The ongoing controversy over the proposed Buddhist temple in Fernvale threatens to open up a whole can of worms on how the Government sells its land parcels.
The proposed temple at Fernvale Link in northeast Singapore will include a columbarium within its premises.
The sticking point for would-be residents who have bought the BTO flats there, however, is that they were not informed that a columbarium would be built right where their blocks of flats are as well.
The Housing Development Board (HDB) and the Member of Parliament for the estate, Lam Pin Min, defended the sale and say that the columbarium was indeed mentioned in the sale brochure of Fernvale Lea, the BTO estate.
However, some dispute this.
The online version of the site and map plans for the estate does not include any mention of any columbarium.
Now, the residents – at least some of them – want their money back.
It is not the first time that such an incident has happened.
30 years ago, in 1984, a proposed funeral parlour in Clementi also drew criticism.
As for the current Fernvale saga, besides the alleged lack of honesty on the part of the authorities, other questions have now emerged, since the winner of the tender for the land parcel was revealed.
Life Corporation is an Australian company which bought over Singapore Funeral Services in September 2013.
In July 2014, it submitted a bid for the 2,000 square meter plot of land in Fernvale.
Some two weeks later, it announced that it had been successful in its bid.
Apparently, Life Corp had made its bid under another subsidiary, Eternal Pure Land Pte Ltd. (EPL)
This has led some to question why a private company is allowed to bid for land set aside for religious worship purposes. It is understood that the two other bidders for the plot were religious organisations.
Life Corp itself reported that its bid of S$5,200,988 was the highest bid. (See here.)
The company also revealed that it would cost some S$15 million to build the temple-cum-columbarium.
“Commercial public-listed entities may have greater financial means to put in higher bids than religious groups,” Ms Goh Ee Ca wrote to the press on 6 January. “The authorities need to reconsider allowing commercially driven entities to participate in tender exercises for sites zoned for religious use.” (See here.)
Indeed, just last month, Minister for National Development, Khaw Boon Wan, “noted that while the Government has released land sites for places of worship, many small temples and churches find them too big for their needs and hence, unaffordable." (See here.)
So, there are several questions which the authorities should answer, including:
1. Why is a foreign private company allowed to buy land in Singapore to set up a religious establishment? Isn’t religion one of the most sensitive topics which Singaporeans have always been cautioned of? Are foreigners or foreign private companies best-placed to cater to the religious needs of Singaporeans?
2. It is reported that neither Life Corp nor its subsidiary, Eternal Pure Land, are members of any religious or Buddhist associations, such as the Singapore Buddhist Federation. Who then oversees its religious services to make sure they adhere to religious and financial rules and stipulations? For Hindu temples, for example, there is the Hindu Endowment Board to oversee the temples. Who oversees the temple in Fernvale run by a private company?
3. How would local religious organisations such as the ones mentioned by Mr Khaw be able to compete for land fairly if private companies which are better endowed are allowed to bid for land for religious use as well?
4. Also, why does the authorities allow land to be sold to a foreign private company to run a religious set-up offering “premium services” in a HDB estate? Who might this benefit?
Certainly, there are many more questions which the residents and Singaporeans have.
It is incumbent upon the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA), and the HDB to address these very important questions as soon as possible, and not leave these questions to the local MP of the area.
Ministers Khaw and his deputy, Minister of State Desmond Lee should explain the Government’s side of the issue to Singaporeans in the name of transparency and accountability.
Keeping silent – the matter was first raised 8 days ago – will only confuse further and cause more anxiety and anger.
PublicOpinion.sg
*Article first appeared on http://publicopinion.sg/168/fernvale-temple-private-foreign-company-reli...