Consent judgements from courts are not cast in iron, parties to them can revisit them if situations really warrant them.
I’m the case of Sri Mahamariam temple in Subang Jays (formerly Seafield estate) the consent judgement reached between the two opposing parties to relocate the temple promised by developer, One-City, is not immutable or cast in stone.
If the parties want to save the temple from being demolished, they can revisit the consent judgement with the objective of saving the temple for the larger good of the Malaysian Hindu community.
However revisiting this court order would require the concurrence of all parties including the developer and One-City. It is not impossible, but the concerned parties might think out of the box, somehow have to swallow their pride to move forward.
The anticipated demolition very soon would not be taken lightly by Hindus in the country. Too many Hindu places of worship have been torn down the past, all in the name of making way for development. The destruction of this temple on the basis of court order or with the promise of alternative land inclusivec of an hefty compensation are not real mitigating factors.
If the two principal parties had agreed to implement the consent judgement, the matter might have been resolved a few years ago. However, if the temple had been demolished, such a rash act would not gone well with Hindus in the county, whatever the justification, court order or not.
This temple is not ordinary one built a few years ago. It has history of more than one hundred years and one of the 15 temples built by plantation workers over the last 200 years. Demolishing the temple to be relocated might not be acceptable to Hindus. Destruction of a temple with history is not something that can be tolerated by Hindus, a community keen to safeguard its places of worship and places of heritage.
Even if the temple needs to be relocated on the basis of a prior agreement, is there necessity to demolish the existing temple. Can’t there be an effort of those involved to allow the temple to remain on the present site as Hindu heritage center. Can’t the land owner accommodate the present structure within the ambit of development? Something that was done by the developer in the Mid-Valley project in Brickfields, Kuala Lumpur.
The whole episode could have been avoided if the Selangor state government had insisted on the preservation of temple at stage of development planning. I am not sure why this was not done or the problems faced in allowing the temple to stay.
I am not against court order, but could the temple be preserved in one form or another to the satisfaction of the Hindus in the country. In the next few days, can some creative solutions be worked out to the satisfaction and dignity of Hindus.
Temples or places of worship are not mere structures but life and soul of Hindus in the country. No government worthy of its name would allow for demolition of temples without considering their impact on the psyche of the worshippers.