Historical temple: The Sri Maha Mariamman Koil on Kretay Estate, aka Ranggoon Estate, in Kerteh, Terengganu, was built by rubber tappers in the 1920s. Many old temples now find themselves on state or private land, making ownership complex, activist Arutchelvan explains in his article. — The Star
THE current controversy over the huge number of unregistered Hindu temples is troubling.
Judging by the type of arguments popping up on social media, it is evident that many have been swept by racial sentiments.
Irrationality and ignorance without wanting to know the facts have not helped in their arguments.
We need to understand the basic background.
For a start, there are temples that have remained categorised as “squatters” even though they date back over 100 years.
They began as modest shrines set up by Indian labourers, mostly in rubber estates or railway settlements. Within the estates, these temples grew as community centres during the British colonial era.
No one understood nor saw the importance of formal land titles or gazetted status back then. The temples were unlikely to get the approval of employers, anyway.
As the estates disappeared and ownership changed hands – especially to land developers – and the complications began.
These unregistered temples that had stood for generations have suddenly found themselves in a precarious legal position. They have no legal papers saying they own the land or have permission to occupy it.
Developers would usually try to negotiate with and compensate these temple managements.
These landowners see the temples as squatters who are in no position to negotiate. They are unlikely to be swayed by historical religious perspectives that the temples have served as significant institutions.
Some cases have ended badly, even fatally.
Activist S. Arutchelvan has written a comprehensive article on this issue that is agitating Malaysia now.
“What has changed is urbanisation. These temples were once on city fringes or rural areas with little land value. Today, urban growth has placed them seemingly in the middle of towns and highways.
“Some question why these temples did not apply for or purchase land. The reality is that worshippers are mostly lower- income workers and plantation labourers (B40), not high earners who can easily buy land.
“Moreover, due to the Torrens system, temples may stand on state or private land, making ownership complex. Some roadside temples have been relocated by local authorities, but it is not simple for such temples to secure land titles.”
The Torrens land title system, adopted in post-independence Malaysia, places decisive importance on registered ownership and gazetted use of land.
The clear cases of legal temples are those with titles, either on their own land or on land they have been approved to occupy by the relevant district land administrator, as can be seen in Penang and Selangor.
But the ones that have given rise to resentment are those that do not have land titles. Even many Hindus oppose such temples. Arutchelvan himself says he does not support these temples that were built without strong tradition or significant followers.
“Some are even set up by gangster groups as fronts for wrongdoing. A temple without genuine devotees or long-standing tradition lacks legitimacy compared with established temples.”
He also shared that there were “family temples originally built within private compounds but later expanded and opened to the public.
“Local authorities should act if such expansions disturb neighbours. Family temples should not be converted into public temples.”
In my neighbourhood, there are two Hindu temples sitting on Tenaga Nasional Bhd land, under the cable towers, even though there is no significant Hindu community in the area.
It is a familiar scene in many places, and land owners have plenty to share about how they have been arm twisted to pay a settlement.
Malaysians are religiously sensitive and prefer to end disputes peacefully, even though such temple managements have no basis to make claims.
“The land status of many temples is legally ambiguous. Some are on estate land where workers built shrines with implied permission long ago; others have remained on plots that later changed hands without formal conversion of the temple’s rights.
“In legal terms, occupying land without a registered title can be classed as ‘squatting’. Under Malaysia’s National Land Code, squatting on state land – even for worship – can be an offence,’’ Arutchelvan said.
The number of unregistered Hindu temples and shrines in Malaysia are reportedly between 2,500 and over 3,000; there are more than 800 registered ones.
In Kuala Lumpur, there are reportedly more than 100 such places of worship built mostly on government land, with many facing relocation.
Last week, Sultan Sharafuddin Idris Shah expressed support for Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim’s stance that houses of worship cannot be built without adhering to the stipulated rules and regulations.
The Selangor Ruler was informed that there are a total of 687 Hindu temples built without approval in the state as of Jan 31 this year.
This includes 388 temples built on government-owned land and 229 on privately owned land.
“The number of these unauthorised temples is high in comparison with the Hindu community in the state, which is about 11.3%,” the palace said in a statement.
The issue of these registered temples needs tactful handling. Many of the old temples are victims of their misunderstanding of legal procedures. They now bear the consequences of their ignorance.
But let’s not forget the contributions of our Indian labourers in the estates who contributed greatly to this nation.
If badly handled, it will be hurtful and undignified to the Hindu community. It is good that the government has warned those who intend to disrupt the harmony of the country with protests and even one reported case of attempting to demolish a temple.
The police and authorities must not allow these serial rabble-rousers off easy, or give the impression that their remands are a walk in the park.
Self-appointed vigilantes who are out to vandalise or demolish temples should not be tolerated. They have no business taking the law into their own hands. They are simply dangerous extremists.
Interestingly, Arulchetvan also said there had been Muslim settlements – Kampung Aman, Kampung Chubadak, Kampung Rimba Jaya, Kampung Sri Makmur, Kampung Berembang, Kampung Ara, and others in Selangor – where suraus were built on untitled land.
He said these were created by low-income migrants responding to development calls in the 1970s, adding that developers had bought the land and evicted them.
“Thus, this is a class issue, not a racial one. Under the Torrens system, ownership is determined by title, not who came first,’’ wrote the Parti Sosialis Malaysia deputy chairman.
The racial sentiment being whipped up on social media is hugely disturbing and one wonders if they are politically initiated to show the government in a bad light.
After all, an aborted protest outside the Sogo complex in Kuala Lumpur was timed to coincide with Indian President Narendra Modi’s official visit.
Calls on social media to demolish all temples, including long-standing ones, are irrational and not in the public interest.
Let the authorities handle this issue patiently and wisely.
Rational Malaysians will understand that arbitrary construction must stop to deter those who use religion as a tool to make money.
