HEB only a trustee for Hindu temples

comments     Suppayah Krishnan     Published     Updated

COMMENT The Hindu Endowment Board (HEB) Ordinance (Chapter 175) does not provide for the administration of the Hindu religious affairs of any temple located within an endowment.

The HEB only has jurisdiction as trustee of a Hindu temple property, but only through a management committee appointed for this purpose under Section 6 of the Ordinance.

In the past, the board had no political patronage in its composition and was able to investigate any Hindu trust that was found to be mismanaged and abused.

As a former government officer assigned to the Hindu Endowment Board, Penang, for more than 23 years, my position is that the board can only supervise, not usurp, the management of the trusts via its management committees.

Recent disputes among interested parties over the car wash business on cemetery land near Jalan Telaga Air and the management of the Mariamman Hall at Mengkuang Road, both in Butterworth, and many more issues of importance only prove the point that the HEB is by-passing the temple management committees. ( See related reports in The Star reports on Jan 3 and Jan 4, 2012 ).

Perhaps, its role and functions have now been further hijacked for DAP's political mileage and it is therefore timely that the HEB absolves itself from that disease in order to remain relevant.

Weaknesses in the office of the secretary

From 1905 till 1989, it had been mandatory for the board to obtain the service of a senior civil service officer with the rank of district officer or director of the Land and Mines Department as the ex-officio secretary of the HEB to carry out the provisions of the ordinance, which deal mostly with land and money.

Since 1989, the commissioners were appointed annually, with the exception of the government officer, who remained as the HEB's ex-officio secretary until the post is vacated on grounds of that officer's transfer.

The HEB is thus greatly disadvantaged in way of its smooth and efficient administration, since the state government each year shops around in the public service for an Indian officer for the pivotal post of ex-officio secretary-cum-commissioner.

The current practice of shopping around for an Indian civil servant to be the ex-officio secretary and commissioner of the board has resulted in disadvantages in itsadministration.

Perhaps this anomaly is justified by the appointment of an executive director with a big salary to supplement the functions of the ex-officio secretary, who currently hails from Customs Department of Butterworth and is paid only a small monthly allowance.

The board was further assisted by a civil servant as its assistant secretary to ensure smooth administration of the trusts, which comprise properties worth hundreds of thousands of ringgit, besides a huge amount of cash.

Such actions speak clearly of the board being toyed by politicians serving as commissioners to reward their cronies, who hop from one portfolio to another at the expense of the board.

From the recent statements in The Star , one can read between the lines that an additional portfolio of executive director, created at the expense of the board that depends solely on the meagre income from religious ceremonies, and not from any developments of property under its jurisdiction, is done only to reward a crony.

This decision is akin to the Malay proverb - p agar makan padi .

The HEP has suffered similar onslaughts from NGOs and members of the Hindu public ever since the MIC leadership took control of the board in 1975.

The board has been abused in the past by MIC politicians and currently by the DAP and the PKR, which are clamouring for their personal and political aspirations and show no heed to the purposes for which the trusts had been designed by the forefathers.

1989 HEP guidelines ignored

As the person who proposed the rules and guidelines for appointment of commissioners in 1989, after the earlier procedures met with failures in 1978, 1982 and 1986, I am very disappointed to note that the board has again become a political tool for cronies.

Perhaps P Ramasamy should look for the revamp proposals and the new board rules of 1989 adopted by the Penang government under the late Dr Lim Chong Eu, which substituted politicians sitting on the board as commissioners with candidates of good character and outstanding personalities, having the expertise and qualifications to bring benefit to the administration of the endowments.

The current Penang government has thus ignored the guidelines adopted in the interests of the Hindu trusts, and more importantly, to oversee and investigate all Hindu trusts created for the support of any Hindu shrine, Hindu religious festivals or for charitable purposes in the state to prevent the squandering of the funds by unscrupulous religious opportunists.

The obligations of the board could no longer be implemented independently as its policies are churned out by commissioners appointed through political connections and patronage.

At the recent annual general meeting of the United Hindu Religious Council (UHRC), the issue of the board collecting donations for religious purposes, despite not having the authority to do so, and its refusal to show these accounts to the donors was raised.

I hope P Ramasamy will remain relevant will look into the calls of many concerned Hindus about the functions and operations of the HEB and also bear in mind that the board is the only one of its kind established for the benefit of the Hindu community in Malaysia, apart from the well-managed one in Singapore.

 


SUPPAYAH KRISHNAN is a chartered secretary and deputy president of the UnitedHindu Religious Council (UHRC), Penang, and served as the assistant secretary of the Hindu Endowments Board, Penang, from 1970 to 1993.



Malaysiakini
news and views that matter


Sign In