Tian Kong’s bid to stop Tuan Kong Beo from celebrating birthday of deity on the premises is dismissed
Two temples that are sited in a Bedok North compound are at loggerheads again.
In the latest spat, Tian Kong Buddhist Temple sought to stop Tuan Kong Beo (Teochew) Temple from celebrating the birthday of a deity in the shared grounds.
But District Judge Constance Tay has ruled that Tian Kong has no legal leg to stand on, describing the application as “ironic” since the Teochew group is itself separately seeking an order to restrain any disruption.
Judge Tay, in decision grounds last month, said: “What (Tian Kong) is essentially saying is that because it has no control over the behaviour of its members, the Court should eliminate any possible provocation of such behaviour by restraining the (Teochew temple) from holding its celebration.”
The judge had already dismissed Tian Kong’s application at a hearing in January, ahead of the Jan 20 birthday event. Tian Kong’s appeal against the judge’s decision was rejected in the High Court yesterday.
Still, the Teochew temple group did not get to hold the January event on the temple premises as the entry to the compound was closed. Its vice-chairman Lea Guan Chong said last month the contractor who was to set up the tentage was stopped by a signboard that said the temple would be closed from Jan 16 to 22.
Mr Lea said: “We didn’t expect them to do this. A lot of worshippers criticised them, saying how can a temple be closed.
“Although we had the right to enter the temple premises and conduct the event, as we are co-owners, we decided not to do so as our first court case is not over.”
“It’s embarrassing that this is happening because it seems like we’re not respecting our gods,” he added.
Mr Lea said the celebratory dinner was held at Changi Village while the prayer rituals were conducted at Changi Beach. Most devotees were former residents of Pulau Tekong.
When asked about the closure, Tian Kong’s chairman, Mr Chin Tiam Soy, said: “For 30 years, we’ve never taken a rest, so we just decided to do so. It’s not a big deal.”
He claimed that after renovations were done, Tian Kong “paid HDB nearly $700,000 for the lease, and they (Teochew temple) didn’t fork out a single cent”.
He added: “There’s no free lunch in this world. We’ll just let the courts decide.” Mr Chin was referring to the Teochew temple’s civil suit against Tian Kong over the contractual terms in a 2011 agreement involving use of the Bedok grounds.
Mr Lea, in denying the claims, argued that in 30 years of the two temples’ operations, all the income collected from donations went to Tian Kong, and his temple did not seek its share of the collections.
“Every year, we have only two events, and they are simple, so we didn’t want to have a dispute over the donations,” he said.
In addition, the temple has been paying an annual sum to Tian Kong since the 2011 agreement.
“We want to continue holding events at the joint temple space, and will await the court’s decision. We feel that going to court is a waste of money because we had an agreement from the start,” he said.
In the lawsuit over the 2011 agreement, the Teochew temple group, through its lawyer Haridas Vasantha Devi, wants a court order requiring Tian Kong to comply with the pact by not obstructing its use of the premises. Tian Kong, defended by lawyer Lim Chee San, is contesting the claims.
Both temples are registered societies which operated Chinese temples on Pulau Tekong.
After the Government resettled residents to the main island, both groups set up the Pulau Tekong Joint Temple, an association to manage the resettlement compensation paid to them and ensure each side could continue its worship.
In 2015, the 30-year lease for the Bedok site was renewed for another 30 years for $650,000.
Separately, both groups inked an agreement in July 2011 to regulate the use of the premises, which today comprise a temple building and surrounding land.
Its terms are in dispute and the trial could be held later this year.
“Source:[2 temples on shared site clash again in courts] © Singapore Press Holdings Limited. Permission required for reproduction”
