The Temple re-locate for Mosque to be built issue - raises MANY points of reflections for Malaysians. Was this the first case?
Temple was on government land, which the government clearly recognized from facts disclosed. If anyone tries to build an 'illegal' structure, government will act, stop it and bring down the illegal structure which did not happen here.
Did the British Colonial Government approve? Well, since it was not removed immediately, the assumption is that it approved.
After independence, did the government approve? It is 6 decades plus, and government's actions shows that it 'approved' - more so, since it also dealt with the temple to 'relocate' or move before. Would this all not given the devotees/users of the temple a LEGITIMATE Expectation of ownership? Worse, this was on GOVERNMENT land, not some private property?...
The government's selling of the land to 3rd party, without any thought about what may happen to the temple. Jakel did not even exist when the temple was built - and Jakel surely would have known about the temple, active and used,
The government's approval for a Mosque to be built on 'same' location, where temple existed. was this the FIRST case where a religious place of worship was relocated for another religion's place of worship to be built. Could not the government decided on another location if the government decides there is a need for a mosque? Blame should not fall on Jakel or any private land owner only - because nothing can be build without government approval?
As a lawyer, I am of the opinion, that the Temple, its devotees/users, had a GOOD case that could have prevented destruction and 'relocation' anywhere - but nothing can be done if the victims or 'aggrieved person' give up the fight, and decide not to fight anymore...But, even if they decided to 'SETTLE' - it still allows us to reflect and learn from it...
Who 'settled' on behalf of the Temple is a question, was it the users/devotees of the temple, or was it some other that did not have the legitimate authority to settle? After all, if the Temple is 'illegal' - can there be a recognized committee or even any registered association to act on its behalf.
The building of a MOSQUE, which will see the destruction of another religious place of worship is a serious matter - what do the people in the area say? Were they even consulted? The decision of the land owners and government alone will not suffice here - as it impacts all. No news of a 'public consultation', where people can support, oppose of abstain. Was there no consultation of the people? ???
When the issue emerged, if I were the Prime Minister is that I would have 'suspended' the approval to build a Mosque, delayed the ground-breaking(and certainly not attended it) UNTIL the issue was studied in depth. I would also not support any initiative in Malaysia to build another place of worship on a site where there already existed a place of worship of another religion.
One point is the SUITABILITY of Anwar Ibrahim or others like him to continue to be the Prime Minister of multi-ethnic multi-religious Malaysia, where in Malaysia, we respect all religions, no matter how small.
I had hoped that PM Anwar will display some WISDOM, and show that he is the Prime Minister of all Malaysian by electing not to go for the ground-breaking of the Madani Mosque, considering all the unresolved issues that points the finger also at the WRONGS of the local government(DBKL) and the Federal Government.
How could the government, who knew of the existence of the Temple - sell the land to a 3rd party - and then approve the building of a Mosque - MADANI Mosque, that will mean a destruction and relocation of a Temple?
Anwar claims 'VICTORY' and he is WRONG here. According to Anwar, as reported, it was a victory for MUSLIMS, not Malaysians? Muslim 'strength' - was it a VICTORY for Malaysia and Malaysians? As PM and government, we expect that things are done for the best interest or 'victory' of all Malaysians, not particular ethnic or religious groups. We condemn moves to relocate Mosques and build other religions places of worship. Anwar does what Turkey did when it converted churches to Mosques. What do the Malaysian people want? Such behaviour or a different kind of behaviour where all are RESPECTED, and all religions are 'respected' no matter how small...that is the question. Malaysians need to decide...
Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim today reminded Muslims the “victory” achieved over a planned mosque on the site of a Hindu temple here along Jalan Munshi Abdullah is not one borne out of arrogance. Instead, Anwar said the “victory” was only achievable through Muslims’ willingness to display the wisdom, strength, and nobleness of Islam.
Was it a VICTORY when a Temple was demolished to make way for a new MOSQUE? Was it a 'VICTORY' of Islam over other religions? It was a 'DISASTER', an 'embarrassment' for Anwar's government, DAP, Pakatan Harapan, ... a 'disrespect' of the minority.
WORSE, was the failure of MPs, Political Parties, even the relevant MP to speak up - why the silence? Will they only speak up when it affects people of their own faith/ethnicity - then they behaved not as 'peoples' representatives' - but as ethnic/religious representatives with no concern when it affects people of other ethnicity/religion - such behavior also breeds RACISM - should people be 'racist' when it comes to voting?
The response of Anwar Ibrahim's government seems similar to what we would have accepted by an UMNO led-BN regime of the past, not a PH-led, where all PH parties are multi-ethnic/religious', government. The question thus is whether Anwar Ibrahim has changed, or remains really a UMNO-BN person in heart and mind?
I have never heard of the PAS governed Kelantan carrying out a destruction of places of worship, and certainly not a destruction so a MOSQUE could be built in the same site.
A far-right Israeli minister has sparked outrage by saying he would build a Jewish synagogue at the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound in occupied East Jerusalem if he could... - Al Jazeera, 26/8/2024
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan confirmed the conversion of Istanbul's Church of St. Savior in Chora into a mosque on May 13,..The conversions of Hagia Sophia and the former Chora church into mosques, while highly controversial, have generally been interpreted by observers and experts of Turkish civilization as an attempt to galvanize Erdogan's conservative and nationalist electoral base. La Croix Internation, 14/5/2024
PROPOSAL - The government should immediately take steps to LEGALIZE such places of worship, even if it means using powers to 'acquire' private land so that places of worship will be 'RESPECTED'.
Same with housing, do not just EVICT but find a solution to make permanent/better the housing rights of people at the same location - not a 'relocation' solution that will uproot families from workplaces/schools/community. Has Anwar forgotten Telok Gong? Is the government's solution the same as then - evict, demolish, relocate, ...
The Teluk Gong struggle began as a struggle by poor landless peasants to obtain land. In 1967, the peasants, led by Hamid Tuah, cleared some forest land in the Teluk Gong region of Selangor where they tilled the land and built houses. Not long afterwards, the government destroyed the crops and demolished the houses of the peasants. Hamid Tuah and his followers were arrested.The cruelty inflicted by the government upon the poor peasants of Teluk Gong was angrily denounced by the students of the University of Malaya.Both UMSU and the PBMUM came out in open support of the unfortunate peasants.
What about farmers? Should not....
On July 10, the Pahang Forestry Department proclaimed that in nine days, they have cut down some 15,000 musang king trees in an area measuring 101ha in a forest reserve....Effectively, RM25.048 million, which would be earned by the farmers for this year, are not going in to our nation’s economic ecosystem.
Hundreds of generational farmers are facing eviction in Malaysia, after the lands they were farming on were sold or alienated to private companies and state government-linked companies. Most of these farmers’ families have produced food for people here since colonial times, but they were never given the chance to secure land titles. So they now face eviction as “illegal squatters”...One of their chief demands is for the federal government to use eminent domain laws to acquire the land from the private companies and lease it back to the farmers to recoup the cost.
Of all these issues, the most sensitive may be issues when religion is involved. Worst in this case, when a Temple is destroyed/relocated for a MADANI Mosque to be build on that spot?
Malaysia must have its OWN POLICIES - not blindly follow 'bad' practices that disrespect minority religions in other countries like Turkey, Israel,...
In GE15, Anwar's PH got a lot of support from non-Malays, non- Muslims > hence, how the Government deals with issues of religion, ethnicity, etc is most important..
PM of ALL Malaysians - must not be seen as Defender of just 1 ethnicity/religion? The government MUST also defend minority religions... but recent response to the ERA FM 'making fun' of a religious practice, and now a relocation of temple for the Madani Mosque to build...are issues of concern? It will naturally lead to an erosion of support, not just for Anwar and PKR, but also DAP(the PH party with the highest number of MPs), Amanah and others...
SADLY the 'SILENCE' of non-Hindu and non Malaysian Indian MPs/Ministers/Political Parties on this ISSUE - they should have expressed their views on this issue. They should speak up on issues of rights and justice, irrespective of the ethnic or religious groups affected or involved. Were the non-Muslim silent because this involved a Mosque - FEAR? In issues of rights and justice, one should speak up without fear or favour. The MPs of Kuala Lumpur was also silent. The Minister responsible for local government, Nga Kor Menng, despite this issue is connected to DBKL was also silent? Can local qovernments ignore and disrespect places of worship - sell government lands to 3rd parties when there is a place of worship on the land.
The Pasir Gudang MP [Hassan Karim] said the Hindu temple in Jalan Masjid India, Kuala Lumpur, should not be demolished to make way for a mosque, which should be constructed adjacent to it instead.“I am writing this open letter as a Muslim MP from PKR (which is part of Pakatan Harapan) - Malaysiakini, 23/3/2025
We recall Lim Guan Eng, who acted in defence of a Malay girl, that ended up with him be charged, convicted and jailed.
What do you think about DAP and Anthony Loke's silence on this issue? Anwar implies that Cabinet agreed with him - so, DAP agreed with how the issue was handled???
WE LAMENT the fact that there are not many MPs or politicians who will express a view or get involved, when the victim is not of their own ethnicity/religion - Reject such peoples' representative - we want people who are brave and champion issues of rights and justice, irrespective whether the victims are of different ethnicities/religion, or when the alleged perpetrator is of the SAME religion/ethnicity.
This TEMPLE issue is COMPLEX - it is not 'illegal' because there was prior government acknowledgement. DBKL asked it to relocate/move before. How could the government sell such properties with some place of worship to a 3rd party - How could DBKL and government approve Development Plans for a Mosque when they knew of the Temple?
Even if the government says the issue is 'SETTLED', we still still need to review what has happened so that a similar things does not happen to some other place of worship(legality irrelevant)...
Let us look at some of these issues...
1 - The temple, 130 year old, existed on Government Land, with the knowledge and consent of government (at least DBKL) - Further, DBKL asked for it to be relocated (not demolished because it was ILLEGAL) - thus the clear proof of government recognition. So not a question of just some illegally constructed temple/mosque on some private land???
2 - The Government(or DBKL) sells the land to a 3rd party, knowing of the existence of the temple on the land, and the 3rd party buys the land 'with knowledge of the temple'. First, government WRONG - should they have first offered the land or part of the land for sale to the Temple? Or they sold with no bother what will happen to the temple in the future - demolished or what? And, this, I believe, was wrong - more so when it is done by the Federal Government and/or the Local Government.
3. The 3rd party(Jakel) bought the land knowing (or ought to know) of the 100 plus year old Temple on its property... Jakel is not some 'foreign company' but a Malaysian company, who ought to know the sensitivity of Malaysians when it comes to destruction of places of worship (illegal or otherwise) - so when the plan emerged to 'get rid' of the temple by the building of a mosque in its place - did not JAKEL commit an offence?
4. No private land owner can build a temple, mosque or a place for worship without the EXPLICIT approval of the government.
Remember land in Malaysia is also generally classified as residential, commercial or agricultural land - to build anything like a Mosque or any place of religious worship require explicit approval by the authority in charge of land, in this case, the Federal Government. So, here we need approval of DBKL(the local government) for the approval of the plans, and the Federal Government (for the approval of change of land use) - and it looks that BOTH approved - noting that GROUND-BREAKING, the celebration of the beginning of actual construction, is happening on 27/3/2025 and PM Anwar Ibrahim will be officiating.
Further, for any development project like Masjid Madani - people need to be consulted, including owners of adjacent property and the public. Do the people agree to the 'destruction and relocation' of the Temple, and the development plan/construction of a MOSQUE - were the people consulted in this case. (It seems not, and people only came to know recently). A new Mosque, Temple, etc has issues of 'NOISE" - be it bells, the call to prayer over external speakers, and sometimes, talks/ceramahs which everyone can hear because of use of external speakers, etc - so, do the people even agree to the Development?? Why did the government approve?
Was the Madani Mosque in the KL Draft Structural Plan? For any development projects, be it some factories, incinerators, a building that will increase the population, big projects - we need to return to days where a NOTICE BOARD is placed informing of the proposed development, inviting people to have their say, comments, approval, disagreements, different ideas --(RESTORE LOCAL PEOPLE's RIGHT TO PARTICIPATION). Now, with changes in law and practice, there are still letters seeking feedback just from OWNERS of adjacent properties. Should not the right be restored to people who live/work in the area generally - for any such development project will affect their lives/livelihood? Greater democracy and greater participation of people in approval and development of the area. [We do not want a 'dictatorship' that decision making is ONLY in the hands of the government of the day, where anything can be done without any PRIOR consultation with the people]
5. With regard to MOSQUES or places of worship, it is normally the government in Malaysia that decides where it is to be built - so, this is also ODD that Jakel(a 3rd party) wants to build a Mosque??? Mosque, churches, temples, etc are built according to requirement as determined by government also - is there another need for a MOSQUE in the area, and, if so, should it not be the State that decides - and where it is to be placed.
6. Why is JAKEL, a business entity, building a MOSQUE? Was the act of Jakel to 'EVICT" the Temple and Build a Mosque OK? What business advantage? If JAKEL wanted to contribute by building a Mosque, sure it could build a Mosque elsewhere where it is really needed. Did JAKEL have a 'bad motive'
Should JAKEL be charged for an offence of 'wounding the religious feelings' - worse, the accomplices may be DBKL and/or the Federal Government. Is the act of eviction, destruction and relocation of a place of worship a crime of 'wounding the religious feelings?
Section 298 Penal Code - Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound the religious feelings of any person
Whoever, with deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine or with both.
7. Some said, that the compensation for the destruction and the relocation that was offered by Jakel was a mere RM1 million, which is certainly not enough to destroy, move religious artifacts, build a new replacement temple, is it? Anyway, all this has not yet happened, so why is PM Anwar Ibrahim going to attend the 'ground-breaking' ceremony of the proposed MADANI mosque? PM, REVEAL the Settlement Agreement - right if FULL cost of relocation and re-building paid by Jakel or Government of Malaysia in this case?
If there are LEGAL ISSUES - the PM should stay out - until legal issues are resolved by Courts? The PM's attendance at the ground breaking sends out the WRONG MESSAGE, i.e that PM Anwar Ibrahim and the Government is OK with all that has happened - the wrongs of DBKL/Federal Government, the wrongs of Jakel, etc... will this stubbornness of Anwar to attend the groundbreaking be an HINDRANCE to Justice being done.
8. RELOCATION, word is DBKL(not Jakel) is giving another spot for RELOCATION - will this be a permanent site, that will make the TEMPLE legal - or again, in the future, we may see another EVICTION. Did the devotees and users of the Temple agree to it? Who exactly is JAKEL and DBKL dealing with - the legitimate owners/users/devotees or some other 'who now claims rights' - like some political party, some organisation, some committee? The problem always is whether they have the consent/approval of the temple users/devotess - how many thousands, tens of thousands?
9. POLICY CHANGE - for Places of Worship(Mosques, temples, churches, etc) located in places for 10 years or more, with the knowledge or consent of the government, - should the government identify and LEGALIZE it now. If it is on private land, maybe the government shall acquire certain area of land to protect these places of worship? ADVERSE POSSESSION should be considered -
Adverse possession is a legal principle where someone can gain ownership of land they don't own by openly and continuously using it for a specified period, typically 10-12 years, while meeting certain criteria
10. The problem of having houses on property legally not yours, or farming/ agricultural activities on land not yours is a serious problem. The government's position and practice have been simply EVICTION - with no or little regard of where those evicted will live/stay, how it will affect their jobs/income generation, the schooling of their children.
Now, in the past, the Courts have recognized legitimate expectation of rights - the issue of LEGAL or NOT does not merely rely on legal documentation, it relies on a lot of other factors and circumstances that must be considered, best by Courts of law.
How was the settlement reached so fast - by pressure, threats, etc... one wonders. After all, Anwar's position may have been fast so that he maybe did not have to 'postpone' the scheduled ground-breaking on 27th - '... conduct negotiations properly with any means necessary...' What does 'all means necessary' mean?
Malaysians never chose Anwar Ibrahim to be our Prime Minister, unlike how the people of US chose Trump to be the President, and the people of Turkey chose Erdogan to be their President. So, Anwar Ibrahim is NOT the people's choice from any election where people chose Anwar to be PM...It is different...
President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has won Turkey’s presidential election, defeating opposition leader Kemal Kilicdaroglu in Sunday’s runoff vote and stretching his rule into a third decade.With 99.43% of the votes counted, preliminary official results announced by Turkey’s Supreme Election Council (YSK) on Sunday showed Erdogan winning with 52.14% of the votes. Kilicdaroglu received 47.86%.
In the case of Anwar Ibrahim, he is Prime Minister only because more that 50% of the elected Members of Parliament support him - and his reign as Prime Minister ends the moment he loses this support, which could be anytime. So, the question NOW, is whether he still has the support of the majority of MPs in Parliament. The question also is whether this is TRUE support, or support retained by 'agreements' and 'deals'...
In ending, Anwar's push for the limiting of the PM's term to 10 years is laughable and foolish. In Malaysia, a PM can be removed at any time if he loses majority MP support - and so, if anyone has the needed majority support of MPs to be PM even after he has been PM for 10 years, rightfully he should remain PM - foolish to simply make the 2nd best a PM???
Anwar is a MP who hardly manage to get the support of 40% of the constituency he contested in. There is also NO CONCRETE proof that he even has the support of the majority of PKR members - for he has always been elected 'uncontested'. Does he have the support of the majority of Malaysian people - I do not think so.
He is PM simply because people supported PH - and that support for PH will remain even if there is another from PH sitting as PM. When Muhyiddin in the past government lost popular support, he was just replaced successfully with Ismail Sabri - stability is not because the PM remains the same.
The temple - will it remain until the new Temple in the new spot is rebuild - so the affected Hindu's has a place of worship at all times. Or will they lose the Temple now, and not have a Temple until it is rebuilt and operational many months/years later?
If there was LOCAL GOVERNMENT Elections, will the Mayor of KL and the Local councillors in DBKL be re-elected after this issue? They may not as most Malaysians respect people's right to practice other religions in Malaysia... Yup, Nga Kor Meng, the Minister of Local Government was also rather silent on this issue...WHY? Is DBKL under some other Minister? Can we see the MINUTES of DBKL with regard this temple issue - or is it an 'Official Secret'? When they wanted to sell, why was there no first offer to the Temple? When they sold to Jakel, was there any mention of the Temple in the said sales agreement?
As I said, the Temple-Madani mosque issue may be SETTLED - but is still relevant as it is educational and will affect future government policy that will impact on the continued respect of Malaysian people for people of other faiths/beliefs - and also how so-called 'illegal' places of worship, housing, business, farms,...are handled.
How much weight to online or social media responses in Malaysia? We know the Malaysian government actively causes the removal of posts on social media, and the government/others sometimes do 'employ' people to post certain messages including those pro-government or pro-Anwar >> hence, a blind acceptance of social media conversation as reflecting the views of the Malaysian public can be 'Dangerous' - it is different from people actually coming out at peaceful assemblies, making public statements(not hiding their identity), etc...There is a lot of pro-Anwar posts of late...Mmmm
PERSONALLY, it would have been best that this issue be handled by the Courts... by Independent Judges - is it still possible now, with questions as to who is choosing judges coming around?
Will the Public Prosecutor take any criminal charges against JAKEL - who ought to have known that trying to build a Mosque where a temple existed will 'wound the feelings,...' ? Most likely, all will be swept under the carpet soon...
PM Anwar: Construction of Madani Mosque a ‘victory’ of wisdom and strength, not arrogance
- Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim emphasised that the “victory” over the planned Madani Mosque on the site of a Hindu temple was achieved through wisdom and fairness, not arrogance or hostility.
- He stressed that his government prioritises harmony by resolving issues through negotiation, chiding those who wish to be a “hero” by inciting racial discord or disregarding legal facts.
- Anwar also hopes the mosque will be a local community centre for Muslims and Kuala Lumpur residents.
KUALA LUMPUR, March 27 — Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim today reminded Muslims the “victory” achieved over a planned mosque on the site of a Hindu temple here along Jalan Munshi Abdullah is not one borne out of arrogance.
Instead, Anwar said the “victory” was only achievable through Muslims’ willingness to display the wisdom, strength, and nobleness of Islam.
“This victory, as I remind my fellow Muslims, is not borne of sheer arrogance but our willingness to display the wisdom and strength of Islam.
“To me, that is the true falah (victory), it is a victory when we can set a good example by displaying compassion, fairness and not hatred and being spiteful,” he said in his speech during the Madani Mosque groundbreaking ceremony here.
The mosque is a planned development on the land owned by Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd — where the century-old Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple, set to be relocated, currently sits.
He said his government has never adopted a policy to sow discord among the populace, pointing out the government has always taken a more diplomatic approach by reaching an amicable solution through negotiations with all parties.
“That is why we choose to preserve harmony by negotiating properly,” he said.
“My instructions have always been consistent in both Cabinet and ministerial meetings held with the mayor to conduct negotiations properly with any means necessary, as achieving peaceful resolution is a demonstration of Madani values.”
He also said the country will be destroyed if everyone attempts to portray themselves a “hero” of their ethnic group, while disregarding the legality and truth of an issue.
“If everyone wants to be a hero of their own race, the country is doomed,” he warned.
“I am aware there are exaggerated reactions from both Muslim and Indian communities which disregard the true facts of the issue that has been circulating in social media without a slight concern of the implications.”
Anwar also expressed hope that expressed hope that the planned four-storey mosque can serve as a local community centre for Muslims and city dwellers — with its library, event hall, and an arts and cultural space to introduce Islam to the public.
“This mosque not only serves the purpose of a mosque in the city and reflects the philosophy about our development rooted in Islamic faith, which places good values and morals to bring Muslims together, but also embraces and shows love to the people around us.
“Datuk Seri Fadillah Yusof mentioned that he suggested that there should be a cultural and arts space, a place for the community to gather at this city mosque and for non-Muslims to not feel awkward but to know the moderate values of Islam, full of mercy and wisdom,” he said, referring to the deputy prime minister.
Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) previously confirmed that the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple will be relocated to another site agreeable to parties involved, following a proposal by landowner Jakel Trading to build a mosque on its land.
According to city officials, the new site will be roughly 50 metres away from the current one and that the temple will continue to operate until the relocation process begins.
Jakel Trading bought the plot in question from DBKL in 2014, allegedly without the temple management being informed of the matter. - Malay Mail, 27/3/2025
Anwar: Jakel groundbreaking ceremony to proceed on temple site, new mosque needed as nearby ones crowded
KUALA LUMPUR, March 25 — Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim today confirmed that Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd’s mosque groundbreaking ceremony to proceed as scheduled despite opposition from some.
Anwar, who is also the finance minister, said a new mosque is needed for the Masjid India area other as other nearby mosques are already crowded.
“The prayer areas and mosques there are overcrowded, so a new place is needed. That is why I will proceed with laying the foundation stone for the mosque on the 27th,” he said in his speech at the 218th Police Day Celebrations here.
Anwar said the government is supporting the relocation, with Jakel Trading providing compensation for the move.
He also said that the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) is also offering the new site as a goodwill gesture.
The prime minister stressed that Malaysians must abide by the law that governs the country.
“In order to maintain harmony between communities, we sometimes do things that are not necessarily required, such as negotiating in good faith.
“Because for them, that place is one of faith and religious practice, it must be relocated properly. There was never any thought or discussion about demolishing it, but that has become the narrative,” he said.
The groundbreaking ceremony is scheduled this Thursday, amid public debate over the relocation of Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple which is accused of squatting on the land.
DBKL previously confirmed that the temple will be relocated to another site agreeable to parties involved, following a proposal by landowner Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd to build a mosque on its land.
Jakel Trading bought the plot in question from DBKL in 2014, allegedly without the temple management being informed of the matter.
Lawyers Datuk Ambiga Sreneevasan, and N. Surendran and Zaid Malek from Lawyers for Liberty — who are backing the temple — have previously questioned the hastiness of the groundbreaking ceremony and demanded that sales and purchase agreement of the land be made public. - Malay Mail, 26/3/2025
Lawyer blasts Anwar's rush for 'Masjid Madani' amid ongoing negotiations over fate of Hindu temple
Zaid Malek says the prime minister displays an ignorance of facts and history, reminding him that the 130-year-old temple was not illegal as it was built with DBKL's permission.
A lawyer has taken Anwar Ibrahim to task over comments on the controversy surrounding a 130-year-old Hindu temple, which is facing pressure from authorities and ruling politicians to make way for the construction of a mosque to be named after the prime minister's political slogan "Madani".
Zaid Malek of rights group Lawyers for Liberty questioned Anwar's insistence on the ground-breaking ceremony for the planned Masjid Madani, as well as his position that the temple should be relocated.
Zaid said the prime minister should not pre-empt any decision while discussions involving the current landowner, Jakel Trading, Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) and the committee members of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple in Jalan Masjid India were still ongoing.
"What is the rush for Anwar to carry out the groundbreaking ceremony on March 27 when the discussions between the temple and DBKL are still ongoing? Why is Anwar not prepared to give the necessary space and time for that process to be carried out?" asked Zaid.
"You cannot call it a negotiation when one party is given no choice. It is not for Anwar to ignore this process and decide the matter unilaterally."
This comes amid reports that Jakel was open to a recent idea put forward by several activists, including Zaid, to build the proposed mosque next to the temple so that both places of worship could co-exist as a symbol of Malaysia's harmony.
Online portal Scoop quoted a source as saying that Jakel, which bought the land from DBKL a few years after the authorities allowed the temple to be relocated there for a road project, was looking into the possibility of building its mosque on an adjacent plot without affecting the temple.
Zaid said Anwar had displayed "serious ignorance of the history, facts and circumstances" in the matter by claiming that the temple had been built illegally.
The Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple was originally constructed in 1893. In 2008, it was ordered by DBKL to relocate to the current lot.
However, the government land became the property of Jakel in 2014 following DBKL's decision to sell the land to the textile company.
The temple committee said it had not been consulted on the sale, as well as offered to purchase the land.
"In other words, it was the government that asked the temple to build their structure on the current land. This being so, it is sheer dishonesty for Anwar now to suggest that the temple was built without permission," said Zaid.
He said the land was not privately owned when the temple was forced to move there in 2008, six years before it was sold.
"How can it be 'not legal' when it was built upon the instruction of the local authority? To brand a place of worship that has served the local community for over a century as 'not legal' is deeply disrespectful to devotees of the temple and the Hindu community at large, and displays a surprising lack of regard on the part of a sitting PM."
Zaid further challenged Anwar to state whether it was right to build a mosque on the site of the temple.
"Does Anwar not realise that the temple would have to be demolished first in order to relocate it elsewhere? The temple is not a motorcar that can be driven from place to place. Relocation is the equivalent of demolition. To relocate, it must be demolished first to be rebuilt elsewhere." - Malaysia Now, 22/3/2025
Summary
Lawyers for Liberty insists that the Hindu temple should be retained while the proposed mosque can be built next to it, in response to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s “the mosque will be built, and the temple be given a place” remark.
Its executive director Zaid Malek says right-thinking Malaysians would support the idea.
He also slams the premier for saying the temple was built illegally, adding it was moved to the current site in 2008 under DBKL’s instruction.
An advocate for the preservation of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman temple in Kuala Lumpur has reiterated a proposal to retain the structure at its current location, and for the proposed mosque to be built on the adjacent vacant plot.
Lawyers for Liberty (LFL) executive director Zaid Malek, who mooted the idea during a March 20 press conference, repeated his call in response to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's reported remarks yesterday that "the mosque will be built, and the temple will be given a place."
"The solution is to let the temple remain in place and build the mosque on the vacant land next to it. All right-thinking Malaysians will support this.
"If Anwar claims to be PM for all Malaysians, this is the solution he must support," Zaid (above) said in a statement today.
The lawyer also claimed Anwar's statement was tantamount to an ultimatum to the temple before ongoing discussions are completed.
Anwar yesterday urged all parties to stop playing up religious sentiments and allow negotiations to continue, and that he will still be launching the mosque next week.
He also said the temple is occupying the land illegally, but the landowner Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd has offered to help maintain harmonious relations, while the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) looks for an alternative site for the temple.
‘Why the rush?’
Zaid, however, questioned Anwar's rush to launch the mosque amid ongoing negotiations between involved parties.
He also rebutted Anwar's statement on the temple's "illegal" status - with a reminder that the structure was moved to the site in 2008 under DBKL's instruction.
READ MORE: KINIGUIDE | Exploring temple crisis in the heart of KL
"To brand a place of worship that has served the local community for over a century as 'not legal' is deeply disrespectful to devotees of the temple and the Hindu community at large, and displays a surprising lack of regard on the part of a sitting prime minister," said Zaid.
He added that the land - Lot 328 Seksyen 40, Jalan Munshi Abdullah, Off Jalan Masjid India - did not belong to a private company before DBKL sold it in 2014.
"Anwar, DBKL and government leaders must stop painting a false picture that the temple was built without permission on private land," he stressed.
Hitting out at Anwar's remarks that he cannot imagine demolishing a temple, Zaid pointed out that a relocation would still require a demolition.
Other than LFL, PSM deputy president S Arutchelvan yesterday also mooted a similar idea for the two houses of worship to exist side-by-side.
DBKL and Jakel have assured that there will be no demolition until the temple is relocated. - Malaysiakini, 25/3/2025
Hassan Karim sparks online furore for championing Hindu temple cause, branded “Madani traitor”
PKR lawmaker Hassan Karim’s rating within the pro-Madani faction has seemingly fallen to a new low after he penned an open letter to PMX appealing to the latter not to demolish the 130-year-old Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple in Jalan Masjid India “but to build the mosque next to it”.
Against the backdrop of the authorities – both the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) and even Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim – being in favour of the temple’s re-location to facilitate construction of the purported Masjid Madani, the Pasir Gudang MP was trolled over failure to see that the temple is sitting on someone else’s land.
In doing so, he has joined the fray as probably the fourth Malay Muslim KOL (key opinion leaders) – coincidentally all are legal eagles – who rally behind the idea that the Hindu temple must not budge from the spot where it sits on today.
They are the two Zaids – former de facto law minister Datuk Zaid Ibrahim and Lawyer for Liberty (LFL) executive director Zaid Malek – and human rights activist and Orang Asli advocate Siti Kasim.
Although Hassan is often seen as a righteous politician in the eyes of non-Malay/non-Muslim Malaysians, the 74-year-old former Parti Rakyat Malaysia (PRM) president has of late been hailed by Madani government backers as a “thorn in the flesh” for incessantly rowing against the tide.
As Hindu netizens thanked him for his benevolence in the latest episode, a commenter on the two-term Pasir Gudang MP’s Facebook page berated him for disgracing PMX with his act of “wanting to show the open letter to the entire world”.
“What is your motive? Can’t you just Whatsapp, call or meet PMX directly? Isn’t there a WhatsApp group for PKR? Let the government handle this issue properly with all stakeholders,” chided the commenter.
Some chastised him for being “anti-PMX” by being on the same boat with former Malaysian Bar president and BERSIH (Coalition for Clean and Fair Elections) chairman Datuk Ambiga Sreenevasan and LFL’s Zaid Malek.
Few commenters opined that it is inappropriate for Hassan “to play hero” or instigator for both he and PMX should leave the matter to be resolved by the landowner and “its illegal occupant”.
Another insinuated that it would be more appropriate for Hassan to call for the matter to be resolved by the court of law than “to further burden PMX to handle the matter for at the end of the day, the winner shall turn into coal while the loser becomes ashes”.
Some took on the racist rhetoric to show their furore on Hassan.
One harped on the narrative of too many illegally erected temples throughout the country and the need “to learn a lesson from the death of fireman Muhammad Adib Mohd Kassim”.
At the end of the day, peace loving Malaysians are keeping their fingers tightly crossed than an amicable solution can surface from the on-going tripartite negotiation between landowner Jakel Trading Sdn Bhd and the temple committee with DBKL playing the role of mediator. – March 24, 2025, Focus
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment