You know who the ‘cousins’ are, but making up is another story.
Firstly, let’s read TMI‘s report – “Federal govt considers offering another site for temple“.
- While the state government is hosting a dialogue session with all residents this Saturday, the Barisan Nasional (BN) federal government is also considering holding an event to bring both Muslims and Hindus together to defuse racial tension.
- According to sources, the Cabinet is also considering offering an alternative site to relocate the Hindu temple despite the fact that such matters fall under the jurisdiction of the state government.
- Hindu Sangam also believes the proposed site in Section 23 is the best area to relocate the temple.
- “I have checked and there was no such meeting.” [Hindu Sangam RS Mohan Shahmugam’s response to .. claims made yesterday by Home Minister Datuk Seri Hishammuddin Hussein that residents of Section 23 had met Hindu Sangam to resolve the relocation issue.]
- Meanwhile Hindu residents of Section 23 today also denied press reports that they also did not want the temple to be relocated to the area.
- K. Raju said one third of all residents in Section 23 were Non-Malays and they have carried out a signature campaign to support the state government’s move to relocate the temple.
When the infamous SA50 did their nefarious ‘bull-headed’ deed after last week’s Friday prayers, public outrage from both muslims and non-muslims were clearly evident although you would have to read the alternative media to properly gauge the general sentiments. Because the MSMs were too busy, either to muddy matters further or obfuscate the true intentions of the ‘unmolested’ protesters.
The Selangor CM announced on 2nd September ’09 that there will be a dialogue session at the Shah Alam town hall to engage with all interested parties to be held on Saturday, 5th September.
Not to be outdone, the Home minister ‘waddled’ in with a house-call at section 23, chatted with non-hindu residents (read: the SA50 group) and immediately proclaimed their ‘innocence’ ostensibly due to perceived injustices done by the Pakatan Rakyat state administration.
The fact that seditious and racially inflammatory speeches were made by the SA50 (and punishable with the nation’s rule of law) was clearly lost to the minister, even though he holds the home ministry portfolio for which he has a sworn duty to uphold. Inexplicably, no one wanted to claim credit for ‘bovine desecration’ as well.
TMI‘s report therefore turned this episode on its head (no pun intended, seriously).
Hindu Sangam’s clarification deflected the mala fide visit of the Home minister.
The truth became more apparent with further evidences of who were the perpetrators behind the protest, albeit and yet again, emanating from the alternative media, such as this. Needless to say, the alternate alternative media who are decidedly pro-UMNO such as this had their share of an .. err .. alternate reality.
With the former, you get photos and background information on the ‘suspects’ while the latter will peddle hearsay such as “Persoalanya sekarang, kenapa setelah Menteri Dalam Negeri Hishamuddin bertemu Persatuan Penduduk Seksyen 23 Shah Alam, baru Kerajaan Pakatan Rakyat Selangor baru bertindak untuk mengadakan ‘pertemuan dewan bandaran’ (town hall meeting)?” without corroborative evidence (and furthermore, debunked by Hindu Sangam’s statement).
Plan ‘A’ (SA50) went up in smoke, plan ‘B’ (home minister’s house-call) got ‘shafted’ and now, UMNO/BN are going for plan ‘C’ i.e. the offer for another temple site. Question is – why is the federal government deliberately interfering in matters (read: state land) which is ultra vires (read: original version, not Utusan‘s) to their jurisdiction? Isn’t this initiative politically motivated by any account, including the protest itself?
Weaved into the UMNO/BN web of deceit, TDM’s son had the audacity to state, “Barisan National has been handling sensitive issues for 52 years, and we have been handling it well. Selangor Pakatan government is only one year old, and for a new state not to be able to deal with problems that have cropped up in under one term of office, then that says it all”.
If that was the case, why didn’t the UMNO/BN government, prior to GE12, and having total control in the Selangor state for half a century, amicably resolve this ‘sensitive’ and contentious matter when PKNS developed the area over the same period?
Wasn’t it obvious to all and sundry that PKNS practiced a form of subterfuge by not disclosing the presence of the 150 year old hindu temple to potential malay-muslim house buyers then, and therafter, for failing to make contingency plans to minimise ‘frayed nerves’ as a result of continually developing large and larger ‘malay enclaves’?
Despite failing miserably with their efforts, UMNO/BN continue to pummel the Shah Alam community with half-truths and ulterior motives in their dogged pursuit to wrest back Selangor from Pakatan Rakyat.
‘Making up’ with 1Malaysia was never their intention. Including Hindus.