Filipino Ayala Corp does not understand 'local sensitivities' of temple issue says MP

KUALA LUMPUR: It was harder to have discussions about the relocation of the Seafield Sri Mahamariaman temple after the developer was bought over by Philippines-based Ayala Corporation early this year, says Klang MP Charles Santiago.

The Selangor state government has always had discussions with the temple taskforce and developer One City Development Sdn Bhd (One City) he said.

Charles recounted that Selangor's previous Mentri Besar Datuk Seri Azmin Ali had tasked him and then Subang MP R.Sivarasa to talk to the temple's taskforce since last year to find a solution to the relocation issue. 

"We even had meetings as late as last week here in the Parliament cafeteria. We talked and conveyed the message to the present Mentri Besar (Amirudin Shari).

"We have looked at the consent judgement and also tried to talk to the developer to put forward a solution," said Charles in a press conference in Parliament yesterday (Nov 28).

He said the "Mid Valley solution" was put forward, where the temple could co-exist with the proposed commercial complex.

This would be similar to the Sri Maha Sakthi Mohambigai Amman temple situated in the centre of Mid Valley City Megamall, Kuala Lumpur.

"It was one possible solution, the temple co-existing with a commercial development, and it worked well in the case of Mid Valley.

"We proposed the idea to One City as a way of moving forward but whenever we brought it up, One City would say they have the court's consent judgement and asked us to speak to their lawyers," said Charles.

On March 11, 2014, in a consent judgement recorded in the Shah Alam High Court,
it was agreed by all parties, including the temple committee, landowner One City, the Selangor state government and also the temple’s opposing committee led by M. Nagaraju, that the temple should be relocated to its new site in USJ 23, 2.7km away from the current temple.
 
However, Nagaraju and his committee later changed their minds, citing various reasons, and asked that the temple be preserved as a heritage site.

Charles alleged that the developer was open to discussions before it was taken over by Philippines-based Ayala Corporation early this year.

"Before, when the company was under Malaysian control, we were talking. 

"But once Ayala Corporation took over, there was no talk. They just referred us to their legal department (for the consent judgement).

"What we were trying to propose was a solution where the winner doesn't take all and co-exists (with the temple). 

"I think even though it isn't a Malaysian company, they don't understand the sensitivity of the problem.

"They always go back to the consent judgement, you have to follow it (they said) but it is quite problematic,"he said. 

Charles said companies and corporations must take into account the local sensitivities and it must be part of their business plans.

The temple, he said, is historically significant as a place to recognise the contribution of Indian plantation workers in the area, who built temples in the area.

Charles said that there were at least five huge plantations in the Seafield area (which later became USJ Subang Jaya) with about 15 to 16 temples, but they were all either demolished or relocated.

"There was nothing to recognise the Indian workers who worked there. That is why the temple became historically significant. 

"A Malaysian developer would understand it, but a foreign developer doesn't understand the dynamics," he said.

After the temple was attacked by a group of thugs early on Monday morning, a riot took place as people rushed to defend the temple. Several people were hurt and vehicles were burnt.

More than 20 people have been arrested in connection to the riot.

Home Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin said today (Nov 28) that the lawyers to the developer had hired Malay thugs that led to the riots. 

One City Development has denied the allegation.