R has emailed her concern about the Church of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Puchong as to why its freehold status has been changed to 60-year lease. Anyone can throw further light?
R’s email:
Even as the PM was talking overseas telling about love and peace and harmony in our multireligious country, there are many fundamentalists trying to derail his statements and prove him wrong.
I am a Catholic. I was informed that our new Church in Puchong, Our Lady of Guadalupe, suddenly faced a “crisis”. This church is in Selangor and you must remember what happened to our application for a church in Shah Alam over 20 years ago. Whether the Selangor govt or just the over-zealous local authorities are behind that problem, I don’t know. But now, it’s happening directly aimed at our church in Puchong.
This Church was actually an old chapel which was asked to relocate owing to housing development and the developers promised to give back a piece of land to rebuild a church. For many years we have been operating from temporary buildings including shifting from shophouse to shophouse. Finally a Church was built on a funny V-shaped piece of land in front of some shophouses just before an industrial area. It looked like remnant, left-over vacant land but beggars can’t be choosers?
The land in the whole area including the land over which the Church is built is freehold land. Now, suddenly out of the blue, we are told that the land on which the Church is built is alienated to a 60 years leasehold whilst the surrounding area is still freehold! Is this not discriminatory?
#1 by ENDANGERED HORNBILL on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 9:28 am
Like you said “Beggars can’t be choosers”.
Vote for BN and remain ‘Beggars Forever’.
Or vote for the Opposition ‘DAP/PKR’ and give them the reins of the new government. Get a new lease on life – FREEHOLD.
Freedom for the people.
Fairness in the government.
Full rights for Everyone irregardless of race, religion or creed.
BN is ugly!
BN gets uglier and uglier by the day -corruption, despotism, racism!
#2 by megaman on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 10:13 am
well …
not surprising to me …
temples get torned down.
churches get 60 years lease.
But mosques get the choicest of land.
Shake head.
#3 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 10:19 am
Very nice use of the term FREEHOLD.
Very apt to describe a new freedom for the people after 50 years of MERDEKA.
Unfortunately I perceive the majority of Malaysians are still reluctant to give power to the Opposition.
What we need are the more moderate leaders in BN to consider forming a new BN front that will morph into non-racist parties after the next general elections.
It will also free our politics from the “hand me down” leadership that prevents many able leaders from developing.
http://malaysiawatch2.blogspot.com/2006/12/we-need-alternative-bn-government-to.html
This church land grab is typical of a state government that is trying to create problems. Or is it a staged “opportunity” for a white knight to come charging to the rescue?
#4 by smeagroo on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 10:52 am
All Christians to vote for DAP or PKR. Time to be united!
#5 by Godfather on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 11:16 am
RealWorld, the UMNO apologist, would have said “Consider yourselves lucky to have 60 years. You won’t be so lucky in other countries.”
#6 by sheriff singh on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 11:44 am
Can we have the name of the developer company and its directors who gave the funny shaped piece of land?
Shouldn’t the church have asked and negotiated for a decent piece of land before it agreed to move?
As suggested, we should find out why a freehold piece of land, a leftover at that, be downgraded to leasehold? Who then is the owner of the land if it was merely “leased”?
Its time to stop this rot of churches and temples being demolished or obstacles placed in their way for construction of new places of worship.
All talk of freedom to worship is all hogwash.
#7 by grace on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 11:50 am
When Pak Lah or any BN ministers boasted so much how free we are to practise our religion, I felt utterly shameful of them.They boasted to the world that our multiracial and culture is a model to them. This is really third class mentality.
In fact other countries with more number of races and religion and living more freely do not boast at all.
#8 by Kit on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:05 pm
R has sent a follow-up email:
#9 by Toyol on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:06 pm
Churches, buddist and hindu temples get built only through begging…whether for money or favours, whilst mosques get built under Malaysian plans and national budgets. What freedom…its a joke and as a result we lose our image through the eyes of potential investors. Any country which has a negative undercurrent will drive away investors..don’t these idiots know that.
#10 by dawsheng on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:07 pm
We are still at the early stages of religious persecution in Malaysia. How far it will go and where we all will end up to will very much depends on actions we decided to take today. Or just closed one eye and pretend nothing is sinister about this.
#11 by Fort on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:19 pm
I agree with what Toyol said.
Are we beggars?
Don’t we have right to a decent place of worship?
I am sure a fair and just government will provide for all.
After all, the money has come from all of us!
High time we all vote for a change.
#12 by awesome on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:20 pm
Hey, you know what I think. I think the church committee or some brave people in the church should highlight this in the press and take legal action.
This will prevent the church from being taken advantage and be doormats to someone. Is there someone there involved who have the guts?
Remember when coliesum theatre was threaten…what did the owner do? Go to the press. Yeah go to the media..bring out this nonsense in the light.
With all the pubilicity…something decent will be done. I get the feeling that not all of Malaysia reads this site but majority read the newspapers and hear news. Go media and chase out the corrupters!!
#13 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:23 pm
Just compare Malaysia and Indonesia and one will realise that the Indonesian government has a fairer approach to allocating land for the various official religions.
But religious extremism has resulted in more deaths over there.
On a visit to Bali a few years ago, my wife and I wanted to go to church on Sunday and we took a cab.
At first we were a little worried that the taxi driver would not know where the Catholic church was but he told us that in Bali the government had allocated a large piece of land where the church, a temple and a mosque were within sight of each other.
A good example of a government that promotes religious harmony, don’t you think?
#14 by boilingmad on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:30 pm
You’ve all said the right things. Now is the time to stand united and, as Fort said, vote for a change. WE must not waver, especially when the BN will start their tactics to try & change our feelings & emotions as the elections draw near. Remember, we don’t have good leadership anymore and the ‘leftovers’ now are bad, if not, worse than ever. To vote for them will mean to perpetuate this rot and things will be get even “badder”, I very sure of it.
#15 by Phat-kor on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:30 pm
like it or not, daylight persecution of the churches in this country will continue. but as christians, we know that our almighty one is in control of situations. will just have to be patient and tolerant until the day when the trumpet sounds,,,,
#16 by toyolbuster on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:35 pm
Maybe we should ask Jeanne what she thinks about that. Being a former Catholic herself, she must have something to comment.
#17 by smeagroo on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:47 pm
SOmetimes it baffles me as to why Mosques are being used to deliver propagandas and the churches hv been silent on issues that plague the society. Isnt it time all true believers rise up and vote for what is RIGHT? Vote with ur conscience.
#18 by tc on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 12:51 pm
To R,
Just call Tan Sri Liew of SP Setia and make an appointment to see him to clarify the matter first.I believe this company will not play out anybody as they have quite a good reputation.If they refuse to honour what they had earlier promised you regarding the land,then only you can call on uncle Kit for advice.If you find that they are tricksters,just tell your friends don’t buy their houses or sue them.
#19 by izrafeil on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 2:44 pm
Of course temples, churches and synagogues, and other worship places can be built by tax payers money, just like building mosques. Ask and you will get.
#20 by justiciary on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 3:15 pm
In PJ,within less than a square kilometre ,there are at least 10 mosques big and small.Can you imagine that?
#21 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 3:23 pm
I think the Catholic Church especially SFX in PJ s quite vocal about such issues but it is never reported in the normal press or TV as they have their licence to worry about.
Converting from freehold to leasehold is not done by the developer but the land office and nowadays info from government departments is more secret as sympathisers of other religions are fewer.
Given the “Islamisation” and lack of contact among younger Malaysians I don’t we will ever see a scene like the funeral of the Archbishop when TDM’s sister attended the church service and even pushed for him to be buried in the cathedral.
#22 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 3:32 pm
If the government really wanted to it could require large developers to set aside land that would be suitable for churches and temples.
Perhaps 2 acres each for the main religions like Christianity, Buddhism and Hinduism for every scheme of 100 acres.
If a new area is less than 100 acres but is adjacent to an existing area that does not provide such land and together they exceed 100 acres, the spaces will be provided.
This should not be a complicated planning issue and the land can be used temporarily as playing fields if the religions do not apply.
It will also remove the hundreds of churches and temples that now have to operate from shop-lots with the parking nightmares.
#23 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 4:04 pm
When anyone including a church is vested and sits on a land issued a grant in perpetuity (freehold) title, then definitely the authorities have no right to change the forever status to 60 years lease as that would infringe constitutional right to property.
But here “this Church was actually an old chapel which was asked to relocate owing to housing development and the developers promised to give back a piece of land to rebuild a church”.
It is not enough for the developers to just promise to give back a piece of land to rebuild a church without specifying whether the land is freehold or leasehold of 90 or 60 years. The Church should have made them specify. If developers agree to a freehold they would have to buy a land with freehold title to relocate the church. Otherwise the developers could just use their connections to apply to the State Authority for alienation of a plot (60) years for a relatively cheap premium and give it to the church. Nowadays the State Authorities seldom alienate freehold : in most cases they would alienate leasehold of 99 years or 60 years. After 60 years, they would renew but stipulate higher premium and/or quit rent for renewal.
#24 by Winston on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 4:10 pm
“A good example of a government that promotes religious harmony, don’t you think?” – HJAngus
Well, in Indonesia, the government better don’t play the fool!
Just try to increase the bus fare by a few Rupiah and see what will happen? There will be riots, burning of buses, looting etc.
That’s why the repressive government of President Suharto, in spite of having the army solidly behind him, still fell.
The question is: “Do we have such a public spirited population here?”.
#25 by Jeffrey on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 4:13 pm
If SP Setia promised to give back freehold land, then it should be held to honour that promise. This has nothing to do with the authorities.
#26 by lucia on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 5:20 pm
*sigh* persecution of churches and other non muslim places of worship happens all the time… what to do.
i know of a small church which is near to a mosque, the church people wanted to erect a signboard by the roadside to inform people there is a church there but the mosque people made so much noises over that (thought the authorities already approved the signboard), not allowing the signboard to be erected. no church signboard near a mosque, they said. can you believe that? it is just a signboard, for heaven’s sake! their faith must be very shaky and weak if they fear seeing the signboard… as if it will drive them to the church instead of the mosque!
#27 by MY VIEW on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 7:12 pm
In 60 years, I doubt there will be anymore Catholics in this country. Even if there are, they will be too old to go to church. The younger ones would have migrated and attend church overseas.
#28 by malaysian_in_europe on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 7:46 pm
I live in Puchong too (at least my family still does). Its a small kampung area with about 200 families mainly Muslims. When we were first re-located here from Kg. Dato’ Harun there were less than 100 families. Over the years state land around the original land were sold off by one Malay chap who aspired to be the Ketua Kampung with the help of his relative in the Pejabat Tanah office. Though he was never voted in as one, he still goes around pretending to be the leader. When I returned home early this year, there were talks of a plan to build a surau right opposite to my house, initiated by this fellow. (this row of houses are all of non-muslims as when we first re-located there was a pig farm there. Its long gone now). There is already a large surau in the kampung, which kept expanding over the years. Now, they were going to build another, both 2 or 3 minutes of walk apart! I wrote up a petition and got the non-muslim families to sign. Many were reluctant, citing fear of repurcussions. After much persuading and explaining that it is our right, they signed. I sent it to the MPSJ, the MP Mr Lau Yeng Peng, PKR and Selangor DAP.
This was in Jan this year. Despite this, the works for the surau has started 2 months ago.
Whatever is happening to Malaysia? I was also shocked to see so many Islamic kindergartens in almost every housing area ( we went house hunting). What do they teach in these places?
My family is moving out from this area within the next few months. And I have been told by the real estate agents that non-Muslim residents especially Chineses from Puchong and surrounding are (like Subang) are moving elsewhere. Why?
All these things are very disturbing…where are we headed to?
#29 by susmaryosep on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 8:19 pm
Aiyah, we talk talk talk, and “they” whack whack us…. it’s sad right? Mutiracial, multicultural, say all the Petronas advertisements, but do those listen and try to be gracious?
#30 by Utopia on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 8:34 pm
Quote:
izrafeil Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 14: 44.23
Of course temples, churches and synagogues, and other worship places can be built by tax payers money, just like building mosques. Ask and you will get.
______________________________________________________
What rubbish is this? Do you mind pointing out any place of worshipped being built by government’s funding besides mosques? Maybe 1 non-mosque religious building is built for every 10 mosque. To be honest I think it is like 100 mosques for 1 non-mosque!
ONLY ISLAM BELIEVERS PAY TAX?
CHRISTIAN, BUDDHIST ETC DOESN’T PAY TAX? (In fact, most tax come from non-islam believers!)
THIS GOVERNMENT IS RACIST! Thats my bottomline!
#31 by Utopia on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 8:41 pm
————————————————————–
Quote:
susmaryosep Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 20: 19.15
Aiyah, we talk talk talk, and “they†whack whack us…. it’s sad right? Mutiracial, multicultural, say all the Petronas advertisements, but do those holes listen and try to be gracious?
————————————————————–
UMNO is racist. Do you still think there is tolerance when Kerismuddin waived his keris and a May 13 book during the UMNO general assembly? If a Chinese do the same, he’ll be put under ISA! Their motive is simple, rally the Malays against the non-Malays or kick them out of Malaysia!
In the coming general election, you’ll be voting for a change. In the not so distant one, you’ll find yourself voting for your life!
#32 by muscaa on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 9:32 pm
puchong people pls stand up and vote for opposition
#33 by AnakTiriMalaysia on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 10:05 pm
(Utopia Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 20: 34.28
“ONLY ISLAM BELIEVERS PAY TAX?
CHRISTIAN, BUDDHIST ETC DOESN’T PAY TAX? (In fact, most tax come from non-islam believers!)
THIS GOVERNMENT IS RACIST! Thats my bottomline!”)
And where is the source of money used to build mosque? – Gambling tax, sales of alcohol tax, ……well it is not Haram businessactivities?… But it seems to be alright to build the mosques from Haram source of money…..
If they really care about haram or halal, it it holier to built the mosques from their own worshippers’ donation.
#34 by Rocky on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 10:46 pm
Check if SP Setia. if no valid answer is given, publish it here. We can campaign to boycott them if they did it on purpose and did hold on to their promise.Even god’s land they want to cheat.
if ti is the govt, well we do practise freedom of religion etc. yeah my foot. That was maybe until 1990. Now it is changed. On the surface yes but actually there is lots of obstacle more so for christians.
#35 by greenapple on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 10:46 pm
Lucia said: “can you believe that? it is just a signboard, for heaven’s sake! their faith must be very shaky and weak if they fear seeing the signboard… as if it will drive them to the church instead of the mosque!”
I believe this is the crux of the matter, are the mosque authorities so nervous and so kiasu and kiasi that they their believers will desert the faith because of the signboard ! Muslim’s faith and belief ought to be stronger than that ! !
The public have not forgotten the Shah Alam debacle where after the approval is given to build a new church it is then withdrawn for fear that the approval may have to answer to the Higher Being for “promoting” Christianity.
AAB can go round the world preaching his brand of Islam Hadirir, in the end it is what he does at home that matters. ” Do as I said and NOT as I do”
Hope the public can wake up to see what is happening to this country.
#36 by mendela on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 10:59 pm
Tens of hundreds of grand mosques are been build using our hard earned money. Recently I have realized also big bungalows/palace like houses are being build too within the compound of many new mosques! I presume such palaces are meant for the imans? But why the imans need such big and grand houses to stay?
#37 by HJ Angus on Tuesday, 3 July 2007 - 11:58 pm
That church in Shah Alam was a major disaster for religious moderation in Malaysia.
They had to stop the building after the foundation was laid though the church was paid compensation. But they had to shift and delayed enjoying the place for a few more years.
Has any mosque ever been cancelled as the location was deemed inappopriate?
#38 by justiciary on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 12:28 am
The so called national leaders still go around the country,telling people and fools that this is a multireligious,multicultural country.They expect others to be tolerant but they themselves are not so tolerant.So multi what multi my foot.
#39 by Jonny on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 12:47 am
well, lets put it this way. By 2057 or beyond. or even 60 years from now, Malaysia would be very different from what it is today and 1957.
Or we might never see beyond 2012.
#40 by sheriff singh on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 1:09 am
See this for a change :
http://www.straitstimes.com/Prime+News/Story/STIStory_135294.html?sunwMethod=GET
#41 by Loh on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 1:52 am
///This Church was actually an old chapel which was asked to relocate owing to housing development and the developers promised to give back a piece of land to rebuild a church.///
Ask the housing developer to re-relocate the old chapel to the original site.
#42 by dawsheng on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 3:09 am
“If SP Setia promised to give back freehold land, then it should be held to honour that promise. This has nothing to do with the authorities.” Jeffrey
This does not change the fact that the land title was changed from freehold to leasehold for 60 years by the authority. Under circumstances described by R, the church seems to be targeted because it is not a mosque, and I highly doubt it that SP Setia, a reputable developer will pull a string on old folks who are in needs of a church. This outcome is highly suspicious unless someone can provide clarity over the matter.
#43 by DiaperHead on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 7:01 am
“Now, suddenly out of the blue, we are told that the land on which the Church is built is alienated to a 60 years leasehold whilst the surrounding area is still freehold! Is this not discriminatory?”
Of course it is discriminatory but it is done in a legal way. All land belongs to the state. In case you don’t notice they want you out of there ASAP!
#44 by wtf2 on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 7:33 am
not only mosques get the best tracts – even the dead are taking prime land due to their pigheadedness – no pun intended.
there is no urban planning at all
nice areas of parkland may suddenly have either a mosque or a cemetery plonked there
trying to change the mindset of the people is trying to part the red sea
#45 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 7:50 am
“This does not change the fact that the land title was changed from freehold to leasehold for 60 years by the authority†– Dawsheng
There is nothing in R’s mails suggesting that the Church sat on a freehold land which was changed by authorities to leasehold 60 years. (If this had happened, it could be said that the authorities infringed the church’s property rights entrenched under article 13 of the constitution).
But this is not what happened. According to R, “SP Setia took over the chapel land (near Tesco Puchong)†(which was freehold) on the promise of another plot being given back for rebuilding of the church. Now where did SP Setia get the other plot for replacement?
I suggest there are possibly 3 scenarios, of which the least probable is SP Setia’s buying from another person a plot and giving to the church, the reason being obvious – if SP Setia bought from anyone else it would cost it more money and the other reason is that the category of land use of plot bought from another person is likely “residential†and cannot be used for a chapel.
So obviously this leads to only two remaining scenarios :
1. it applies for a new plot from the State authorities. Nowadays – and this you can check it out – the State authorities almost never alienate (ie give on application) freehold land : its always leasehold. So we cannot say the authorities discriminate.
2. the more likely scenario is that SP Setia has earlier the whole land around Puchong (freehold) for development. SP Setia would be demarcating a small plot from this larger land for development for the church. SP Setia would have to apply for subdivision of the larger land.
By our regulations, there are two ways to get the result of subdividing one title for a land into many ‘baby’ subdivided titles for individual houses, market, surau or church in a mixed development. We have direct subdivision. In such a case if the original title is freehold, then the subdivided titles (after subdivision) obtained back by SP Setia will be freehold. But this manner of subdivision can be protracted or costly so what many developers do is to get same result by a process called “surrender and re-alienation†by which expression it means one surrenders the whole land to the State authorities or the understanding that the State re-alienates and gives back the ‘baby’ titles.
Once a freehold land is surrendered to and re-vested in the State in order for the State, in exchange, to give one back small divided plots of lands, the State has got the unfettered right to give any tenure which is either freehold (which is very seldom) or, as in most cases, leasehold land.
(Lease hold means subject to a definite time tenure, normally 99 years for residential, with conditions and restrictions, unlike freehold or grant in perpetuity, meaning forever).
But if a certain plot is designated for religious purposes, it may well be also the guideline/regulations for land use of the State to give 60 years lease instead of 99 years (for residential).
Before we go making a fuss of discrimination, do we know as a fact that lands “re-alienated†by the State or approved as to religious land use by the State for mosques, for example, is not 60 years� Is it freehold? I don’t know.
The moral of the story (relating to the Church) is that if it sits on a land (freehold), it should not give it away to a developer on a promise from developer to get it another piece because the moment the developer does so, it has to interface with the State authorities, get their approval for subdivision (by surrender and re-alienation) and for land use for church etc which existing laws give authorities unfettered discretion.
As I said earlier, the authorities nowadays do not alienate (in normal cases or “cases of surrender and re-alienationâ€Â) freehold land. It is almost always leasehold with conditions as to land use, transferability and chargeability that authorities could control.
If the developer promises (in black and white agreement) to replace the chapel’s freehold with another freehold, then SP Setia is legally bound to honour that commitment which can be pursued by the church’s trustees against it.
#46 by Ah Hong on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 9:04 am
i think Kelantan can build more temples and Church and faster than any other states in Malaysia.
#47 by sotong on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 9:51 am
This is the result of decades of bad leadership and governance.
No one respect their leader/s or the law…..everyone is above the law and would not hesitate to abuse their power and influence to achieve their objectives.
#48 by sheriff singh on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 9:53 am
My friend who attends the St. Xavier’s church in Jalan Gasing PJ told me this happened at his church:
1. Churches use bells for their services and usually have bell towers. When his church wanted to construct one, a modest one, the application was objected to by some “sensitive” quarters and their application was duly rejected.
Consequently, they had to use a gadget that imitate a church bell for their services till today.
2. Good Friday is the holiest day for Christians who are obliged to attend religious services. This year is no exception. The church was overflowing with worshippers throughout the day and the worshippers parked their cars beside the road.
Along came some over zealous enforcement officers and policemen who summarily summoned everyone causing problems for the worshippers. Many were turned away and missed performing their obligations on that one day.
But on every Friday, many mosques are filled with worshippers who also parked their vehicles everywhere. Some policemen even help them park their vehicles with no penalty.
So why the different treatment?
Methinks the government might generally be not at fault. It is the many “little Napoleons” who are creating the discomfort, tensions and unhappiness on some misguided beliefs. But the government is to blame if they close all their eyes and allow such misguided chieftains have their way.
I hope the PM will be more concerned about the deteriorating religious harmony issues affecting his government than focusing on the colour of his tie or that he “should listen more to his new wife”.
SP Stia might wish to explain their actions whether they have acted honourably. Perhaps too Selangor Exco member (MCA?) Tang See Hang who presented the leasehold title deed might wish to explain himself.
Also MB Toyo might wish to clarify why temples are being torn down without consultations and why non-Islamic religions find it difficult to erect places of worship, obtain suitable land or obtain funds from the State government.
#49 by Jeffrey on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 11:01 am
I believe the churchgoers of St. Xavier’s church do park their cars illegally alongside Jalan Gasing PJ every Sunday without any official harrassment. Sunday is believed by the “Napoleons” to the usual day of worship for Christians and Friday noon for Muslims prayers.
Good Friday may be the holiest day for Christians but I believe that in West Malaysian it is not a public holiday, and is a normal working day with plenty of traffic.
The Napoleons will think they have the powers to summon because their cars are blocking a working day’s traffic. On Friday, as is normal, muslims are already parking their cars illegally alongside the public thoroughfares. Are we going to compound the problem by having christains on Good Friday to also do so bnear all churches?
What about rights of car annd road users on a working day?
If you can’t say it is unfair when they allow Christians one day of the week on Sunday around noon to park illegally without summonsing – as the Muslims too have a day on Friday, isn’t this so?
#50 by moong cha cha II on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 11:36 am
why you complain.
you voted me in.
i am the boss, you do what i tell you.
you dont understand ?
#51 by anakbaram on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 12:54 pm
The decision of the State Government of Selangor in changing the land lease for Church of our Lady of Guadalupe in Puchong to 60 years from its’ freehold status is yet another despicable and highhanded bulling tactics by the little zealots in Bolehland.
This is yet another proof that certain groups are marginalized, victimized, persecuted and oppressed in this country. It is not surprising to see it done in the form of government policy, legislation and judiciary. Sometimes it is done by inaction (go unpunished) on the part of authority in imposing laws and orders; As in a case where they allowed unpunished the actions by sadistic elements who broadcast damaging sms; these sms’s resulted in a mob of sadists who gathered outside a church because they were told that the first holy communion for the children were baptism ceremony.
If the originator of the sms was of the minority religion the authority would have sung a different song. Just look at what happen to the newspaper, “Sarawak Tribune†which is now banned because they printed some cartoons. The same cartoons were published in another Bolehland newspaper but no action taken.
There is double standard practice in Bolehland. There is no doubt about it. Even in the Bolehland National Oil Company it is practiced. The percentage of other ethnic groups working in the company is disappointingly small. They follow the government’s recruitment policy. Don’t believe me? Go to any of the Company’s installation and you will know. Go to any government office and you will know who are recruited as civil servants.
But what I would like to know is: Where is that government, which often claims to protect the right of each and every community down to each minority group who call this nation his own. Where is that government? Oh where are the sane, honest, altruistic people in the government? What are they doing? This country will be anarchy and continue to sink into the depth of total abhorrence if you do not act now.
#52 by dawsheng on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 1:02 pm
“Recently we had some banners regarding our activities draped on the fence of this place. MPSJ staff in a MPSJ lorry came in the evening and took away those banners. Why?” R
I seriously hope SP Setia will honor the promise to the Church, if they have mistaken somewhere. And let’s hope this is not an instant religious discrimination which many of us are concerns about. It is hard to believe though, after reading the email sent by R that the authority has been fair to the church. The land title incident may be or may not be an act of religious discrimination, but taking away event banners from the church’s fence may well be. If fees are needed to be pay for putting up the banner, the authority should have guided the church to its obligation rather than confiscating banners of religious activities. There are discriminations even in the slightest form.
#53 by dawsheng on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 1:14 pm
Simply took away the religious banners wihout issuing a summons is not an act of authority as it does not explained the reasons of the offence and abused its authority on church, and is it not religious persecution if this acts of discrimntions were performed by the authority, in this case MBSJ?
#54 by boilingmad on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 1:37 pm
Mong Cha Cha II is right. Why complain when we have closed our both our eyes and voted them in all the time. The next time there won’t be a church or a temple to go to. The big Napolean might just decide that only mosques are legal and all other places of worship will have to go.
Maybe they will give or rent us a small place in the mosque for us to worship??? After all, they use it on Friday, why not rent it out on Sundays, huh?
#55 by ihavesomethingtosay on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 2:23 pm
Long Live Aya Pin………………….
still cannot catch him, hahahahaha
#56 by sheriff singh on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 2:27 pm
Jeffrey, I think you missed the point. When my friend related this incident to me (among many others, and the many issues that have been raised in his very vocal church), he was quite upset.
He felt that the authorities and the “little Napoleons” there be were not being SENSITIVE. They knew that the car owners were attending a religious service inside while they were cheerfully issuing summons outside.
Its not about a 1 for 1 thing. Sunday, a weekend HOLIDAY for Christians, versus Friday, a WORKING day, for muslims. Its about being accomodating the Malaysian way as we tolerate some jams and inconveniences around temples etc on their repective festive days. We tolerate.
Sure the cars were ilegally parked on the roads on Good Friday but this was not much worse than for Sundays services. I was also told that Radio 4 or whatever they are called now and other radio stations also regularly announced the potential jams around churches on that day.
Good Friday was a public holiday many, many years ago. Now Christians will have to make do with just one holiday, Christmas, or Krismas, and be thankful for it.
#57 by gana on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 3:35 pm
are we going to begg forever, are we going to cryor are we will say enough is enough let stand and voiced it and not let it then let also show our spirit and belief if not the god will not forgive us…..let every one unite regardless of religion and race to throw BN,,,,,who is the root of this cause
#58 by Rocky on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 - 11:19 pm
# izrafeil Says:
July 3rd, 2007 at 14: 44.23
Of course temples, churches and synagogues, and other worship places can be built by tax payers money, just like building mosques. Ask and you will get.
are you kidding man.Face reality. You may ask but expect to wait ages for it. you are lucky they don’t tear it down. The constitution is clear on that tax money can be used to fund mosque etc for muslims. So we have to live with what the forefathers agreed. But you know that is also an unwritten rule now that any church etc should be ‘x’ km from a mosque.what is x is unknown.before this was not an issue.looks like there are lots of hurdles in Malaysia in the last 10 years for other religion and it is not as simple as ask and you will get it.
BTW muslims in malaysia are made to be seen as so weak in faith by the powers to be with all these new&funny rules that will protect them so that 100,000 won’t be converted claimed by a mufti based on hearsay.
#59 by negarawan on Thursday, 5 July 2007 - 9:39 am
In all of these problems and discrimination that the non-Muslims in Malaysia face, we sometimes forget to pray about it. Divine intervention works against evil and selfish intentions eventually. BTW, Badawi is a big failure and exemplifies NATO (No action talk only).
#60 by undergrad2 on Friday, 6 July 2007 - 12:30 am
Well, he’s married now. They say action is louder than words.
#61 by undergrad2 on Friday, 6 July 2007 - 7:45 am
Jeffrey: “Good Friday may be the holiest day for Christians but I believe that in West Malaysian it is not a public holiday…”
Good Friday is not a federal holiday even in the United States. What’s the big deal?
#62 by undergrad2 on Friday, 6 July 2007 - 7:46 am
Malaysia has too many public holidays as it is.
#63 by RGRaj on Friday, 6 July 2007 - 7:51 am
Do you guys know that you can’t build a church in Saudi Arabia? Or that you can’t even carry a Bible or wear a Cross?
So I guess Christians in Malaysia can consider themselves relatively fortunate. No?
#64 by Beggar in Boleh-Land on Friday, 6 July 2007 - 10:24 am
I seriously hate the act of boosting how moderate is our country to foreigners whilst actually we are NOT!!!
Other country which is far more moderate on religous matter wont boost like our “beloved” government.
Even a piece of land for a small church we faced this kind of unacceptable obstacles set by those extremist state authorities. other more extreme case was the chinese temple being torn down by penang state authority and the best part is Dr. Koh just keep quite !!!
Seriously, no hope for this country anymore…
Please give DAP/PKR some support fro the next GE. Or else, we will live in the dungeon of darkness.
#65 by jsuresh on Friday, 6 July 2007 - 12:22 pm
Hi RGRaj,
I have to disagree with your comment there. There is a big difference between the non muslims here in Malaysia and the non muslims in Saudi Arabia. WE help to bring independence to this country. The non muslims there can not claim such honour.
If we were simple immigrants who came here to make money, probably your reasoning is right. However, we did not come here 5 or 10 yrs ago but far longer than that. Some have family members who can trace their lineage back several centuries ago! so…we have a right to have our places of worship. We belong to this country. Anyway…the non muslim population is decreasing(falling birth rates..etc), so its just a matter of time before the churces, temples and tokongs become empty.
#66 by Rocky on Friday, 6 July 2007 - 4:51 pm
# RGRaj Says:
July 6th, 2007 at 07: 51.17
Do you guys know that you can’t build a church in Saudi Arabia? Or that you can’t even carry a Bible or wear a Cross?
So I guess Christians in Malaysia can consider themselves relatively fortunate. No?
why compare with Saudi Arabia. Why don’t you compare with North Korea. How similar are malaysia and saudi Arabia in terms of demographics etc. make apple to apple comparison please!!!!
#67 by slashed on Friday, 6 July 2007 - 11:00 pm
Jeffrey I agree with you somewhat on the parking issue but if the law says that it is illegal to park there imo it should be illegal regardless of whether or not it is for religious purposes or not.
Frankly speaking, the law has been ‘twisted’ and compromised enough and all in the name of religion or ‘human rights’ in many countries (esp where the minority disregard the majority) – e.g. France and UK regarding wearing certain ‘religious’ articles in school etc. The police should not be ‘closing one eye’ for the benefit of any party – They are there to do their job, not to make things up as they go along. If there are problems, the proper avenue is with the relevant law-makers.
Moreover, the city-planners should share the blame – esp in relation to new churches/mosques/temples – for they should always plan for heavy traffic/road obstruction. It is so obvious that these occurences would occur – similarly with schools. Thus at least an attempt at rectification should be made – e.g. accommodating this factor (church location) by making sure major roads would be built away from that place diverting heavy traffic; banning the construction of religious buildings near traffic heavy areas; allocating plots of land for parking – in fact, the gov should support any initiative to build worship buildings of multi religions in proximity in order to maximise efficient land usage e.g. in relation to parking (this of course is also a suggestion that the gov should be more active in giving grants of land out to build these structures). Where buildings are already inconveniently built of course it can’t be helped so nobody needs to point out that obvious point. BUT the point I am trying to make is that there is no proper planning effort at all! They just pop up at places and clog the traffic.
Bottom line – the gov should do something about it; and surely, they should support (financially and otherwise) the building of these buildings. Not only would it be better for society and integration, it would certainly make it easier for they to place these buildings at proper locations.
#68 by House Victim on Sunday, 8 July 2007 - 5:48 am
Can this be compared with Subang Ria Park? A magic in the Open Eyes of the Public on 15/7/2007!!
In the Parliament, http://www.parlimen.gov.my/opindex/pdf/aum dr 6 dis 2006.pdf
the lot was mentioned as Lot 17394, Mukim Damansara, Daerah Petaling Selangor seluas 29.39 hektar and was proposed as recreation park!
From a proposal submitted by Sime UEP to MPSJ
http://www.usj.com.my/bulletin/upload/showthread.php?t=17992&page=3&pp=15
posting #38
The Lot is, in fact, Water Retention Ponds in “abandoned” green area from previous (Taman Subang Ria) under Sime EUP(?) since 70’s (on the Left) and existing “Wangsa Baiduri” Development since
80’s under PKNS & Emko Properties (on the Right) of around 30 Hectares.
The Title on this piece of land was opening admitted by the State Land Office as “mistakenly” issued for recreation. Now it is proposed for a Re-Development giving an additional 1600 units on
part of the land that is for Wangsa Baiduri. The proposal said to take some 11.56 acres of land from the total 66.63 acres (about 26hectares). From their proposed layout, the Right Part is in the area for Wangda Baiduri Development which was approved for 1429 units and now come to 1785 units to include 485 units of Townhouse. So, a piece of land with mystery in ownership and
mentioned as recreation, now suddenly could be more than doubled with the housing units, if approved and the water surface of the water ponds will be diminished by around 25-30%!
The Assemblyman involved had been in MPPJ & MPSJ for the last 12 years on the Development. But, it is now at the stage of “Objection”. Hiding the fact that at least half of it is under a running Development which has a restriction of housing units and public “Objection” hearing is a formality for final decision. Obviously the proposal of hearing are lacking of essential information or report from DID (Drainage & Irrigation Department), verification of ownership, etc..
ALL ARE CONDUCTED WITH REPEATED DOUBT OF THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND AND REJECT OF RE-DEVELOPMENT IN THE PAST AND IT WILL BE IN A “PUBLIC” HEARING FOR RESIDENTS FROM SS12 – SS19 WHEN OBVIOUSLY ONLY SS12 RESIDENTS (INCLUDING WANGSA BAIDURI) SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHTS! The hearing is called by the “Learned” assemblyman promoted by his JKP!!
THIS SHOULD BE STOPPED BY THE ASSEMBLYMAN, MPSJ, TOWN PLANNER, LAND OFFICE, DID, SS12 RESIDENTS & THOSE BEING PROMOTED TO THE “HEARING” – SS12-SS19 & THOSE CONCERN ABOUT FLOODING POSSIBILITIES WHEN WATER RETENTION PONDS will be DIMINISHED!
#69 by JusticeII on Monday, 9 July 2007 - 1:46 pm
Maybe the church can start by running a land search at the land office. With the search report, we will be able to tell when the change from freehold to leasehold took place. That is, assuming no officer in the land office decided to conceal some information.
The chuch should highlight this to the media. Write to SP Setia! It is time that non-muslims stand up for their rights!
#70 by P.Y.Chen on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 - 12:50 pm
We must vote for change in the next GE. Too bad I’m too young for the next GE. Therefore we the opposition could pressure the government to behave properly.
#71 by House Victim on Wednesday, 11 July 2007 - 11:54 pm
From the mentioned landscape of the Church to Leased hold out of freehold. From the cases in Taman Desaria, Kelana Jaya, and Subang Ria Park, a more possible explanation could be:
1. The piece of land that the Church is “alienated” is a kind of reserved land that should returned to the Government or Municipal for their care for certain purposes, such as recreation, power transmission, etc..
2. The land cannot be re-alienated. But, they go to PKNS or alike who cannot alienate freehold land but lease hold and it started with a NEW “Birth Certificate”.
3. So, besides searching for the title, you should check the nearby Development and from their approved site plan, you could find what was originally planned or be reserved for your piece of land. And, checking which Developer is related, then you may have a better feeling. If it is a Developer in Common, something can be hidden more easily.
4. As in the case of Taman Desaria, the residents discovered that their reserved land had been abused and they took legal action (and got a lawyer who is keen in Town Planning and a judge to consider the case seriously), the Low-cost housing project in that reserved land was stopped.
So, may be it will take less than 60 years to face problems.
RECYCLE OF RESERVED LAND BY THE GOVERNMENT AND RELATED!! A violation of law by those who know well about the procedures and in power to do so!! HORRIBLE, TERRIBLE.
??But, anyone can stop it??