| January court date for 'Goddess of the Sea' |
| Joe Fernandez | Oct 29, 08 7:09pm |
The Sandakan High Court has fixed Jan 12 next year
for a full hearing in Kota Kinabalu on the aborted Mazu (Goddess of
the Sea) statue, said to be the world’s tallest, in Kudat.  The
suit was filed by former chief minister Chong Kah Kiat against the
decision of the Kudat Town Board on Nov 15 last year to withdraw its
Feb 8, 2006 letter of approval to build the statute on a 2.3-acre
more-or-less private land held under town lease in Kudat.Chong is seeking an order that the letter of approval is valid and binding on all parties concerned. In setting the hearing date, judicial commissioner Yew Jen Kie was also supposed to rule yesterday on a Sept 10 application to strike out the suit by state attorney-general Roderic Fernandez. Instead, the court advised both parties to withdraw their arguments on the application to strike out Chong’s origination motion filed on Dec 12 last year. Chong is also chairman of the Kudat Thean Hou Charitable Foundation which established a pro-tem committee in early 2005 to build the statue. State counsel Hanafia Kassim, the lawyer for the Kudat Town Board and the Central Town and Country Planning Board - the first and second respondents respectively - represented the state attorney-general. CM, mufti oppose statue According to the case history of the suit, the Immigration Department in Kota Kinabalu had issued a letter of approval to Thean Hou’s contractor, Key Summit Sdn Bhd, for visas to be issued to 11 craftsmen from China to enter the country and assemble the granite carvings of the statue. The reason for the withdrawal, as cited in court documents, was that the site plan and building plan had not been approved by the Central Town and Country Planning Board, the second respondent, for non-compliance with Section 15 of the Town and Country Planning Ordinance. In his affidavit-in-support, Chong told the court that: “On May 5, 2006, I received a letter from the executive secretary of the Kudat Town Board. The letter stated that he had been directed by the state minister of local government and housing to inform me that the construction of the statue was to be temporarily suspended pending a further directive from the chief minister.” Three other key dates figure in Chong’s affidavit-in-support: - On June 26, 2006, the permanent secretary of the Local Government Ministry, Ujang Sulani, also the chairman of the Central Town and Country Planning Board, issued a written directive to the commissioner/executive secretary of the Kudat Town Board, the first respondent, to order the suspension of the works on the project until an approval had been obtained from the chief minister. According to the directive, “the ministry had received objections from various parties on the construction of the statue, as well as appeals for the statue to be sited elsewhere”, which the ministry had referred to the chief minister. - On June 23, 2006, the Sabah state secretary issued a letter to the commissioner/executive secretary of the Kudat Town Board, the first respondent, stating that “the government had, after considering all the circumstances, decided the works on the project should stop immediately”. - On July 7, 2006, the mufti of Sabah, “purportedly issued a fatwa advising that the construction be stopped in order to protect the sensitivities of the followers of Islam”. Fatwa based on wrong premise Chong added further in his affidavit-in-support that the decision to withdraw the approval for the project was made in breach of the rules of natural justice and that the Kudat Town Board, the first respondent, in accepting the various directives of the chief minister, the Central Town and Country Planning Board, the second respondent; and the mufti of Sabah failed to provide the foundation an opportunity to be heard. Chong contended that the advice of the Sabah mufti, dated July 7, 2006 by way of a fatwa, was bad in law being based on the wrong premise that the statute was adjacent to the Masjid As-Syarikin in Kudat. “The withdrawal is unconstitutional as it contravened the provisions of Article 11 of the federal constitution,” said Chong. “The first respondent’s conduct in withdrawing the approval was mala fide, unconscionable and inequitable, and the second respondent had no legal authority to direct the first respondent to withdraw the approval.” Lawyer Ansari Abdullah represents Chong and the foundation. Chong resigned from the state cabinet on April 13 last year. Chong is also claiming the respondents pay compensation for the losses suffered by the foundation, costs for counsel be awarded against the respondents; and other costs as the court deems fit. |
