'Traffic congestion, parking difficulties and proximity to residential houses make the present location unfavourable. Do the majority of Hindus in Shah Alam still want it to be there?'
Hindraf: Retain temple in Section 19
Kim : The reason for relocating the temple in Section 19 is to make it more accessible for Hindus. Traffic congestion, parking difficulties and proximity to residential houses make the present location unfavourable. Do the majority of Hindus in Shah Alam still want it to be there?
Let the community decide rather than leave it to one man. It's easy to claim heritage status but does it have any unique features or architecture to justify this status? From the photos here, it doesn't look so.
KayKay : Indians must vote for Pakatan Rakyat even if they get nothing out of it at the moment. The bigger goal is to get rid of Umno, the sworn enemy of the Indian community, and their BN lapdogs. Know who is the real enemy. The enemy (Pakatan) of my enemy (Umno) is my friend. Never forget this strategy.
Don't be emotional for nothing. If Pakatan does not do something for the Indian community when it takes over the federal government, the Indian community has every right to throw out not Pakatan, but PKR since the latter is in great danger of emerging as another Umno. Many of the Ketuanan Melayuists from Umno are in PKR. This is the real danger facing the Indian community.
Parameswara : Waytha, where were you when the issue first arose two weeks ago? You only surfaced after the authorities and affected parties are midway to achieving a resolution. You did that in Kg Buah Pala with your brother. Now you want to do it here?
Selvi : Waytha, you are being short-sighted. Look at the whole picture. If we need any real changes to be made, we have to choose our battles. Let us first identify the lesser of the evils - BN or Pakatan? Which menteri besar has ever spent so much time and effort dealing with an issue concerning a Hindu temple? Let us give credit where credit is due.
I know the dilemma you face as the Indian support has swung back towards BN/MIC. But remember who stood by you when your people were sprayed on and arrested. Remember who still treats us like dirt under their feet. Don't ostracise the only friends we have.
V Nedu : I agree with some of our fellow readers to leave it to the residents and state government to decide. Waythamoorthy's confrontational method will not go well with this issue and it involves the sensitivity of others.
I just can't figure out why Waytha wants to comment on this issue as he is away. Is he guardian of Hindus in Malaysia? What happened to the lawsuit against the British government? Do one thing at a time, Mr Waytha. You have to be here to see things yourself!
Kim: It's not about who is here first but convenience to the Hindus in the area. If they can get a bigger, better temple with more facilities and less congestion, why not? The temple committee has agreed to move so there must be some benefits. I agree Waytha should butt out of this. Leave it to the temple committee, the state government and the residents.
Whenever the Hindraf leaders put their hands in, it becomes very political, acrimonious and racial just like Kg Buah Pala. Waytha only knows the language of threats and confrontation. Take his comments here: "Why must the temple be moved out when the laws allow it to remain where it is? Cowardice, among all parties concerned is the only word to describe the situation which has arisen."
Is this useful at all to solve the issue?
Vijaya Kumar : Some of us truly are ungrateful. The political change we have today also came from Hindraf and its leader. While all of us are voicing out our opinion, why can't P Waythamoorthy give his opinion? After some people have enjoyed the fruit of Hindraf, they are bashing now them left and right, as though as these people are terrorists. Truly ungrateful.
Louis : I agree to the temple remaining at its present site. After all, it was there long before other people settled there. If it has to be moved, it is the unkindest cut of all. It also shows that all temples are in danger of being relocated. As development catches up to the site, it has to move again, which is not fair.
Chee Hoe Siew : Even if I do not really like Hindraf for its opportunistic behaviour, I tend to agree that the temple should not be moved based on its historical value. The photos of the temple show that there are enough room still for both residents and the temple to share their resources.
Can the site be developed to cater for residents' activities while allowing the temple to remain? I see a possibility. Of course, if the state government can provide the temple with a larger plot of land to cater for more devotees, it would be a different thing.
