COMMENT The Penang MIC state liaison committee should not repeat old lies and matters that are of no concern to Hindus in Penang.

By making baseless and frivolous allegations against the Penang Hindu Endowment Board (PHEB), and me, the MIC has shown clearly to Indians in the country that it is simply a party that is not in touch with problems and issues that are seriously affecting the community.

Yesterday, Penang MIC chairperson K Thangavelu gave a press conference at the state party headquarters, questioning the role of the PHEB and making serious allegations that it is dividing the Hindu community through a series of its recent actions.

I was informed yesterday, before the press conference, that it was being held as result of the directive issued by MIC president Dr S Subramaniam (photo), after I challenged him on matters concerning the Hindu board recently. So the press conference was not "independently" initiated by the MIC in Penang, but it was ordered to do so.

In the press conference, a number of allegations were made against the PHEB. First, the board was accused of dividing and alienating the Hindu community in Penang by taking over temples without regard for the feelings and sentiments of the local temple committees.

Second, the actions of the board were described as not only illegal but also immoral because the proper functioning of the temples in the state were gravely affected. Third, that the board is also interfering in the affairs of the Chettiar community, especially in relation to the organisation of the chariot procession during Thaipusam. Fourth, the issue of the missing gold bars was raised, without fail.

My response: First, it must be remembered that the MIC is not an innocent party in the administration and management of the Hindu board. From the time of political independence until 2008, it was the MIC that managed the PHEB.

My question is simply this: what were the achievements of the board during this long period and in what ways were the Hindu community united in Penang? While property under the PHEB was kept intact, there was a major problem of cash.

What happened to the Thaipusam collections?

We are not sure what happened to the collections during Thaipusam and why, when we took control of the board in 2008, there was a mere RM3,000 in cash available in the PHEB accounts. Should not the MIC answer this and other related questions?

During the last eight years of the administration of the board, the present management that is under the Pakatan Harapan government has amassed a few million ringgit in cash reserves, so much that we are providing generous educational grants and welfare assistance to those deserving Hindus.

So, what the MIC and the BN could not do in nearly 60 years, we could easily do better, in less than eight years!

Second, we have not taken over hundreds of temples and as MIC claimed. We have only brought three temples within our fold: Murugan temple in Batu Kawan, Ganesha temple in Perai and Thorapathi Amman temple in Nibong Tebal.

As I have said earlier in my statements, the Murugan temple was brought within the fold of the board when the Penang Development Corporation (PDC) handed over the ownership of the temple to the board.

Yes, there was a legal challenge from an MIC-inspired group, but then the High Court decision was in the favour of the board. Section 4 of the Hindu Endowments Ordinance was invoked to take over Ganesha temple in Perai.

The faction fights and subsequent re-registration of the Ganesha temple committee by the Registrar of Societies (RoS) were the reasons used by the board to take over, following the consent issued by the Governor of Penang.

Then, the Thorapathi Amman temple in Nibong Tebal was handed over to the PHEB, voluntarily, as a result of the financial problems the temple committee faced, and its inability to rebuild the temple.

No element of forcible seizure

In all, there was no element of forcible seizure of temples in the above three cases, as alleged by the MIC. The takeover was done in accordance with the provisions of the Penang Hindu Endowments Ordinance of 1906.

In fact, the PHEB effected these takovers after obtaining the consent of the Penang state executive council. Now, if the MIC or any other party has been aggrieved by these takeovers, they could have resorted to the court for justice.

In the case of the Dewi Sri Muthumariamman temple in Batu Kawan, the board lost the legal case in the court. However, we have instructed our lawyers to appeal on the matter. So, if the committee of the Dewi Sri Muthumariamman temple can go to court, we don’t see why the MIC has to "cry wolf", rather than challenge the validity of temple takovers by the board at a press conference.

Third, the MIC is making an unfounded statement that the board is only entitled to manage five Hindu temples. Can it show where in the ordinance it states that PHEB can only manage five temples? This is a blatant lie to confuse the Hindu public. In fact, the board is entitled to manage temples and Hindu religious-related properties, if these are not managed in accordance with the law.

Fourth, as we have stated clearly during numerous occasions, the board is not interested in interfering in the affairs of the Penang Chettiar community. We are not interested in "robbing" them of their silver chariot.

We are only interested in running our own golden chariot for the next Thaipusam. Is this something wrong? Is this something illegal? The MIC, for the past 60 years, was not only unable to manage the board but it miserably and tragically failed to address the concerns and sentiments of the Penang Hindus.

Public support for the board to run its own golden chariot for the next Thaipusam is tremendous. Again, what the MIC could not in 60 years, we have done it within the span of eight years, in a much better and smarter way.

Sorry to say, the MIC, the "albatross" around the neck of Malaysian Indians, is in a sorry state of affairs. It claims to be the only representative of Indians, but its leaders lack the courage and wisdom to ensure that Indians will have a decent future in the country.

If Subramaniam cannot even have the courage to take on Umno leader Nazri Abdul Aziz, then he is hardly fit to lead the Indian community. If he does not have guts to take on others, and me directly, then he should not say that he is the "leader" of Indians.

P RAMASAMY is Deputy Chief Minister II of Penang and the state assemblyperson for Perai.