Law must lead on houses of worship

 Anwar Ibrahim is right to insist on the rule of law for houses of worship. Firm, fair and consistent enforcement will resolve long-standing disputes without unsettling Malaysia’s fragile harmony.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim has made it plain: no house of worship stands above the law. Land ownership and planning approval are not optional.

No structure — mosque, church or temple — stands above the rules that govern everyone else.

That position deserves support.

Malaysia cannot claim to uphold constitutional order while tolerating arbitrary construction on land that does not belong to its occupants.

The rule of law is not selective. It protects all communities precisely because it binds all communities.

Yet leadership does not end with declaring principle. It begins there.

The real test now lies in how the law is enforced — firmly, yes, but also consistently and without haste.

An inherited problem, not a sudden one

The dispute over so-called illegal temples did not arise overnight but developed over decades.

Rapid urban growth outpaced record-keeping. Informal places of worship stood quietly for years before zoning rules tightened and land titles changed hands.

Local councils inherited irregularities that earlier administrations had deferred.

Many of these temples pre-date modern municipal systems. Some grew from small shrines into established community sites long before formal approvals became standard practice.

Development then reshaped the land around them. What once appeared settled became contested.

Retired senior civil servants in the G25 have rightly observed that repeatedly labelling such structures “illegal” oversimplifies a complex intersection of history, land ownership and administration.

That observation does not excuse non-compliance. It explains why the issue demands careful handling.

The prime minister has acknowledged that long-standing cases require separate consideration.

That distinction is important as it shows this policy does not target faith. It targets disorder.

Fear comes from execution, not principle

Some communities reacted anxiously to the prime minister’s remarks. That reaction does not signal rejection of the rule of law but reflects past experience.

Local authorities have, at times, enforced rules unevenly. In several cases, demolitions proceeded while negotiations were still underway.

In others, assurances did not translate into action on the ground.

Those episodes created distrust that lingers.

Clarity from the centre can prevent repetition. If Putrajaya sets clear national parameters, local councils will act with confidence and consistency.

If guidance remains broad, discretion will vary. In a multireligious society, inconsistency breeds suspicion, even when intentions are sound.

The solution does not lie in retreating from enforcement. It lies in structuring enforcement properly.

Firm law requires disciplined process

A government that believes in the rule of law should welcome process because transparent procedures strengthen authority.

Where discussions are already underway, a temporary pause on demolition would show maturity, not softness.

It would signal that this administration prefers resolution over spectacle.

Enforcement would remain intact. It would simply follow due process.

Deputy national unity minister R Yuneswaran has spoken of balance and dialogue and those principles must now guide local action.

Councils should notify affected parties clearly, verify facts thoroughly and document decisions carefully.

Open communication reduces rumours, and written timelines prevent misunderstanding.

Malaysia does not need bulldozers to prove seriousness. It needs consistency.

Resolve disputes where they exist

National direction must translate into local resolution. One practical step is to establish constituency-level consultative panels chaired by elected representatives.

These panels should include local council officials, land office officers, temple representatives and recognised Hindu bodies such as the Malaysia Hindu Sangam.

Their purpose would not be to bargain with the law but to establish facts, assess compliance gaps and agree on realistic timelines.

Meetings should be minuted and outcomes should be explained publicly.

When people see process at work, tension declines.

Regularisation, where justified, should proceed under clear and objective criteria.

Continuous use, basic safety compliance and the absence of conflict with public infrastructure are reasonable benchmarks.

Conditional approval, tied to a strict compliance schedule, allows order to replace ambiguity.

Where sites cannot remain, authorities should pursue structured alternatives — relocation, land swaps or compensation — before resorting to demolition.

Enforcement must conclude a process, not begin it.

Heritage is a national concern

Some temples hold historical value beyond religious function. They represent the journeys of labourers, traders and settlers who helped build modern Malaysia.

Destroying such sites without assessment would diminish the nation’s own story.

Existing heritage laws provide mechanisms to evaluate historical significance, so authorities should apply those provisions consistently.

Temporary protection during assessment reflects prudence, not preference.

Recognising heritage strengthens national identity. It does not weaken legal standards.

Rejecting agitation and vigilantism

Recent attempts to mobilise public rallies around the temples issue underscore the stakes.

Democratic societies protect peaceful assembly. They do not permit campaigns that inflame racial hostility or weaponise religious identity.

The government has facilitated rallies critical of its own leadership. That record matters.

It demonstrates that stopping a protest in this instance was not about silencing dissent, but about preventing escalation in a sensitive climate.

Law enforcement belongs to institutions, not crowds. Anwar has made that clear and the country should support him in that stance.

This is how the government succeeds

The prime minister did not create this problem. He chose to confront it.

That choice requires political will and administrative discipline.

If Putrajaya defines enforcement clearly, insists on transparent procedures and demands consistency across councils, it can resolve a long-standing issue without widening division.

Firm law, applied fairly, will reinforce confidence among Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

Malaysia’s strength lies in its ability to manage difference without surrendering order.

The rule of law remains the anchor. Calm execution will determine the outcome.

Anwar Ibrahim has set the principle, and now disciplined governance must deliver it.

That is how stability holds. That is how trust grows. And that is how the government wins.  - FMT

 The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of  MMKtT..