“In a country where migrant labour governance already lacks transparency, these claims demand more than defensive statements. They require independent investigation, parliamentary scrutiny, and proactive disclosure.

“Good governance is not about surviving headlines. It is about institutional integrity,” he added.

Touching on the non-renewal of pig farming licences in Selangor, Charles said that while framed as regulatory or environmental compliance issues, in a multi-ethnic society, policies affecting minority economic sectors carry communal resonance.

“If decisions disproportionately impact communities already sensitive to cultural marginalisation, then policy justification must be exceptionally clear, consultative, and transparent. Otherwise, it feeds perception, and perception is politically combustible. More so in a multi-racial country like Malaysia,” he added.

Trust deficit

While Anwar urges Malaysians to move beyond race and religion to focus on the bigger picture, Charles noted that many flashpoints fuelling frustration are precisely about how race and religion intersect with enforcement, policy choices, and political messaging.

“Leadership is not rhetorical transcendence. It is equitable administration. Malaysia does not have a social media problem. It has a trust deficit, ironically self-inflicted by the government.

“When enforcement appears selective, when anti-corruption institutions face credibility questions, and when regulatory decisions intersect with communal sensitivities without sufficient transparency, citizens will speak. If not in Parliament, then online.

“A reformist government cannot demand maturity from the public while tolerating procedural murkiness within institutions,” he added.

Charles said if Anwar wants to restore confidence, the pathway is clear: consistent rule of law, independent oversight mechanisms, full transparency on MACC governance, and demonstrable impartiality in cases involving religious provocation, regardless of who is involved.

“Anything less will continue to erode the moral authority he once campaigned on,” he added.

Hence, it would be naïve to think the GE16 would be a walk in the park for Harapan and its allies. If the opposition is convinced that they have no chance to win votes and seats beyond their hardcore supporters, then the most rational strategy is to make GE16 a negative competition with smears and hatred, making it hard for a centrist government to play its balancing act.

The goals are simple: (a) getting the non-Malays and liberals to think they are being taken for granted by Anwar (so that they might abstain), (b) getting more Malays to feel threatened or just irritated by DAP or non-Malays (so that they might vote PN or abstain), and (c) getting middle ground voters to get frustrated or disillusioned (so that they too might abstain).

And what better issues than Hindu temples and pig farms? Expect these two to continue hogging news headlines, unless Anwar seriously finds solutions to “de-weaponise” them.

Corruption and reform

For voters who see beyond or are less affected by ethno-religious tension, the trust deficit is now centred on MACC chief commissioner Azam Baki and the separation of the attorney-general and public prosecutor.

The cabinet’s decision to form a committee headed by Attorney-General Dusuki Mokhtar, who was personally involved in the withdrawal of charges against Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, to investigate only Azam’s shareholding in public listed companies but not allegations of MACC’s collusion in economic extortion, suggests extremely poor political judgment or worse, extreme political arrogance.

If the allegations are true, this is not just about Anwar using a tainted man to pursue corrupt politicians and generals; it is about allowing the MACC top brass to turn the anti-graft agency into an extortion racket, akin to allowing police to control the underworld.

With Azam linked to Anwar’s former aide and widely perceived money man Farhash Wafa Salvador Rizal Mubarak, and to the GRS Sabah state government, a for-show-only investigation is pushing reform-minded voters and decent businesspeople to the corner.

Voting for Anwar in GE16 would be incredibly difficult for them because “the evil” would not be visibly “lesser”.

Azam’s scandal is structural, not personal. He is a powerful unelected officer appointed by and answerable only to the prime minister. As long as he is a “court favourite”, he can act with little restraint. And as long as he does the prime minister’s bidding, he can stay powerful.

This incentivises a structurally symbiotic relationship between the prime minister and the MACC chief commissioner and the resulting institutional decadence.

Another powerful yet unaccountable high office is the attorney-general, whose power is constitutionally enshrined under Article 145. This is why Malaysians demand the separation of AG and PP, and this is why the Constitutional Amendment Bill on Article 145 horrifies reform advocates and experts.

The AG-PP separation, if passed in the current format, would not create an independent and Parliament-accountable office of public prosecutor. It would only create a new unelected office whose officer bearer has the potential to be another monster who preys on citizens and businesses, hounds the enemies of his/her political master, or both.

Instead of an appointment with parliamentary input and exclusion of executive influence, the public prosecutor would be appointed by the Yang di-Pertuan Agong on the recommendation of the Judicial and Legal Service Commission (JLSC) and after consultation with the Conference of Rulers.

The chronic problem with the attorney-general is not resolved but repackaged with even more complications.

First, the new composition of JLSC includes the attorney-general (as long as s/he is not an MP), who represents the executive interest in the appointment of the public prosecutor, who, in turn, gets to influence the appointment of lower court judges and high court registrars.

Second, the appointment by the king might be construed as discretionary, which then risks exposing the institution of the Yang di-Pertuan Agong to suspicion, distrust, and attacks that any prime minister faces for holding the power to effectively appoint the attorney-general.

This is politicising and undermining the constitutional monarchy as a key pillar of Malaysia’s parliamentary democracy.

A simpler and better option would be splitting the JLSC into two separate commissions for the judicial and prosecutorial services and granting Parliament a filtering role in the PP nomination and an ongoing scrutinising role in prosecutorial conduct, as civil society groups and experts suggest.

Ditch Umno’s majoritarian playbook

Notwithstanding significant reform initiatives, including the prime minister's 10-year tenure and the AG-PP separation, Anwar appears to have been employing much of the old playbook in Umno’s statecraft, from discriminating against opposition parliamentarians to covertly maintaining executive control even in the separated office of the public prosecutor.

Umno’s old playbook embodies majoritarianism and power concentration, which have both led to corruption and Umno’s ouster on one hand, and fuelled Malays’ communal anxiety on the other hand.

If Anwar wants to win his second term, he must ditch the old playbook and deliver true reforms that can better stabilise Malaysia’s politics. If that playbook had worked for Mahathir for the first time for 22 years, it did not last him beyond 22 months for the second time. Malaysia has moved on.

Anwar has been bold enough to introduce the 10-year tenure limit, something which Mahathir would never do; he must now move further from Mahathir’s shadow.

He shoul immediately put Azam on leave, appoint Tengku Maimun Tuan Mat to lead a truly independent panel to investigate all allegations against Azam and refer the constitutional bill on AG-PP separation to a Parliamentary Select Committee for refinements.

That’s how he may reclaim the reformasi brand and not let it become Rafizi Ramli’s.

When a man whose defence had already been called on 47 charges of corruption and money laundering sees those charges withdrawn, while another individual’s representation to withdraw charges under the Peaceful Assembly Act (PAA) 2012 is rejected, it opens the door to debate about entitlement and equality before the law.

Walk the talk

The rule of law is not a decorative phrase to be trotted out in speeches - it is the lifeblood of a just society. When leaders such as Anwar invoke thinkers like Hayek, they remind us that government must act according to predictable, transparent rules - not whims, favouritism, or selective enforcement.

Yet, the true test lies not in quoting ideals but in living them through consistent practice – by leading by example.

Uniform enforcement - whether against a balloon seller or a preacher - demonstrates fairness and strengthens public trust. But when enforcement bends, when charges are withdrawn for the powerful while ordinary citizens face rejection, the principle collapses into selective justice.

Such disparities erode confidence in institutions and reduce the rule of law to a slogan, wielded for political convenience rather than applied as a universal safeguard.

The credibility of governance rests on impartial institutions and independent courts. Without them, the promise of equality before the law becomes hollow, and society risks sliding into a system where entitlement, influence, and proximity to power dictate outcomes.

The rule of law must therefore be more than rhetoric - it must be the daily discipline of those in authority, a standard applied without fear or favour.

Ultimately, the measure of leadership is not how often one proclaims “uphold the rule of law,” but whether those words are embodied in action.

Only when justice is blind to status, wealth, and political allegiance can Malaysia claim to be governed by law rather than by men.

The fight has now shifted to the volatile arena of social media, where boundaries vanish and laws, written or unwritten, seem absent.

Legally, Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act (CMA) 1998 criminalises the improper use of network facilities or services, including creating or sharing content that is obscene, indecent, false, menacing, or offensive with the intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass.

It carries penalties of fines up to RM50,000, imprisonment for up to one year, or both. But who is afraid of the law when it is not applied or enforced fairly?

We have seen velvet-glove treatment accorded to some, while others are met with iron-fisted action. This double standard has only fueled the rise and tempo of threats, insults, intimidation, and provocation - spreading unchecked, and exploited by opportunists eager to fan the fire.

Of course, we all know that according to all those investigations that the MACC “acknowledges”, the names of those involved are in the public domain and various investigation documents.

This, of course, means that the DAP is aware of this but chose this method to resolve the long-standing issues with Teoh’s family.

Is this justice Madani style? Does anyone else see how obscene all this is, considering the allegations facing Azam now and how DAP has remained impotent in the face of bureaucratic and governmental malfeasance, if not complicit?

Lots of noise, not much to show for

Loke said, “We cannot want to govern without bearing the burden of governance. Once the congress decides to remain in the government, the entire DAP must share the responsibility and act in unison,” which is just plain weird.

What is the burden of governance? Keeping your mouth shut while Rome is burning? And shouldn’t that be “If the congress decides to remain in the government”?

In 2020, at a memorial service for Teoh, as reported in the press, the then DAP secretary-general Lim Guan Eng said that although the party was no longer in federal power, he assured it would never give up its fight for the late political aide to one of the party’s elected representatives.

However, when DAP was in power, they did nothing except get a non-apology from an organisation shielded by Madani, which means it is shielded by DAP, no matter how some party operatives make noises that there needs to be a transparent investigation of the allegations surrounding Azam.

DAP could leave and cooperate with Madani on a state level. After all, politics is local, but staying in the federal government solely to maintain “stability” is a complete hogwash, or at the very least, the price of said stability comes at the expense of the rakyat wanting progress and reforms, which could save this country.

After all, if Perikatan Nasional can cooperate with Madani at the state level, why not DAP? However, does DAP have the guts to do this?

And let us be honest here. When Hannah Yeoh was the sports minister, she was apparently ignorant of the moves the Football Association of Malaysia was making, allegedly in concert with Home Minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, with regard to the citizenship scandal.

The best part about it was that Yeoh’s supporters were defending her, even though if this were a Malay political operative from another party, the knives would have been out.

When Yeoh got her position as minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories), some folks were doing backflips as if this were some sort of momentous event.

Meanwhile, Deputy Prime Minister Ahmad Zahid Hamidi assured folks that the Malay agenda in the federal territories would not be affected.

This is why, when those dakwah tents were removed, controversial preacher Firdaus Wong’s online mob implicated Yeoh for disturbing time-honoured municipal practices even though the minister was on an outreach programme for the Malay community.

Long, arduous road ahead

This is what I refer to as the whipping boy politics of DAP. The party is willing to be the whipping boy of the Malay uber alles crowd, even though, at its best, it could enact utilitarian policies that would benefit most Malaysians regardless of race and creed if given the chance and support by its Malay partners.

Instead, the mandarins of DAP, for whatever reasons, have gaslighted the base into believing that being the whipping boy for the Malay right is better than being out in the political cold.

Here is the thing. The ketuanan types are going to spin this to make it seem like DAP and, by implication, the non-Malay communities are cowardly for sticking with Madani, even though they are not treated as equals or that the party is ungrateful and by implication, the non-Malay communities are if they leave Madani.

Either way, the going is going to get tough for the non-Malays in this country, and the ketuanan types understand this. At least with the latter, any party or coalition which wants to work with DAP understands that if reforms are not met, the party walks.

However, this is an ultimatum that Loke would never issue to Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim.

Instead, Loke decides to imitate Akmal and present a hyped up meet up, which changes very little in the political terrain beyond allowing DAP to play even dumber when it comes to the toxicity of Madani.

The more damaging of these allegations are of course, that Azam allegedly was working in concert with other MACC operatives with a criminal adjacent cabal.

Nobody in the cabinet has even mentioned this, which should make rational Malaysians wonder exactly how much of this was sub rosa (actions done in secrecy, confidence, or, informally, to avoid notice) and how much of this was business as usual, ignored or condoned by Madani.

Not only does the Bloomberg article zero in on specific personalities and incidents that are easily verifiable by any sort of transparent investigation, but it also relies heavily on insider anonymous sources.

This means that at this point, there are individuals within the MACC who, for whatever reasons, are leaking things to the international press.

When the ship starts leaking, it means that the rats will abandon the ship, and this means more leaks, which no doubt Madani will attempt to plug in the most heavy-handed manner.

Rafizi the disruptor

Rafizi Ramli continues to disrupt the narrative that all is kosher in Madani.

The fact that the former minister can make statements such as this - “I want to tell Anwar and Azam - I am a veteran when it comes to being arrested, raided, or put in lockup, I’m ready to go through it all again if he dares to try,” points to the weaponised nature of the MACC.

Here is a former minister and comrade-in-arms, telling the rakyat that Madani is possibly targeting him for speaking up against the prime minister and his graft buster.

It is as if Rafizi welcomes persecution by the MACC because it will be the final nail in the coffin for Madani.

The political apparatus in this country does not want any government agency to be accountable to Parliament. It does not want any public oversight of any government agency.

As long as these agencies are not answerable to elected representatives with powers to sanction aberrant behaviour, the outrage will continue without a solution.

Rabble rousers endeavour to make the public sceptical of government agencies to amass power, and when in power, force the public to place their faith in compromised agencies to remain in power.

MACC operatives who were responsible for the death of Teoh Beng Hock have not been brought to justice. Compared to that, colluding with a criminal adjacent cabal is child's play.

More importantly, the message to Malaysians and in the international arena is chilling, because if even Bloomberg is unsafe, then we, too, are in a precarious position.

Cost of asking questions

This is how scrutiny is neutralised in 21st-century Malaysia: not by disproving allegations, but by making the cost of asking questions uncomfortably high.

The current culture of intimidation has an extensive reach:

• There are repeated cases where ordinary social media users have been investigated or charged under sedition or communications laws for posts that question authority.

• Graphic artists have faced arrest over satirical drawings.

• Academics such as Murray Hunter have faced defamation proceedings overseas, in Thailand, for their critical analysis.

• Reporters probing scandals, such as the heritage football investigation, have allegedly been assaulted after asking uncomfortable questions.

• Rafizi’s son was attacked, and he publicly suggested that the incident may have been linked to his investigations into powerful individuals.

• Malaysians know that unresolved disappearances like that of Pastor Raymond Koh are fearful reminders about not being too inquisitive.

We do not need to be reminded that this is not Najib Abdul Razak’s Malaysia, or Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s Malaysia.

This is Malaysia under Anwar’s premiership, where questions once encouraged are now being policed. This matters a lot.

Defamation suits, sedition charges, and regulatory harassment need not succeed in court to succeed politically. Their real purpose is deterrence, and the ensuing result is immediate caution.

When editors hesitate, journalists refrain from asking difficult or sensitive questions, when writers make their words less potent, and academics soften their language, or social media users delete their posts, accountability slinks away.

Even casual writers like me write cautiously, not because the issues lack substance, but because the consequences are unevenly applied. Powerful elites, including some politicians and government bodies, are perceived to be using state machinery to harass citizens who dare to speak out.

Those of us who demand accountability in public officers, who value integrity in leaders, are up against institutions or powerful elites with possibly unlimited funds.

Weaponisation of 3R

Malaysia’s discomfort with scrutiny extends to foreigners. Australian reporter Mary Anne Jolley may have been deported during Najib’s tenure, but the implications of restricting critical journalism in Malaysia have continued rather than been resolved.

Race, religion, and royalty are frequently weaponised to end debate, including over centuries-old temples or about the unilateral conversion of children.

Those who speak up are warned not to inflame sensitivities. Sisters in Islam (now SIS Forum) has faced investigations and fatwas not for inciting violence, but for questioning interpretations.

Activists advocating education for refugee children have been treated as agitators rather than citizens acting in the public interest.

What makes this premiership particularly disheartening is not that repression exists, but that the same figures who demanded asset declarations, transparency, and accountability from opposition benches now caution patience, warn against speculation, and defend institutions they once criticised.

Perhaps the most damaging consequence is generational. Young Malaysians learn quickly from what they observe: you speak carefully, or pay the price. Neither outcome builds a confident nation.

A country afraid of questions will never be strong. A government that equates scrutiny with sabotage reveals its own fragility. More importantly, a society where elites hide behind laws meant to protect harmony has already surrendered the moral argument.

Malaysia does not suffer from too much criticism. It suffers from too little courage to face it.

Meanwhile, Zamri, a Zakir acolyte, once said he was willing to give up his citizenship if Zakir were extradited to India. As reported in the Malay Mail, “If the government wants to send back Zakir or extradite him, I will not hesitate to hand over my IC.”

Indeed, when Zamri was detained and released by the state for insulting Hindus, Asri put forward that the former was only testifying when it came to his personal experience with the Hindu faith.

What Zamri was doing as a professional proselytiser was creating a narrative for Muslims to use to convert Hindus in the course of his professional duties. This idea of Muslim converts as the perfect vehicles to proselytise is nothing new.

Muslim convert Ridhuan Tee Abdulah, for instance, always pleaded “special knowledge” when it came to the Chinese community. Hence, his “attacks” against the community had the appearance of legitimacy to a certain section of the Muslim community.

Using converts to preach is propagated by proselytising faiths all over the world.

And while I think that Zakir is influential in the anti-Modi sentiment, what really twisted the knickers of religious extremists was the sight of Modi inaugurating the BAPS Hindu Mandir, the largest Hindu temple in the UAE.

Modi hugging Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the president of the UAE, with honour guards in tow, inflamed the sensitivities and no doubt caused much annoyance to the bigots and extremists worldwide.

Here is a big, beautiful, sprawling Hindu temple and a prime minister who was nurturing a reputation for defending the historical and cultural contributions of Indians in the colonial and post-colonial world.

Celebrating that fact in the Middle East did not go down well with certain elements of the Muslim diaspora.

No such thing as ‘phobia’ here

So it is not a coincidence that a local preacher who has a history of using hate speech against the Hindu community and who remains immune to the laws that govern such speech decided to hold a rally which celebrates the destruction of “illegal houses of worship”.

The point is to demonstrate that in this country, temples, especially older pre-colonial temples, far from being celebrated as historical sites, are destroyed to demonstrate the victory of the religion of the state.

Unfortunately, for a simpleton like Zamri, what this does for Modi back in India is demonstrate that Hindus need a strong man to battle the extremist religious forces against the Hindu community in Asia.

Last year, Anwar raged against Islamophobia - “We must work together to counter hate and intolerance, fostering a world where humanity thrives through mutual understanding and respect.”

Here is the thing. A phobia is often described as an extreme, irrational fear or aversion of something. This does not describe the sentiment that cretins like Zamri and states that enable them in their agenda for religious superiority all over the civilised world.

An accurate description would be an extremely rational loathing.

I sincerely hope that Anwar’s very belated warning was done from a genuine desire to stop hate speech, especially against racial minorities. 

Or was his primary motive to avoid “losing face” on a diplomatic level during Modi’s visit, as political analyst James Chin suggested?

Here are eight points on this issue.

1) Colonial legacy

The British allowed Indian workers to build temples in rubber estates and near government buildings, but were too stingy to provide land.

MIC president SA Vigneswaran said temples were built in good faith, governed more by mutual trust and tolerance than by paperwork.

The temples were not built illicitly or secretly but stood “in plain sight”, and their presence was known and accepted, he added.

Many rubber estates have now become towns. Was the Malaysian government more generous than the British after Merdeka?

Under the law, anybody seeking to develop former plantation land must obtain approval from the Estate Land Board (ELB), usually chaired by the state menteri besar, as PSM deputy chairperson S Arutchelvan pointed out.

Why didn’t the ELB provide a bit of land to more existing temples before approving development projects? 

2) Compulsory land for mosques

Current laws mandate that property developers must allocate land only for mosques and suraus in new projects, but not for temples or churches.

This is an indirect subsidy for mosques by developers, which in practice is then passed on to property buyers.

And so “harmony streets” of mosques, Chinese temples, Hindu temples and churches are restricted only to the old sections of towns such as Malacca, Penang, and Seremban. 

We see much less of that in new suburban developments. Is this a healthy path to national harmony?

3) Taxpayers’ funding

Taxpayers’ money (from all races) is the main source of funds to build mosques. For example, RM185 million was allocated to build 78 mosques in just one state, Selangor, from 2019 to 2022, so the state assembly was told.

The Chinese have money to buy land and build temples, but the Indian community is smaller and lacks economic power.

It’s been forgotten that Article 11(2) of the Constitution says no person must pay any tax if it is allocated to other religions, as activist Nasri Azhar pointed out.

Apart from that, isn’t it weird to use “tainted” tax money from non-halal businesses to fund mosques?

One fellow called Irwan Hashim tried to argue that mosques were built using only zakat money, but that was false. For example, the Pahang Mufti Department forbids using zakat funds even for mosque maintenance.

4) Learn from Sarawak

Perhaps it’s time to learn from Sarawak, which supports funding houses of worship for non-Islamic religions through the Unit for Other Religions (Unifor).

Since 2017, a total of RM565 million has been allocated to support over 3,000 churches and temples for the 65 percent non-Muslim population of Sarawak.

5) What should Hindus do?

Arutchelvan admits there are also temples built arbitrarily by small groups.

Given the community’s limited resources, should Hindus focus more on building up Tamil schools and their economic strength instead of temples?

This is something for Hindus to ponder. 

6) Kuil haram vs tahfiz haram?

The term “kuil haram” used by Zamri and his ilk is loaded and offensive. It’s a word associated with sinful things like pork, gambling, and khalwat.

A more appropriate term is “kuil tanpa hakmilik tanah” (temples without land ownership).

In contrast, 606 tahfiz schools did not register with the Selangor authorities since 2008, revealed Fahmi Ngah, the state exco in charge of Islam, as reported by Astro Awani.

Technically, such tahfiz are also illegal, but nobody is going around calling them “tahfiz haram”.

Instead, Selangor wants to legalise them through the Program Pemutihan Tahfiz, a word which literally means “whitening”.

Can some Hindu temples also be legalised? 

7) Settle issue amicably 

There are already established ways to settle temple land issues calmly, fairly, and reasonably. 

Arutchelvan noted that when Pakatan Rakyat (PKR, DAP, PAS) first governed Selangor in 2008, they did a survey of all temples.

Temples over a century old were to be preserved onsite; those existing before 2008 were to be relocated to suitable sites, and temples built illegally after 2008 faced immediate demolition. 

“This balanced approach regulated temples effectively - notably, PAS was part of the government (then),” he added.

In the present day, PKR’s Petaling Jaya MP, Lee Chean Chung, proposed setting up a state-level mediation platform involving authorities, landowners, and temple representatives.

This should have clear and transparent relocation guidelines, including notice periods, alternative site allocation, and compensation frameworks.

Meanwhile, DAP Youth chief Woo Kah Leong noted that land status or building approval is an administrative issue, the Malay Mail reported. Therefore, such matters should be addressed through rational negotiations, rather than provocations against Hindus. 

8) Political calculations

Anwar, in his fixation to be prime minister for a second term, should remember how a temple demolition in 2007 led to the Hindraf rally and the mass abandonment of BN by Indian voters.

Last May, Pandan MP Rafizi Ramli warned that core non-Malay support for Harapan is “crashing”. The recent Sabah elections confirmed this trend.

Why? They are angry that some provocateurs seem to have total freedom to keep on intimidating non-Malays.

I wish that Anwar would use his Islamic background to cite some Arabic verses to promote peace and mutual respect.

The late PAS spiritual leader Nik Aziz Nik Mat used to teach Malays that “assabiyah”, or racism, is not Islamic.

This means it’s wrong to support bad or corrupt leaders just because they are of the same ethnic group. But sadly, PAS has since changed to play the racial card.

Anwar may be chasing Malay votes, but PKR can never be “more Muslim” than PAS or “more Malay” than Umno. It’s a losing game. 

Why not create a clean, fair, and prosperous Middle Malaysia that all races can rally around? Indeed, a country that is “madani” or “civilised”.

Because our beloved country cannot afford religious battles for the narrow political gain of some quarters.

Yet, the issue continues to linger; various groups have taken entrenched positions. Hindus generally support the temple, while Muslims largely oppose its presence there.

These stances are neither surprising nor unexpected. Politicians, including the prime minister himself, have argued along ethnic lines, as have Indian politicians.

Religious organisations have also been consistent in representing their own communities. Social media discourse has grown so toxic that police have taken action against several individuals for inflaming tensions.

In this article, I aim to provide some clarity on the concepts of “permitted/legal” and “prohibited/illegal” temples, hoping to open hearts and minds across faiths to view this complex issue in a clearer and more factual light. May this offer insight to both Hindu and Muslim followers.

My personal position is that temples should not be built arbitrarily and must be regulated. At the same time, labelling all temples as trespassers or illegal is incorrect and unfounded.

Categories of Hindu temples

In my view, Hindu temples fall into three categories.

First up, temples with land titles: These are built on privately owned land or land approved by the land administrator’s office. Such temples face no legal issues, but are in the minority.

The second ones are the long-established temples. These are large, decades-old temples, some over a century old, that serve important religious functions and hold deep sentimental value.

They have historically received political support. Most are registered with the Registrar of Societies (ROS) or the Malaysia Hindu Sangam (MHS).

MHS is often seen as a legitimate authority representing Hindu interests and is invited by the government to interfaith dialogues.

However, it lacks the statutory authority of bodies like the Islamic Development Department (Jakim) or the Christian Federation of Malaysia (CFM). Only Penang has a Hindu Endowments Board (HEB) managing temple affairs.

Pakatan Harapan once promised to establish Hindu endowment boards in Kedah, Perak, Selangor, Pahang, Negeri Sembilan, Malacca, and Johor - a pledge still unfulfilled.

Thirdly are the estate temples. Historically speaking, plantation companies supported these temples, which provided spiritual escape for workers oppressed under the British employers, and then later local employers.

Estate owners often supported two institutions: toddy shops and temples - both offering relief to low-wage, harshly treated labourers.

These temples were built on private plantation land, where land titles are not held by the temple committees.

Since the 1980s, with industrialisation, many estates have been converted into industrial zones or upscale housing. When developed, temples were sometimes evicted, relocated, or, in some rare cases, granted land by the former estate or state.

The Seafield Estate temple is a prime example. Many Indians remember its violent intrusion by hired men, while many Malays recall the tragic death of firefighter Adib Kassim.

Although no one was charged in connection with Adib’s death, the incident remains racially divisive.

When estate land is sold to developers, negotiations determine whether temples stay or move. The Seafield temple ultimately remained. Such disputes often arise when plantations cease operations and land use changes.

Section 214A – The Estate Land Board

So, are plantation workers and the amenities they enjoy - housing, temples, schools - protected by law when estates are developed?

Many are unaware that under Section 214A of the National Land Code (Act 828), any company or landowner seeking to develop former estate land must obtain approval from the Estate Land Board (ELB), usually chaired by the menteri besar or the state executive councillor in charge of land issues.

In our experience, the MB or exco should ensure housing, schools, and temple issues are resolved before land-use conversion is approved.

Without ELB or the state government’s support, agricultural land cannot be reclassified for development. Here, we see how wealthy landowners can lobby or allegedly bribe state governments to secure ELB approval without resolving temple relocation. Years later, these temples became flashpoints of dispute.

Temples in hospitals, other sites

Another issue involves temples near hospitals, railways, or roadsides. Many were built decades ago by Indian labourers who constructed roads, railways, and other infrastructure.

Historical records confirm that the first labourers to build railways and roads were from India, who were later granted citizenship by mutual agreement among major parties of the time.

These early workers built temples at worksites for safety and spiritual assurance, believing they warded off supernatural threats. Malay, Chinese, and Indonesian folklore also abounds with tales of spirits.

The difference is context. Then, these temples were in remote areas, on low-value land, unnoticed. Now, due to urbanisation, they appear to be in city centres, on roadsides, or in towns.

Though the temples predate Merdeka, why didn’t they acquire land? This is the question always levelled at Hindu temples.

And this is the answer. Worshippers are typically B40 labourers and estate workers, not high-income earners. Moreover, obtaining land approval is difficult, and many temples now sit on private or state land under the Torrens System (a system where the land register is everything, granting the registered proprietor an indefeasible title that overrides all prior and subsequent unregistered claims).

Some have been relocated by local authorities, but buying titled land at their original site is rarely feasible.

Similarly, some hospitals host long-standing temples serving patients and staff. For decades, these were accepted as part of the hospital landscape, with certain rules like no drumming or loudspeakers - generally followed without issue.

Malay doctors, nurses, and others rarely complained, reflecting a level of tolerance and understanding communities had then compared to today’s social-media-influenced sensitivities.

When people complain about these temples existing on hospital land, others would turn around and ask about the surau.

Both the surau and temple do not deteriorate the well-being of people, but recent insinuations are worrying.

Temples without strong tradition, following

Of course, there are also temples built arbitrarily without strong tradition or large followings, the ones I disagree with. Many Hindus themselves oppose these.

A small minority are built by gangs as fronts for illicit activities. If a temple lacks congregants or is controlled by a small group, it lacks the legitimacy of long-established temples.

Another subcategory is family temples, originally private, that gradually expand and hold public festivals.

Local authorities should ensure these remain on private property without disturbing neighbours. Private family temples should not become public institutions.

Selangor’s temple policy under Pakatan

A fairly good policy was enacted when Pakatan Rakyat (PKR, DAP, PAS) governed Selangor in 2008. They conducted a comprehensive survey of all temples, categorising them by age (for example, over 100 years), location, and land status.

Temples over a century old were to be preserved onsite; those existing before 2008 were to be relocated to suitable sites or non-Muslim places of worship.

And temples built illegally after 2008 faced immediate demolition. This balanced approach regulated temples effectively - notably, PAS was part of the government that formulated this policy under then-menteri besar Abdul Khalid Ibrahim.

In essence, this is a class issue, not a racial one. When the temple issue erupted, a perception emerged that Muslims build mosques on wakaf land, while Hindus build temples on others’ land.

In defending urban pioneer settlements - mostly Malay-Muslim communities like Kampung Aman, Kampung Chubadak, Kampung Rimba Jaya, Berembang, and others — PSM has seen surau and mosques built on untitled land, supported by politicians and residents.

These low-income communities migrated from villages to cities in the 1970s, heeding the call of the second premier, Abdul Razak Hussein.

After decades, wealthy developers bought the land they occupied. Suddenly, these communities were served eviction notices, their surau now labelled “illegal”, and they were branded trespassers.

In such cases, PSM stands firmly with urban pioneers, defending their places of worship. Developers often demolish surau first to demoralise the community.

The image of children chaining themselves to the surau in Kampung Berembang remains vivid - a house of worship demolished ruthlessly for the sake of the rich, or “the super-rich”, as the prime minister terms them.

PSM is deeply aware that having money to buy land does not make one righteous, and those who have lived there for generations are not trespassers. The Torrens System recognises land owners, not who came first.

Legal position on untitled land

The late chief justice of Malaya Harun Hashim, in several urban pioneer cases, denied outright demolition rights, considering who settled first, whether the land office offered residents ownership opportunities, and the equity of their contributions to the land.

In Kampung Bumi Hijau, Kampung Pasar Baru, Kampung Pandan, Kampung Chubadak, and Kampung Kerinci, developers failed to evict original settlers via Order 89 of the Rules of Court 2012 because courts recognised settlers’ rights.

Moreover, Article 13 of the Federal Constitution states: “No person shall be deprived of property save in accordance with law, and no law shall provide for the compulsory acquisition or use of property without adequate compensation.”

In Sentul Murni Sdn Bhd v. Ahmad Amirudin Kamarudin (Kampung Chubadak), the Court of Appeal ruled that settlers were not squatters.

The court acknowledged that Sentul Murni knew prior interests existed on the land before the ownership transfer, and the settlement was long known to the state government and the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL).

In other cases, the chief justice questioned the land office: why grant land to developers while residents still lived there, and were they informed?

These are the same arguments used by lawyers for the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple at Masjid India, built on land owned by Jakel. The temple’s legal defence mirrors that used to protect traditional urban pioneer settlements labelled “illegal”.

In a nutshell, in the temple issue, many are consumed by racial sentiment, overlooking facts. Blind calls on social media to demolish all temples, including long-established ones, are irrational and unwise.

Simultaneously, regulation is needed to prevent arbitrary temple construction. History, tradition, and law must be discussed together.

The unanswered question at the core of Siti Zailah’s parliamentary intervention is “How, exactly, does Nga's expression of gratitude, using Islamic phrases, ‘mislead Muslims’?”

Mislead them into what? Into thinking he is Muslim? Into abandoning their faith? Into confusion about God?

These MPs turn Arabic words into a religious tripwire. No Muslim suddenly loses clear, religious guidance because a non-Muslim says “thank God” in Arabic rather than English.

To claim otherwise is to suggest that Muslims lack discernment in that they cannot distinguish between language and belief, between respect and creed. That is a far more damaging assertion than anything Nga said.

None of this was explained, because it cannot be explained without insulting Muslims themselves.

Faith is not that fragile, but for decades, both PAS and Umno-Baru declared that they were the true defenders of Islam and the protectors of the Malay.

The troubling logic

What makes this episode more troubling is the logic being deployed. According to the PAS MP, these phrases are so tightly bound to Islamic belief that their use implies faith, and if used sincerely, should even lead to conversion. This is absolute hogwash.

This is not about safeguarding faith. It is about controlling symbols.

Even more worrying is the implication that Muslims require protection from exposure to shared language. This infantilises believers. It suggests that Islam survives not through understanding, conviction, and confidence, but through linguistic exclusivity.

That is not how strong religions behave. Strong faiths do not panic over vocabulary.

Nga’s response was, in fact, the most multicultural Malaysian thing about the entire exchange. He reminded Parliament that he used the terms with respect, as a Malaysian familiar with Muslim culture. He urged unity over suspicion.

Confusion does not exist among Muslims, but it exists among politicians who confuse control with piety.

Siti Zailah attempted to weaponise faith, ie Islam, as a tool to discipline us. To control us, to manipulate us and condition us in how we behave or speak.

Malaysia’s strength has always been its diversity, like the easy borrowing of words, customs, and gestures across communities. Siti Zailah just wants to turn our shared space into a hotbed of suspicion.

So we return to the unanswered question: "How exactly does this mislead Muslims?"

The honest answer is that it doesn't, in the same way that saying "Merry Christmas" does not turn me into a Christian, or wishing "Kong Hei Fatt Choy" does not make me a confirmed Taoist.

Religious pluralism and liberalism are supposed to be aspirational. If religious pluralism and liberalism are a big no-no, this is the opposite of what Rukun Negara teaches us.

We are supposed to ensure a liberal approach toward its rich and diverse cultural traditions.

So if the home minister did not question his faith, why persecute the filmmakers? Notice that people will say that their feelings are hurt, but never that they question their faith.

They will say that they are concerned that others will question their faith, but they have not done so themselves. So do they believe that everyone else's faith is weak?

Religious sensitivity has been weaponised in this country, and while the discourse revolves around how it has been weaponised against the non-Malay community, its real purpose is to turn the Malay/Muslim community into a monolithic polity, which would be easier to control.

Silencing moderate religious voices

This film is feared capable of making people question their faith, yet it is allowed to be shown at trial. Isn’t the state worried that people will question their faith even in the controlled environment of the courtroom?

Keep in mind that filmmakers, cast and crew were threatened, and in one case, their property was damaged.

When civil society groups decried the harassment of the cast, they were missing the point. The harassment is part of a targeted campaign to silence moderate religious voices in this country.

The harassment serves as a warning to moderate believers not to speak up. It is a reminder that the sole guardians of any kind of religious inquiry are the state and state-aligned preachers.

You only have to look at Muslim culture in Malaysia before the religious bureaucracy, enabled by political cretins, took over to see how diverse it was.

You only have to look at the scholars, artists, and thinkers that the religious state goes after to understand why they want to stamp out plurality in the polity.

Alienating instead of treasuring

Do people who watch P Ramlee movies suddenly start consuming alcohol and dancing in clubs? Do they change the way they dress?

Why stop there? Apparently, Bollywood movies are popular, and so is K-pop. Do Muslims who follow these art forms suddenly change the way they dress and decide to embrace other faiths?

And what of other traditional art forms now deemed offensive to religious sensibilities?

In an interview I did with Ramli Ibrahim, he said that with the Arabisation of the Malays came the rejection of some of their own indigenous cultural practices.

“The traditional performing arts in the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia have been banned, resulting in subsequent generations not being able to continue these precious art forms,” he added.

Instead of treasuring these intangible heritages of ours, they are now alienated from the very communities which once sustained these art forms.

Abandoned and looked down upon, these traditional art forms are now regarded as "against the teaching of Islam".

Imagine the diverse voices being snuffed out all over the world by theocracies or would-be theocracies.

Ultimately, these laws are designed to discourage questioning, which says a lot about Madani and the gatekeepers of the religion of the state.