𝗛𝗜𝗡𝗗𝗨 𝗧𝗘𝗠𝗣𝗟𝗘𝗦 𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗪𝗛𝗔𝗧 𝗔𝗥𝗘 𝗪𝗘 𝗣𝗔𝗬𝗜𝗡𝗚 𝗔𝗧𝗧𝗘𝗡𝗧𝗜𝗢𝗡 𝗧𝗢?

 

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗕𝗮𝗰𝗸𝗴𝗿𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱

I have deliberately avoided writing directly about land trespassing in Malaysia when it involves religious buildings, especially on the current hot topic of Hindu temples. Instead, as I often do, I have encouraged us to take a step back and look at land trespassing in its totality.

Why? Because without proportion, we lose perspective. And when we lose perspective, we misplace our energy.

My conviction on this is not accidental. It stems from a serious belief that what we choose to pay attention to shapes how we think, how we feel, and eventually how we act. In fact, this idea forms the core of a book I am currently writing, which, God willing, will be in the market by the end of this year. We become what we repeatedly focus on.

In my earlier article, I pointed out that land trespassing involving religious sites makes up roughly 2 percent of the overall land encroachment landscape in Malaysia. The overwhelming majority involves other categories such as housing, agriculture, commercial exploitation, customary land disputes and structural historical issues.

Yet today, much of our public discourse is consumed by that 2 percent.

I previously urged Malaysians to redirect greater attention and energy toward the 98 percent where the structural, historical and economic challenges are far more significant in scale and impact. We need to trust our authorities and officials who have for decades done a good job especially if we compare with other nations.

Unfortunately, we are still doing the opposite.

So perhaps it is time to unpack the 2 percent. Not to inflame it. Not to politicise it. But to understand it within proportion. If we can see the whole picture clearly, perhaps those involved, and those observing, may respond with better judgement, greater calm, and a deeper commitment to fairness. The question is not whether issues exist. The question is what we are choosing to magnify. And that choice matters.

𝗪𝗲 𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘆 𝗔𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗧𝗼

Before we unpack the 2 percent, we must understand a deeper principle. We are what we pay attention to. Attention is not passive. It is formative. What we repeatedly focus on shapes our emotions, influences our decisions, and gradually forms our character. Over time, it shapes our reality. The end result is simple. If we choose to pay attention to the right things, we win. If we do the opposite, we lose.

Every public debate is, at its core, a choice of attention. What we magnify begins to feel larger than it actually is. What we ignore begins to disappear from view. Fear grows when we feed it. Anger expands when we rehearse it. Proportion shrinks when emotion dominates.

The Qur’an refers to this action repeatedly, cautioning us to be conscious of where we turn our faces, tuwallu wujuhakum, and reminding us to reflect and think (47:24, 13:3, 30:30, 50:37, 59:19, etc).

𝗧𝘆𝗽𝗲𝘀 𝗢𝗳 𝗛𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂 𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗟𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗜𝘀𝘀𝘂𝗲𝘀 𝗜𝗻 𝗠𝗮𝗹𝗮𝘆𝘀𝗶𝗮

Firstly, religious site land disputes in Malaysia occur across all faiths. Surau have operated in shop lots without approval, Chinese roadside shrines have appeared on road reserves, and churches have faced zoning or title complications. The issue is structural: religious growth is often organic, while land law is formal and procedural.

However, Hindu temples appear more frequently in reported cases largely because of historical factors. Many were built during the colonial estate era with verbal consent but without formal titles. When estates were later sold for redevelopment, these long-standing temples were suddenly deemed to be on private land.

In short, the higher share of Hindu temple disputes reflects legacy land arrangements and urban redevelopment pressures colliding with a modern land system, rather than a uniquely religious tendency to encroach.

In Malaysia, Hindu temples that are labelled as “land trespassing” cases are often treated as if they are identical. They are not. History, land law, migration patterns, plantation systems, and urban development all matter. If we want a rational discussion, we must categorise - not generalise.

We can look at Hindu temples in four categories with regards to land issues. And each requires a different kind of attention and action.

𝟭. 𝗣𝗿𝗲-𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗽𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗘𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 (𝗖𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗟𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀)

Many Hindu temples were built during the British colonial era by Indian estate workers, often with verbal permission from estate managers but without formal land titles. They functioned as part of plantation social life and, in many cases, existed long before surrounding developments. The issue emerges decades later when estates are sold and modern land laws are applied, suddenly classifying these long-standing temples as “illegal.” These cases reflect historical land arrangements colliding with today’s title system, and require recognition and structured solutions rather than demolition politics.

𝟮. 𝗩𝗶𝗹𝗹𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗟𝗼𝗻𝗴-𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗺𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 (𝗖𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗢𝗰𝗰𝘂𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻)

A second category involves temples built decades ago in kampung areas, sometimes on state land or road reserves, with no commercial motive. Over time they became part of the local social fabric and operated peacefully for 30 to 80 years without dispute. Legally, they may lack formal title, but socially they are embedded institutions. These situations are typically about regularisation, land alienation or relocation by consent, not confrontation.

𝟯. 𝗣𝗼𝘀𝘁-𝗗𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗹𝗼𝗽𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗳𝗹𝗶𝗰𝘁 𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀

A third category arises when a temple predates surrounding development, but the land is later sold to a private developer who demands relocation. Public debate then frames the matter as trespassing on private land, even though historically the temple was there first. These cases call for compensation, alternative land and structured relocation agreements negotiated in good faith, rather than emotional escalation or vigilante responses.

𝟰. 𝗡𝗲𝘄𝗹𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝘂𝗰𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘂𝘁 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝘃𝗮𝗹

A fourth category does exist and must be acknowledged: newly constructed temples or roadside shrines built without approval, or existing structures expanded beyond permitted boundaries. These are genuine planning violations and should be addressed through notice, legal process and consistent enforcement.

𝗔𝗿𝗲 𝗧𝗵𝗲𝘀𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗴𝗼𝗿𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗾𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗛𝗶𝗻𝗱𝘂 𝗧𝗲𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀?

No. Similar patterns have occurred across other faith communities. Surau and small mosques, particularly in earlier decades when documentation and planning controls were less stringent, sometimes began on state or community land without formal titles. Some operated temporarily in shoplots or informal structures before full approval was obtained. When land ownership later changed or redevelopment began, relocation or regularisation issues occasionally surfaced.

However, there is a structural difference. Islam is administered through state religious authorities, and mosques and surau fall directly under official oversight, funding channels and planning coordination. Over time, informal prayer spaces are more likely to be gazetted, granted land, or relocated with state support. Because of this institutional integration, long-standing unresolved title conflicts are generally less frequent and less prolonged for mosques and surau compared to colonial-era estate temples, village or long-standing community temples, and post-development conflict temples, many of which originated outside a centralised religious and land administration framework.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗜𝘀 𝗧𝗼 𝗕𝗲 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗲?

First, we must lower the temperature. We do not need cheerleaders from either side. We do not need thuggery. We do not need counter-thuggery. When private citizens take enforcement into their own hands, they undermine the very rule of law they claim to defend. If there is intimidation, obstruction or violence, that is the responsibility of PDRM, not rival groups organising their own show of force. Landowners should deal directly and lawfully with temple committees. Authorities should be allowed to do their job professionally. The loudest voices are rarely the wisest ones.

Second, we must recognise that this pattern is not unique to Hindu temples. A surau may begin in a shoplot without permit. A Chinese shrine may appear at a road junction. A Christian prayer house may start in a residential unit. The driver is often the same: faith first, paperwork later. But in a modern land system, paperwork must precede structure. The policy challenge is therefore not religious, but administrative. How do we manage spontaneous religious expression within a formal land framework? If enforcement is too harsh, it appears discriminatory. If it is too lax, it invites uncontrolled expansion.

The middle path is clear. Immediate stop-work notices where necessary. Proper assessment of scale and history. Relocation options where appropriate. Structured community mediation. Clear timelines for compliance. Firm, but respectful. Consistent across all religions.

Perhaps it is time to create Specialised Mediadors expert group, equipped to handle such matters quietly, professionally and behind closed doors, before issues spill into the streets and onto social media.

The core principle is simple. Sincerity of belief does not create land rights. But disrespectful handling creates social instability. A mature nation must uphold both freedom of religion and the rule of law, without fear, without favour, and without spectacle.

And, we must apply the same standard across all faiths, whether it involves a surau on a road reserve, a Chinese temple without permit, or a church on disputed land. Consistency builds public trust.

𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗮𝘆 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝘁𝗼?

The best way forward is for all of us to pay attention to being the best representation of our own faith. In moments of tension, instead of asking how to win the argument, we should ask how to uphold the highest moral standard our tradition teaches. Hindus may ask, what would Thiruvalluvar do in this situation? Christians, what would Jesus do? Buddhists, what would the Buddha teach? Muslims, what would the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ exemplify?

“If a man restrains his anger, he will secure all he desires.” - (Kural 303)

“Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is an eternal law.” - (Dhammapada 5)

“Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called children of God.” - (Matthew 5:9)

“It is by mercy from Allah that you were gentle with them. And if you had been harsh and hard-hearted, they would have dispersed from around you. So pardon them, seek forgiveness for them, and consult them in the matter. Then when you have decided, put your trust in Allah.” - (Qur’an 3:159)

Peace, anas