A RATIONAL PERSPECTIVE ON LAND TRESPASSING - Today The STAR page 15

 

Land trespassing is not unique to Malaysia. It is a governance issue faced by nations everywhere because land sits at the intersection of survival, livelihood, economic gain, identity, history and power. In Malaysia, pressures arise from housing needs, small-scale farming, plantations and extraction, religious and cultural identity, colonial-era titling gaps, and the question of who controls resources. These forces overlap, but they do not operate at the same scale.

Public debate today often magnifies religious land disputes. They are visible, emotive and politically combustible. But when we step back and examine total physical impact, the narrative changes. Land trespassing in Malaysia is primarily structural, historical and economic - not religious.

Based on cumulative public reports and enforcement trends, and acknowledging that we do not have a single consolidated national database, a reasonable working model suggests the following approximate acreage distribution: Indigenous and customary land disputes about 45 percent; agricultural encroachment into forest or state land about 35 percent; illegal logging and mining about 10 percent; historical squatter and informal housing about 8 percent; and all religious land disputes combined roughly 2 percent.

Even allowing for adjustments, the proportional reality remains clear: religious disputes occupy a very small fraction of total affected land. Yet they dominate headlines. A 0.2 hectare temple dispute can trigger national outrage, while tens of thousands of hectares involving customary claims or forest encroachment receive far less attention. This is not merely a legal observation. It is a diagnostic of how we allocate attention.

Every nation operates with limited enforcement capacity, limited investigative bandwidth, limited political capital and limited public focus. The question is not whether land law should be enforced. It should. The real question is where we should allocate more energy, resources and talent. Should the bulk of our national focus be on 2 percent of the land impact, or on the 80 percent involving Indigenous claims and agricultural encroachment?

A rational society aligns effort with magnitude. Justice without proportionality becomes theatre. Enforcement without scale awareness becomes selective. Outrage without data becomes drama and distortion.

This does not mean religious land disputes should be ignored. They must be handled fairly and consistently. A clear and principled framework is needed for legacy religious sites. Where land is to be sold, the affected community - whether temple, mosque, surau, church or gurdwara -should be given a transparent right of first offer, reasonable time to raise funds, and pricing that is fair and regulated. The principle must be universal, not selective. Consistency prevents politicisation.

But we must also confront the structural dimension. Indigenous and customary disputes involve historical land use, native rights and long-standing documentation gaps. Agricultural encroachment into forests affects water security, biodiversity and long-term ecological stability. Illegal logging and mining degrade rivers and soil. These categories involve thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of hectares. They are structurally significant.

Religious disputes are symbolically intense but physically small. We must distinguish between symbolic visibility and structural magnitude.

Attention is a national resource. Where we direct it shapes budgets, enforcement priorities and public perception. If we focus disproportionately on the smallest category, we risk under-addressing the largest.

The real issue may not be trespassing alone. It may be how we decide what deserves our attention.

Are we responding to the loudest issue or the largest? Are we allocating resources based on data or emotion? Are we strengthening governance or amplifying symbolic battles?

If we want to be rational, and build a mature citizenship, we must restore proportionality to our national conversation.

Peace,

Anas Zubedy

Kuala Lumpur

Have a Meaningful Chinese New Year - ARE YOU FIRST A MALAYSIAN OR CHINESE?

 

ARE YOU FIRST A MALAYSIAN OR CHINESE?

This question is irrelevant, unknowing and oftentimes insidious.

Irrelevant because being Malaysian is about our citizenship. Being Chinese is about our ethnicity. Citizenship and ethnicity are not the same thing. And we can be proud of being both at the same time.

Unknowing because, unfortunately, many Malaysians do not know the difference and are easily drawn into a fruitless debate. Insidious because there are those who throw these questions for political games. While this manipulative and dangerous political strategy benefits them, it does not profit you and me.

What does it do? It hurts us. It divides us. It tears us apart. It makes us question each other’s loyalty.

When we were born, we took our first breath both as Malaysians and as Chinese. Both as Malaysians and as Malays. And both as Malaysians and as Indians, Kadazans, Ibans or Eurasians. Both at the same time.

When we are overseas, we refer to ourselves as Malaysians. Why? Because we are proud Malaysian Chinese who want to differentiate ourselves from Chinese elsewhere, such as in China or Singapore. Malays would do the same and differentiate themselves from Malays from South Thailand or Indonesia. Indians would distinguish themselves from those from India.

We need to stop pitting our citizenship against our ethnicity.

The next time someone asks us this question, let us answer: “It is an irrelevant question, because I am both, first!”

Have a meaningful Chinese New Year from all of us at Zubedy.

Peace, anas

Chen Man Hin

In a political culture that often rewards noise, Chen Man Hin (1924–2022) avoided emotional or provocative racial language and showed that steadiness, discipline, and constitutional conviction can shape a nation just as powerfully.

LAND TRESPASSING IN MALAYSIA: A QUR’ANIC PERSPECTIVE

 

Land trespassing is not a challenge unique to Malaysia; it is a universal governance issue. It manifests in both developed and developing nations because land sits at the intersection of fundamental human needs. Wherever land exists, competing pressures inevitably follow.

In the Malaysian context, these pressures are viewed through six distinct lenses:

• Survival: The need for housing.
• Livelihood: Small-scale farming and sustenance.
• Economic Gain: Large-scale plantations, logging, and mining.
• Identity: The role of religion and culture.
• History: Gaps in colonial-era land titling.
• Power: The struggle over who controls natural resources.

While these forces overlap, they do not operate at the same scale. Contemporary public debate often disproportionately amplifies religious land disputes—particularly those involving Hindu temples. However, when we step back to examine the total physical footprint, the narrative shifts. Land trespassing in Malaysia is not primarily a religious problem; it is a structural, historical, and economic one.

The Proportional Reality

The most significant land impacts arise from:

• Indigenous and Customary Land Disputes: Especially prevalent in Sabah and Sarawak.
• Agricultural Encroachment: Expansion into forest reserves or state land.
• Illegal Extraction: Unsanctioned logging and mining activities.
• Historical Settlements: Informal squatter housing and legacy urban settlements.
• Religious Land Status: Disputes over the gazetting or placement of houses of worship.

In the absence of a consolidated national database categorizing trespass by type, the following distribution serves as a reasonable working model based on cumulative public reports and enforcement trends. It illustrates the proportionality of the issue:

Category	Estimated Acreage Impact
Indigenous & Customary Land Disputes	~45%
Agricultural Encroachment (Forest/State)	~35%
Illegal Logging & Mining	~10%
Historical Squatters & Informal Housing	~8%
All Religious Land Disputes Combined	~2%

 

Even with statistical adjustments, the conclusion remains consistent: religious land disputes constitute a very small fraction of total affected acreage. What occupies the most emotional space often occupies the least physical land. A 0.2-hectare temple dispute may trigger a national crisis, while tens of thousands of hectares of customary claims or forest encroachment remain on the periphery of public consciousness. This is not just a legal observation; it is a diagnostic of our collective attention.

The Qur’an as the Guide

As a Muslim, I must ask how to approach land trespassing. For me, this is not optional; it is wajib (obligatory) as a mental model. Mental models are the internal maps we use to interpret the world. When they are flawed, our behavior becomes distorted. When they are clear and mature, our deeds—both individual and collective—improve.

A Muslim’s primary mental model is the Qur’an:

"O mankind, the Messenger has come to you with the truth from your Lord..." (Qur’an 7:158)

If we take the "big picture" seriously—considering acreage, frequency, and proportionality—the Qur’anic question is not merely "Are we legally right?" but rather, "Are we just, balanced, and God-conscious in how we act?"

I. Justice (‘Adl)

"O you who believe, stand firmly for Allah as witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness." (Qur’an 5:8)

Justice in Islam is not selective. If I am vocal about a 0.2-hectare temple dispute but silent regarding the 45% of land tied to Indigenous customary claims, the Qur’an questions my consistency. If I speak passionately about religious encroachment but ignore the 35% involving the clearing of forest reserves, my scale of outrage is distorted. Justice must follow scale, not identity.

II. Balance (Mizan)

"And establish weight in justice and do not make deficient the balance." (Qur’an 55:9)

The Qur’an emphasizes mizan—balance. When 80% of land impact stems from customary disputes and agricultural encroachment, yet our outrage is concentrated on a 2% religious category, the balance is deficient. Without mizan, even legal enforcement can become morally questionable.

III. Protection vs. Corruption (Fasad)

The Qur’an distinguishes between survival and corruption (fasad), while specifically mandating the protection of houses of worship:

"...And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques in which the name of Allah is much mentioned would have been demolished." (Qur’an 22:40)

And:

"Do not cause corruption upon the earth after it has been set in order." (Qur’an 7:56)

Housing encroachment driven by poverty is not morally equivalent to clearing hundreds of hectares for commercial profit. A zinc-roof home built in desperation is not the same as systematic exploitation. True justice differentiates between the vulnerable seeking survival and the powerful seeking uninhibited gain.

---

The Mirror of Self-Examination

The Qur’an turns the mirror inward:

"Why do you say what you do not do?" (Qur’an 61:2)

Are we equally concerned about environmental degradation, Indigenous marginalization, and corruption in land approvals? Or does our outrage only spike when "the other" is involved? Selective outrage is not just a political failure; it is a spiritual one.

Based on these themes, a Qur’anic approach to land would emphasize:

• Fair Enforcement: Applying land law consistently across all categories.
• Proportionality: Aligning our reaction with the actual scale of the issue.
• Vulnerability: Protecting those in customary and survival-based disputes.
• Stewardship: Guarding the environment from commercial fasad.
• Dignity: Resolving religious disputes with restraint rather than theater.

If Muslim activism focuses intensely on the smallest percentage of land while ignoring the largest impacts, the Qur’anic mirror becomes uncomfortable. Many are framing it as it is a legal issue.

Perhaps the issue is not land. Perhaps the issue is not about legality – Pencerobohan Tanah. Perhaps the issue is about a heart that requires purification.

If we fight for justice and balance instead of bias, do we become better Muslims? Are we representing the spirit of Islam? Are we true representatives of the Prophet? Are we reflecting the mercy of the Prophet, whom Allah described as:

"And We have not sent you, except as a mercy to the worlds." (Qur’an 21:107)

Or are we projecting the opposite?

Peace, anas

 

 

 

TEMPLES. CHURCHES. MOSQUE. NON-MUSLIMS.

 

WHAT THE QURAN AND PROPHET SAY

“[They are] those who have been evicted from their homes without right – only because they say, ‘Our Lord is Allah.’ And were it not that Allah checks the people, some by means of others, MONASTERIES, CHURCHES, SYNAGOGUES, AND MOSQUES IN WHICH THE NAME OF ALLAH IS MUCH MENTIONED WOULD HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED. And Allah will surely support those who support Him. Indeed, Allah is Powerful and Exalted in Might.” - Quran 22:40

“Whoever harms a mu‘āhid (a non-Muslim under covenant), I will be his opponent (or advocate) on the Day of Resurrection.” – Prophet Muhammad

“Whoever kills a mu‘āhid shall not smell the fragrance of Paradise, though its fragrance can be smelled from a distance of forty years.” – Prophet Muhammad

Peace, anas

AN INVITATION - BOOK LAUNCH

This book is not just a memoir. It is Malaysia in real life. It is a tapestry.

An embroidery of growing up poor in multicultural Malaysia, especially Penang. A place where a mosque’s azan, a temple’s bells, Chinese drums and a church’s hymn were not news headlines, but the everyday soundtrack of my life, giving me strength, creativity, friendships and the motivation to realise my full potential.

I grew up with the smell of incense drifting through the window, the sight of Thaipusam processions, Christmas carols, Chinese opera stages during the Hungry Ghost Festival, and Malay Muslim cultural and religious observances. I grew up speaking Malay at home, English in school, Hokkien in the village, and picking up Tamil slang from friends. That was normal. These are the sounds of Malaysia.

"The Quran and I" is the story of how faith was not shaped in isolation, but in the middle of difference. In the middle of laughter, questions, friendships across religions, and the daily intermingling of cultures.

It is a story of how unity is not an abstract slogan. It is lived. It is heard. It is smelled. It is tasted. It is spoken in many tongues. It has its challenges, but it always rises above them.

If you believe Malaysia can be a model of peaceful coexistence in a divided world, this book is for you.

I would be honoured to have you at the launch.

Let us celebrate not just a book, but the beautiful rainbow we call home.

With peace, anas

WHY USA & IRAN ARE BETTER OFF AS FRIENDS

 

America and Iran are better off as friends than foes. Logic, not ideology, leads to this conclusion.

There is no compelling economic, social, or political reason for the United States to attack Iran. Such a move does not materially improve American prosperity, security, or social cohesion. On the contrary, it risks higher energy prices, market instability, regional escalation, and further strain on American military and fiscal resources.

The primary driver of hostility toward Iran is not an America-first calculation. It is an Israel-first policy. This stands in direct contradiction to the stated principle of putting American interests first.

Ironically, at this point, Israel itself does not want the United States to attack Iran. Iran’s demonstrated ability to strike Tel Aviv during the 12-Day War has altered the risk equation. A wider conflict would expose Israel to damage far exceeding what was previously assumed, and any US-led escalation would likely provoke a response that makes the 12-Day War look minor by comparison.

With domestic protests in Iran having subsided and the regime still firmly in place, the military option is no longer viable as a tool for regime change. An external attack would consolidate internal support around the Iranian state, not weaken it. History shows that such actions strengthen regimes under pressure rather than collapse them.

If the United States acts rationally, it should act for Americans. Not for the strategic preferences of another country.

A more logical path is engagement. Befriending Iran does not mean endorsement of its system or policies. It means recognising geopolitical reality and pursuing bilateral economic cooperation where interests align.

Access to trade, investment, and structured engagement lowers incentives for conflict and creates mutual cost for escalation.

Measured against outcomes, not emotions, cooperation with Iran serves American interests better than confrontation. Logic dictates this is not weakness.

It is strategy.

Peace. Anas

MEE MAMAK AT A CHINESE RESTAURANT

This afternoon I casually walked into a makan place near Maybank Tanjung Bungah that serves Mee Mamak.

I was genuinely glad to find it. It felt like the Penang I grew up with. Quaint. Unpretentious. The atmosphere, the customers, the rhythm of the place. I did not realise these still existed.

I ordered Mee Rebus.

At the table beside me sat a Malay chap having Mamak mee goreng for lunch, and a Chinese chap eating a non-halal dish. Both were completely comfortable with each other’s presence and preferences. I think they work at the same place.

It was business as usual in this restaurant. A halal Mee Mamak stall at one end, non-halal char koay teow at another. No issues with what the other is eating. I eat my dish, you eat yours.

To you your religion, to me mine. But we are connected in our humanity. In daily life. In earning a living. In providing for our families. And in contributing to the nation.

I like Penang that way.

Peace,
anas