Is  ‘Malaysia Baru’ real?

Commercial considerations used to be the main criteria for the relocation of Hindu places of worship in the Barisan Nasional era.

One of the consequence of that policy was the routing of BN from power as the Indian votes swung heavily to the opposition Pakatan Harapan which promised better governance in the 14th General Election (GE14).

But now, the hands off attitude of the Pakatan government in the current imbroglio in the demolition attempts of the Seafield temple by the real estate developer One City developments macks of déjà vu and sheer opportunism.

The temple devotees are going to be had, again, if the current trajectory does not change.

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, in one of his interviews, said that in Malaysia Baru (New Malaysia), we have 4 or 5 Indian ministers in the Federal Cabinet and that indicates the kind of change in representation we have now in Malaysia Baru.

I can only , seeing what is going on in this episode, conclude that TDM is a master at creating mirages –period.

There is no difference at all in representation  – the so called representatives are totally missing in this saga, just as much as during the BN era in similar past episodes.

That this episode has come to this point just tells of thatmirage of representation.

The developer is pushing his interests unfettered by any so called representations.

The developer in a recent statement to the media paint themselves as angels who have doneeverything to give the temple a good deal.

The only thing that stands in the way, they say is the fight between two factions within the temple.

The truth has many faces.

Here is another face of that truth.

This situation has been fed by the developers themselves by encouraging individuals with no moral authority to claim leadership, to create the internal conflict.

Hindu worship practice requires that the administration of a Hindu temple be handled by active devotees ( devotees engaged in the daily management of the temple) and by devotees who have the acceptance by the larger community of devotees that the temple serves.

These two criteria are based on traditional norms of Hindu temple administration.

In the case of the former Seafield Estate temple in Selangor, the current nominal leader of the administration meets neither of the above two criteria.

That leader has not entered the premise of the temple in the last 11 years at least and is not engaged in the management of the temple for even longer depriving him of that moral authority.

The intensity of the pushback from the devotee community when the developer last came on October 25, 2018 to demolish the temple tells of the self serving and ostrich like approach of the developer.

They could not have done anything close to a demolition without human causalty on that occasion.

The expectations of people in Malaysia Baru is that the authorities should act with an understanding of the nuances within each social group on contentious issues and ensure cultural and/or other sensitivities are not violated wily nily.

The expectation is that, just slamming the lawbooks down the throats of the people is not the stuff of Malaysia Baru.

This only serves to continue policies that serve the elite of the country – just as with the BN policies.

If the developer pursues a non compromising and aggressive approach touting his court order and pushing ahead attempting to demolish the temple and the government does not intervene, we are probably looking at an extremely explosive situation as what happened in the years past under BN.

The inevitable will occur.

The Pakatan government has to think anew on this matter or risk creating a significant flashpoint and long term backlash.

N. Ganesan 
Chairman
Freedom Malaysia