in the state as many have been legalised with the provision of land ownership.
Federal territories in the country might have a distinct status that is well and good.
However, the existence of a large number of illegal temples and shrines gives the impression that the authorities in these areas care a little about the welfare and well-being of non-Muslims and Hindus in particular.
Santhara, as a politician, must not engage in the superficial definition that the temples and shrines are illegal.
Yes, illegal simply because they are not situated on their own land.
Most of the temples or shrines were not built recently but built many years ago on properties that might have been private land, especially plantation properties.
Later, the government acquired these lands even though the structures were there before the actual acquisition.
The question of these places of worship as either illegal or legal does not arise in the first place.
I would think that the land ownership of these temples should have been resolved many years ago.
Why wait for more than 60 years to discover suddenly that the temples are illegal.
Is it because such “illegality” presents a powerful opportunity for racists and religious extremists to ask for the demolition of temples?
Or to put the blame on the Indians for humiliating their own gods by building illegal houses of ownership, something that was irresponsibly remarked by the MIC president S. Vigneswaran.
Or how Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammed Sanusi Md Nor justified the destruction of temples, including one built in Alor Setar more than one hundred years ago and another in Kulim about 60 years old.
Here we are not talking about recently built temples, but those built years ago, some dating to the time of the arrival of Indians in the country.
I congratulate Santhara for taking the initiative to resolve or settle the problem of temples without land.
But for heaven’s sake, do not call them illegal structures just because they don’t have the ownership of the land.
In fact, most of the temples are much older than the formation of the federal territories themselves.
Santhara might have frog leapt from PKR to Bersatu, but he can still assist the Indian community if he wants.
It is indeed shocking that 115 Hindu temples and shrines in the federal capital have been identified as illegally built on government land.
This fact was disclosed by Deputy Federal Territories Minister Edmund Santhara.
Apparently, according to him, eight cases were resolved after they were granted occupation letters and alternative sites reserved for non-Muslim places of worship (Ribi).
Out of the balance of 107 temples/shrines, 56 have been identified for Ribi sites in the federal capital.
To resolve the problem posed by these illegal places of worship, the Federal Territories director of Land and Mines have created a Ribi executive committee to look into the question of illegal temples and shrines.
What was shocking about the revelation is the fact after more than 60 years of political independence, non-Muslim places of worship have not been given a fair deal.
If federal territories have not resolved the problem of land for non-Muslim places of worship, then one can only imagine in the other states.
A committee such as Ribi that should have been formed many years ago is just being formed in the federal territories.
In other words, these territories have no permanent committees or structures to resolve the myriad problems faced by non-Muslim places of worship.
In Penang, Ribi was formed many years ago to secure land for temples and other religious faiths.
This is the reason why Penang presents a successful case of a state that amicably resolves or settles land ownership for non-Muslim places of worship.
This is why there are no temple demolitions in the state as many have been legalised with the provision of land ownership.
Federal territories in the country might have a distinct status that is well and good.
However, the existence of a large number of illegal temples and shrines gives the impression that the authorities in these areas care a little about the welfare and well-being of non-Muslims and Hindus in particular.
Santhara, as a politician, must not engage in the superficial definition that the temples and shrines are illegal.
Yes, illegal simply because they are not situated on their own land.
Most of the temples or shrines were not built recently but built many years ago on properties that might have been private land, especially plantation properties.
Later, the government acquired these lands even though the structures were there before the actual acquisition.
The question of these places of worship as either illegal or legal does not arise in the first place.
I would think that the land ownership of these temples should have been resolved many years ago.
Why wait for more than 60 years to discover suddenly that the temples are illegal.
Is it because such “illegality” presents a powerful opportunity for racists and religious extremists to ask for the demolition of temples?
Or to put the blame on the Indians for humiliating their own gods by building illegal houses of ownership, something that was irresponsibly remarked by the MIC president S. Vigneswaran.
Or how Kedah Menteri Besar Muhammed Sanusi Md Nor justified the destruction of temples, including one built in Alor Setar more than one hundred years ago and another in Kulim about 60 years old.
Here we are not talking about recently built temples, but those built years ago, some dating to the time of the arrival of Indians in the country.
I congratulate Santhara for taking the initiative to resolve or settle the problem of temples without land.
But for heaven’s sake, do not call them illegal structures just because they don’t have the ownership of the land.
In fact, most of the temples are much older than the formation of the federal territories themselves.
Santhara might have frog leapt from PKR to Bersatu, but he can still assist the Indian community if he wants.
Make sure no more Seafield Temple tragedies.
ReplyDeleteMCA and MIC, the parties with the responsibility to protect the interests of the Chinese and Indians, both predate federal territories too. In fact they both predate Merdeka Day 1957. But what did they do while in gomen for 60 years?
ReplyDeleteMore than 60 years later still so many "illegal" shrines and tokongs. Except in Penang, where DAP has been in power for more than a decade, mostly under Guanee and Ramasamy. And of course the interests of the Malays are looked after, they get the largest allocation for mosques and suraus. So you see this is proof that DAP looks after all races, not just the Chinese.
Never learnt!
ReplyDeleteUnder ketuanan narrative, the Malaya/m'sia history started when Malacca turned Islamic under Parameshwara, who announced his conversion to Islam in 1414 and proclaimed himself Sultan of Malacca.
This a rewritten history aka Jap/Formosa style!
It is believed that Parameswara was a Hindu as indicated by his Hindu name. The Persian moniker Iskandar Shah used in the Malay Annals, as well as the confusion as to whether Parameswara and Iskandar Shah in different sources refer to the same person, led to the conjecture that Parameswara had converted to Islam and took a new name.
The only historical record indicating the full islamic conversion of Malacca was during
Sultan Muhammad Shah ibni Almarhum Sultan Megat Iskandar Shah (died 1444).
He was the third sultan of Malacca. He ruled Malacca from 1424 to 1444. He initiately took the title Seri Maharaja, but then he converted to Islam, because of the possibility of marriage with the daughter of Tamil Muslims.
Anything, relics/literatures, happened before Islamic Malacca is irrelevant under the ketuanan narratives!