Handle with Care: The Delicate Balance of Faith and Property Rights

The controversy surrounding illegal Hindu shrines, recently reignited by preacher Zamri Vinoth, requires a more measured perspective. 

While the authorities need to act against the controvrsial preacher, the real issue we face have to be dealt with amicably, with both sides seeking for a peaceful solution. 

To move forward, all parties must take two steps back; turning religion into a flashpoint only invites social unrest—a scenario precisely calculated by those plotting against Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s Madani government.

It is becoming increasingly clear that certain factions are attempting to destabilize the current administration to shield themselves and their associates from MACC investigations. From the character assassination of Chief Commissioner Azam Baki to the targeting of Anwar himself, these manoeuvers are designed to disrupt the rule of law. 

It is against this backdrop that if their plots succeed in destabilizing the government, Malaysia risks sliding back into a cycle of corruption and instability even more damaging than its past.

Analysis: Why Religious Structures Are Built on State Land

The construction of religious structures—including shrines, temples, churches, and mosques—on government-owned land is a multifaceted issue involving history, urban planning, and cultural identity. The following factors contribute to this phenomenon:

1. Historical Precedents and Land Transitions

Many older shrines, particularly within the Hindu community, were originally established on private estates or plantations. As these areas were later acquired by the state for redevelopment or urban expansion, the religious structures remained, effectively transitioning from private property to government land by circumstance rather than intent.

2. Modern Proliferation

While historical ties explain older sites, a significant number of structures have been erected within the last 50 years. In these more recent cases, the historical "estate" argument is less applicable, suggesting that other socioeconomic or logistical drivers are at play.

3. Scarcity of Gazetted Religious Land

A primary driver is the acute shortage of land officially designated for non-Muslim religious use. Minority groups, specifically the Hindu community, often face significant bureaucratic and spatial hurdles in securing legal plots. When institutional avenues are exhausted or unavailable, communities may resort to building on vacant state land to meet their spiritual needs.

4. Domestic and Family-Centric Worship

For many, a shrine is a personal or familial matter rather than a broad communal one. Consequently, these structures are often built in close proximity to the home for daily convenience. This localised approach to worship leads to the "organic" growth of shrines on nearby government verges or public spaces.

5. Sensitivity and Social Stability

The management of religious sites is a highly sensitive and potentially volatile issue. Because these structures represent deep-seated faith and identity, any state action—such as relocation or demolition—carries significant social risk. Recognising this, both the public and the government must approach the regularisation or management of these sites with extreme care and diplomacy.

Handle with Care: Navigating the Complexities of Land and Faith

In recent discourse, two divergent lines of argument have emerged regarding the legality and status of religious structures on state land.

The Legal Divide: Pre-1965 vs. Post-1965 

Proponents for these temples and shrines often highlight structures built prior to the enactment of the National Land Code (NLC). 

Conversely, figures like Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim focus on structures erected after September 18, 1965. These newer structures are often found to be in non-compliance with three key legislative pillars:

• The Local Government Act 1976

• The Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974

• The Town and Country Planning Act 1976

While both sides approach the issue from different legal and historical perspectives, neither is fundamentally "wrong." They are simply addressing two different eras of urban development.

The Jakel Controversy: A Case for Amicable Solutions

Structures built before 1965 undoubtedly require special consideration. However, as seen in the Jakel controversy, the Prime Minister has noted that local authorities have proactively offered alternative land for relocation.

Regardless of the temple committee’s reasons for refusing to move, the developer’s right to proceed with gazetted land development cannot be ignored. While Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) must intervene, both the developer and the committee should come to the negotiation table to seek an amicable resolution—especially as both parties operate based on deep-seated convictions.

Sensitivity and Accountability

Moving forward, local authorities must navigate these "raw nerves" with extreme caution. Religious issues are inherently sensitive and potentially volatile. However, diplomacy does not mean a lack of order; those who take the law into their own hands must still face the legal consequences, regardless of their arguments.

Emulating a Compassionate Model

Local authorities would do well to emulate the approach of Petaling Jaya Mayor, Datuk Zahri Samingon, regarding the management of illegal hawker stalls in Petaling Jaya. Although the nature of the two issues are different, yet the same approach can be used to look for a win-win solution.

While the mayor’s goal was to improve the city's image, he ensured that affected hawkers were provided with alternative locations to maintain their livelihoods.

Just as a stall represents a source of income, a shrine represents a source of spiritual identity. Demolition without a viable alternative is rarely a sustainable solution.