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
No comments:
Post a Comment