当被问及，玻州警长莫哈末（Muhammad Abdul Halim）不愿证实，叫媒体去问总警长拉扎鲁丁，至目前为止，拉扎鲁丁仍未对此发言。
土团党的巴德鲁（Badrul Hisham）称，赞里获释是因为来自“巨大的公众压力”。咁都得？
一个反死刑与酷刑组织（Madpet）呼吁当局，把其他人也释放吧，反正不会影响警方的调查。
叫我想起法律部长阿莎丽娜说的，根据现有监狱法令，内长有权将任何地方颁布为“监狱”，即“居家服刑”。于是，有人打趣说，那让其他囚犯也在家服刑就好了（请看《现有法令允许居家服刑？》20250307）。
随着赞里获释，警方调查还会继续吗？看他如此肆无忌惮，不知他接下来还会做些什么？
兴都庙拆迁事件看似圆满落幕，实则不然。
玻璃市宗教司阿斯里就拿庙宇事件与隆市政厅执法人员粗暴对待卖气球的无牌小贩事件做对比，质疑当局的办事原则，说明显“非法”的事却得到各种优待和替代方案，街头小贩反遭不人道对待。
执法人员粗暴执法固然该受到谴责，但阿斯里不应从种族角度来比较，他甚至做了非常“racist remark”，我都不想在此写出来，大家可以去找他的视频来看。
.jpg)
Jakel集团事后声称，曾考虑过要起诉庙方，但被扎丽哈部长阻止，并建议他们会见安华首相。这便是首相插手的原因吧？
安华在动土礼上表示，停滞了10年的计划终于取得了“胜利”，这样的说词听来很刺耳，等于在伤口上撒盐，两边不讨好。
但可以想一想，负责直辖区事务的扎丽哈为何阻止Jakel起诉庙方？因为错是在隆市政厅，不是庙方。
之前提过，该百年古庙在殖民时期就已存在了，也一直受到政府承认，2008年时为配合道路扩建工程，隆市政厅曾要求庙方让出2至3公尺的土地，并批准了庙方的翻新工程。
2012年，庙方依据土地法典条文，申请将该段土地划为非穆宗教场所保留地，隆市政厅未予回应，却在2014年未知会庙方的情形下，将土地卖给了Jakel集团，庙方声称两年后才得知（请看《他现在做的，是他在当反对党时会反对的事情》20250326）。
这方面，隆市政厅是不是理亏在先？我相信这便是扎丽哈阻止Jakel起诉庙方的原因。
面对种种的误解（包括有者在脸书创建专页用来举报所谓的非法庙宇），兴都教组织将在周末（6/4）举行一场紧急大会，以讨论“违建”的问题。
与此同时，有人在社媒煽动种族仇恨，针对兴都社群，号召重演513。团结部长阿伦要求MCMC介入调查。
何止MCMC应介入调查，该网民也应立即被警方逮捕，杀一儆百，以制止事情恶化。
其实，此时最应出来说话的是首相安华。与其他说是某方的“胜利”，身为全民首相，他应该呼吁各族群之间更多的包容和谅解，并行而为之。
建议上述兴都教组织也像Jakel集团那样，寻求首相的协助，相信首相公正无私，必能一劳永逸地解决其他“违建”的庙宇问题。
1 comment:
Specifically to PMX!!
Press Release
29/3/2025
THE TEMPLE
With due respect to PMX, his view that the status of the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman temple is “illegal” is as insulting as it is inaccurate. It is sad that he is implying that we Indians are the descendants of those who indulged in illegalites and crooked things. We resent such insinuations.
To trace its history of origin, the said temple was given permission to be built on “No Man’s Land” by the then colonial administration who were in power some 130 years ago to the Indian workers who toiled day and night in construction and infrastructural works for our nation. So where on earth is the “illegality”?
As a law graduate (with equivalent CLP) I was taught at Law School that when someone gets into occupation of such a land without let or hindrance to develop it, then that party accrues rights in it.
If subsequent conventional laws are passed relating to the said land, then such laws are overseen by the Law of Equity or “fairness”. The law of equity provides legal remedies for cases wherein the common law is inflexible and cannot fairly resolve any disputed legal matter. Equity law supersedes common law and statute law and comes into play when disputes arise. For Dato’ Seri’s information what this means is that you simply cannot evict or transplant the occupier just like that. The land on which the temple sits had been sold clandestinely to a third party without notice to the sitting occupier. Here’s where the law of equity steps in on behalf of the occupier to remedy the faux pas. According to the law of equity the occupier must be given the first option to purchase the said property at market value which was not done. And now to ask the occupier to move out is grave injustice as such a demand is not only illegal but immoral.
Dato’ Seri reinforces his argument for the temple to be re-located by alleging that the temple committee had “agreed” to do so. In a David and Goliath confrontation on the said issue surely the word “agreed” must be interpreted in the context of inverted commas.
When two parties agree on everything, rest assured only one is doing all the talking.
Dato’ Seri must realise that moving a sacrosanct structure of worship that stood majestically in its place for over 130 years is not the same as moving a piece of furniture from the dining room to the kitchen.
This temple is not only a national icon but doubles up as national heritage and should be left undisturbed for all posterity.
Certain parties wanted to bring this issue to the Courts for resolution (which should have been the proper thing to do) but for reasons best known for the powers that be, this was prevented.
In a genuine democracy it is the duty and obligation of the majority to protect the interests of the minority and not to diminish it.
Dato’ Seri, needless to say, the power to do anything or whatever lies in your hands but please exercise that power with discretion and wisdom. We, on the other hand, are mere earthlings as a minority group and our only remedy lies in our vote at the polls.
Come next elections we hope not to see PMX converted to XPM.
Dr A Soorian LLB (Aust.)
Post Graduate Diploma in Law (Lond.)
Post a Comment