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.