Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe by Email

Well, in this instance, the authorities are not directly involved. The questions being raised is the inaction by the police on various reports made by the temple caretaker for last two years. Its related to the dubious manner of the land ownership transfer. Unfortunately, the temple lost the court case years ago, thus no option but to relocate. The caretaker had put in an application to set aside the ruling, but the owner is not bothered to wait. Perhaps the court should put up a restraining or stop-work kind of order. Then we can see if the police follow the court decision or not.

Until then, the police won’t be protecting the temple since court ruled otherwise. I’m sure in this instance, the police will follow the rule of the law and protect the owner. The only option is to provide proof of embezzlement or criminal action by the new owner. But even then, a recent landmark case involving land transfer shows that the “sale” or “transfer” is valid (even though invalid methods are used) and the buyer’s rights are protected. The actual owner (whose land title was transferred without their knowlege) lost their case. So, again I think legal avenue will be failure as well.

Since the owner is private (individual), he won’t be so charitable to allocate a plot for the temple. He won’t be standing for any election is not worried position and power. Only thing is that, if indeed he cheated in order to own the land, Amman will ensure he and his future generation pays many folds. That’s natural law.

Next option is political intervention – perhaps PR government will create much hassle until the new owner can’t do any development in the land. Or just buy the land and convert it into park. temple, school land etc. This would be a big challenge for new Kapar MP Manikavasagam. I’m sure Komala is waiting happily to seize the opportunity and hentam him.

They way I see it, only political or divine intervention can save the temple. Perhaps the owner will have a dream soon! 🙂

Kapar seems to be in the papers due to land issues nowadays.

MP Manikavasagam have written on his website about the issue. Photos are available at his Picasa site.

---

Kannan (Hindraf Coordinator) provides an account of the happenings (via email):

Jln Kapar Temle temple demolish- another example of systematic marginalization

Klang , 1/6/2008. Peaceful demonstration was held by some 500 residents along Jalan Kapar (2nd mile) in protest on Demolishment of Sri Nagamuthu Karumariamman Temple. Police had blocked both entrance towards Jalan Kapar some 1 km away along with presence of FRU personnel’s.

This time the temple was not been touched by any Authorities but some individuals believed to be hired by developer . Residents claim the developer closely associated with Sementa ADUN (MLA), who is form the rulling party, UMNO.

It is believed caretaker of the land and temple had lost their court case and was given until 9th June 2008 to relocate. The compound with fully gated with Zinc and guarded. A signboard showing Private Property and Trespassers with be prosecuted also erected.

Cronological events that lead to the incident :

Location of the land : Geran Mukin 2166/ Lot 266 Mukim Kapar, Klang
Current Estimated land value : RM 2.4 million

Police reports dated 08/03/2006, Klang Station (by Caretaker) that he had been residising on the said land since 50years. The land belongs to Mr Harbhajan Singh whom handed over to caretakers father and migrated to India in 1973. It is understood Mr Singh had expired during the year 1980. Caretaker found out that in 1996 Mr Harbhajan had transfer the land to Mr Lin Chee Yong whom later take court order to vacate the land . Suspecting foulplay , caretaker had made search on the IC no on land transfer form where he found the it’s fake.

25/3/2006 – a police report was launched by caretaker that a man identified as police ask his children why they didn’t vacate the land.

3/4/2006 – a police report was made that a security hut was build with a man placed, while Court case still in process.

11/4/2006 – a police report was launched on possible trespass since a Signboard was erected while a court case in process.

28/4/2006 – a police report was made as caretaker found that water meter was drown in process of land clearing despite the court case still in process.

3/7/2006 – A tractor and a lorry trespass the land for clearing purpose on instruction of “new owner” despite court case in process. A police report was made

26/8/2006 – “New owner” had locked the main entrance despite court case in process. A police report was made.

14/9/2006 – A police report was made as ” new owner” locked the entrance while requesting police to take action to allow caretaker , family to enter as usual. The case still in process.

18/9/2006 – A police report was made as ” new owner” locked the entrance while requesting police to take action to allow caretaker , family and devotees to enter. The case still in process.

28/8/2007 – A police report was launched to the safety of caretaker and his family as “new owner” and unidentified man accompanied him informing that earthworks will start soon. The caretaker are not allowed to be there.

01/09/2007 – Caretaker wife made police report. That a man had trespass the land with a motorcycle and a lorry which damaged the temple main gate. The Case still pending.

12/09/2007 – Developer had send 2 man with tools to make Zinc gate. Caretaker didn’t allow it. Police report was made to enable referred it to court.

15/09/2007 – a police report was made against trespassed by 2 unidentified man into the caretakers kitchen while he is away. The had uttered ” Kalau nak repot ,repotlah” If you want to made report, doing it.

01/10/2007 – a police report was made against developer whom treating the life of caretaker, and his family. Developer also had cut water connection. The company had used fake documents to transfer the said land. Police had not made any investigation on this matter despite numerous report lodged. He requested Police help to safe guard them until a court case over.

23/10/2007 – A policeman accompanied Developer and allowed Developer to place Container Cabin on the site despite protest by caretaker . The said police had uttered harsh words when he tried to explain. A police report was lodged on this effect.

26/10/2007 – 4 man had informed caretaker that they wanted to cover the area with zinc gate. This will obstructed caretaker from entering. A police report was launched.

15/1/2008 – the developer had entered into the site despite court case in process. Caretaker made police report on trespass.

11/5/2008 – Caretaker had lodged police report after he found that Developer had entered into the temple compound by breaking the gate. The developer also had erected Zinc gate. They doesn’t allow anyone to enter despite Court Case still in pending. Caretaker worried they might touch temple and it’s belonging.

It made us to wonder, why police had not taken any action on the FAKE DOCUMENT complain at first place. How can a land been transferred when the owner no longer reside in Malaysia.

MOST IMPORTANT – How can a individual businessman had so much authority whom was not been queried despite numerous police report lodged.

Who is behind this person , that able to obstruct investigations. Who is the person behind that can instruct to demolish a temple ????

Today after much negotiation with so called “the guardman” and the police, about 7 people were allowed to go inside the area including YB Manikavasagam, Hindraf Kannan, the Caretaker Mr and Mrs Muthu and some reporters.

It was a horrifying condition to look at a temple whom had serve a community centre area for many year, today been partly demolished (statues removed). There is a big bayan tree at the temple showing how long the temple is been there, it is definately more than the age of Malaysia. Overall the temple are is covered almost one acre of the area. I was told that during the court case on this temple recent, the “new owner” showed the court the small “Sivan Sullam” temple to show that the temple is a small temple but the actual fact it is a big compound temple with a “Naga”(Snake) puttu there where it was famous prayers spot for every Paurnami (full moon).

Hindraf against all activity of demolition of temple in Malaysia. We hope that the police and ACA will do their duty in giving justice to the people around and protect the temple. Why after many reports on the abuse and violence against the caretaker went to deaf ear. This is another classic example of systematic marginalization on Malaysian Indians where a worship place which stood there for more than 50 years finally taken away and demolished. Police did nothing against the businessman whom had link with UMNO and the thugs who beat the caretaker.

Hindraf seek prompt action and support for State Govt to solve this.
Vaalge HINDRAF Makkal Sakthi.

-Kannan R-
Hindraf National Event Coordinator.

---

Temple demolition: Report lodged against police ‘inaction’
Fauwaz Abdul Aziz | Jun 2, 08 6:21pm
A police report was filed today against Klang district police chief ACP Mohamad Mat Yusop for allegedly not acting on “tens of police reports” that have been lodged over a land transfer and clearance works involving the Sri Maha Nagamuthu Karumariamman temple near Jalan Kapar.

PKR’s Kapar member of Parliament S Manikavasagam filed the report this morning, a day after residents living near the 80-year-old temple and activists demonstrated against its planned demolition by the ‘owner’ of the temple.

“Tens of police reports have been lodged over several years, but nothing has been done,” Manikavasagam told Malaysiakini.

According to Manikavasagam, workers for the current owner – who allegedly acquired the one-hectare land on which the temple stands through dubious means – had already broken parts of the roof of the temple and broken or taken down the statues contained inside.

“We’re still doing research regarding the owner, but we believe the owner is connected to a local state assemblyperson and has development plans for the land. We believe the land costs up to RM3 million, maybe more,” said Manikavasagam.

He said numerous police reports had been lodged since the temple caretaker E Muthu Kumar discovered the land was transferred to somebody else.

Muthu claimed that he had lived on the land for over 50 years and that his father had been given the land by its original landowner.

A protracted struggle

The original landowner, Harbhajan Singh, is said to have migrated to India in 1973 and died there in the 1980s.

In 1996, however, Muthu found that the land had earlier been transferred to one ‘Lin Chee Yong’, who obtained in 2000 a Shah Alam High Court order for the land to be vacated.

A protracted struggle then ensued between Lin and Muthu, which saw contempt charges as well as a spate of police reports being filed between the parties against the other.

In 2007, Muthu applied for the Shah Alam High Court to set aside its earlier decision on the basis that the land transfer was allegedly “fraudulently obtained”.

Muthu’s lawyer Dr SN Pathmanabhan said this claim was based on the finding that Harbhajan’s identity card (IC) number as contained in the memorandum of transfer to Lin actually belonged to a Chinese woman residing in Kuala Lipis, Pahang.

He also said that contrary to the practice of Punjabis of his generation, Harbhajan – who would have been in his 80s in 1996 – had written in “very precise English”.

“The signature, furthermore, did not look like that of an 80-plus year old but that of a much stronger, younger person,” he told Malaysiakini.

Pathmanabhan also said the payment of RM850,000 that Harbhajan allegedly received for the sale of his land actually never materialised.

Over and above all of these reasons, he added, was the fact that Harbhajan had died in India in the 1980s but supposedly entered in 1996 into a transaction to sell the land concerned.

Police inaction

Pathmanabhan said the Shah Alam High Court had set Aug 27 this year to hear the application to set aside the 2000 court order.

Parallel to the case, said Manikavasagam, his concern today was for the police to address the questions of Muthu and the patrons of the temple as to why they had not acted on the numerous reports lodged on Lin’s efforts to clear the land.

These efforts were taken despite the ongoing court proceedings and included efforts to dislodge Muthu, the disconnection of the temple’s water supply, and damage done to the gates and other parts of the temple building, he said.

On Oct 1, 2007, a police report was lodged claiming threats had been made to the lives of the Muthu and his family, Manikavasagam added.

“We lodged the police report against ACP Mohamad Mat because the police had not acted on that and the many other reports that had been lodged,” said Manikavasagam. ACP Mohamad Mat could not be reached for comments.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/83818

• Previous Entry: Sabah NGO to follow Hindraf idea?
• Next Entry: NLFCS willing to transfer land for Tamil Schools sake