Hindraf says the heritage commissioner did not use full extent of the law to save Vivekananda Ashram.
FMT
KUALA LUMPUR: Non-governmental organisation Hindraf has initiated legal action against Heritage Commissioner Zainah Ibrahim, seeking an explanation as to why she failed to gazette the Vivekananda Ashram as a national treasure even if its board of trustees objected to it.
In a statement, Hindraf said the Heritage commissioner still had the legal right to go ahead and gazette the Ashram as a national heritage but that she failed to use the full extent of the law for that purpose.
The statement explained, “…if it was determined the Ashram site is of cultural heritage significance, then the onus was on the commissioner to designate and gazette the site as a heritage site/building.
Hindraf said the commissioner should have conducted a hearing to determine whether the objections of the board, made in 2008 and 2009, had any legitimate grounds under Section 29 of the National Heritage Act 2005.
With moves now being made to re-develop the site into a 23-storey residential complex, Hindraf, through their lawyers, has given the commissioner two weeks for an explanation, failing which legal action will be initiated to compel the commissioner to gazette the site as a national treasure.
Saying the Vivekananda Ashram was deemed a national treasure as far as Hindraf was concerned, the building then “did not solely belong to the trustees of the said ashram to do as it pleases.”
KUALA LUMPUR: Non-governmental organisation Hindraf has initiated legal action against Heritage Commissioner Zainah Ibrahim, seeking an explanation as to why she failed to gazette the Vivekananda Ashram as a national treasure even if its board of trustees objected to it.
In a statement, Hindraf said the Heritage commissioner still had the legal right to go ahead and gazette the Ashram as a national heritage but that she failed to use the full extent of the law for that purpose.
The statement explained, “…if it was determined the Ashram site is of cultural heritage significance, then the onus was on the commissioner to designate and gazette the site as a heritage site/building.
Hindraf said the commissioner should have conducted a hearing to determine whether the objections of the board, made in 2008 and 2009, had any legitimate grounds under Section 29 of the National Heritage Act 2005.
With moves now being made to re-develop the site into a 23-storey residential complex, Hindraf, through their lawyers, has given the commissioner two weeks for an explanation, failing which legal action will be initiated to compel the commissioner to gazette the site as a national treasure.
Saying the Vivekananda Ashram was deemed a national treasure as far as Hindraf was concerned, the building then “did not solely belong to the trustees of the said ashram to do as it pleases.”
No comments:
Post a Comment