Yoursay: New rules or not, ensure amicable relocation of places of worship

YOURSAY | ‘Temples are not being ‘built anywhere’, new developments are.’

PM announces new rules for building places of worship

David Dass: Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s announcement that the construction of places of worship will require prior approval from local authorities is a good idea – if we were talking about today.

But the problem of temples being located on either state land or private land must be seen in the historical context. Many of these temples were built with the permission of the owners. Estate owners, for instance, allowed, and even assisted, estate workers to build temples on estate land.

Some of these temples have been there for more than 100 years. Later, when estates were sold to developers, no provision was made for the transfer of the land to the temple committee.

There are also instances when the purchasers of estate land reneged on promises made for the building of low-cost housing for the estate workers and for assisted relocation of the temple.

Mahathir, as usual, simplifies the problem by allocating blame only on one side – in this case on the Indians who are defending the temple’s right to exist, which is a right based on equity.

Redmann: Great solution, Mahathir, but aren't you disturbing the judiciary's independence by executive action? The consent judgment has to be set aside only by and through the written law and the rules of appellate procedure.

Anonymous_b3cdcd05: Temple building is an Indian culture, brought with them when they first arrived on our shores. Every estate had its own temple.

There are many temples facing issues like that of the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman temple in Subang Jaya. A resolution must be found for temples that have been in existence for a long time, and where a change of land ownership has taken place.

Is the new buyer absolved of responsibility for temples already in existence on the land? In the case of the Seafield temple, the land on which it was built was a former estate, where the temple was legitimately built with the consent of the estate owners over 100 years ago under British rule.

What is the position of the temple and its devotees once the land is sold? This needs to be resolved in an amicable, humane way in the interest of people’s faith and national unity.

LoveMalaysia2: It is clear that the land where places of worship stand must be owned by the community that owns the building.

I don’t like the idea that the local authorities must give approval, because the law is different in each state, and this will lead to discrimination.

There must be simply a federal law to regulate existing places of worship, and to set out the procedures to be followed in acquiring land and building places of worship.

This includes accommodating the needs for the concentrations of faiths in certain areas. It needs to be fair.

MyMalaysia: This is a very sensitive area. We need to use our head to think and not rush to condemn Mahathir’s solution. All new places of worship need approval. In the event any place of worship is not given due consideration on its own or legally leased land, it should be referred to the menteri besar.

There should be laws for converting residential homes into places of worship, which can cause huge traffic congestion for neighbours. The government has the right to relocate old places of worship that were built illegally and give reasonable compensation.

It is totally unfair to landowners when someone builds a place of worship on their land. That's common sense.

Some of these people who support building places of worship on other people's land or in residential homes are very selfish.

Puzzling: In my opinion, the 127-year-old Sri Maha Mariamman temple, which existed before the company that purchased the land was even established, should be preserved as a historical building.

It is an asset to the nation and tells a story of the evolution of the country. In the name of national interest, the state government should invoke the Land Acquisition Act 1960 to acquire the land it is sitting on.

I am sure the thousands of devotees are willing to chip in to help pay for the cost of compensation to the developer.

Alternatively, the developer should emulate the kind and caring gesture of the Mid Valley Megamall developer to incorporate the temple into the overall design of the planned development.

Salam: Does this mean that before this, constructing places of worship did not require local authority's building plan approval? Or was the regulation in place, but there was no enforcement?

Sigh, only in Malaysia. This is another thing the new government has to clean up, only now the mess has become messier.

Anonymous 770241447347646: There should be land reserved within proximity of linked housing estates for religious purposes. This provision should include churches and temples.

Each state government should reserve this land so that in future, we will not be able to see religious buildings squatting on anybody's land. We have to make sure that this problem does not arise again.

In the meantime, we have to find a win-win situation for the many houses of worship that exist on lands that do not belong to these religious houses.

The Wakandan: Hopefully, Mahathir’s announcement should be the light at the end of the tunnel with regard to difficulties in getting approval from local authorities in building houses of worship.

This issue had been in contention. We, as a nation, have been bogged down by this very straightforward matter that has been made very complicated, so much so the authorities which have been referred to are nothing but a lifeless sitting duck.

What Mahathir said is moot unless it is translated into reality – that if everything is in order, approval should be forthcoming and not made difficult. Then perhaps the problem of relocation, illegality and feuds over locations of houses of worship will not arise.

Abasir: By lumping this particular Seafield temple built in 1891 with all other shrines that have appeared randomly in unexpected locales, Mahathir is cunningly generalising the problem, knowing fully well that doing so is disingenuous.

Mahathir has once again demonstrated how desperate he is for Malay support for his mosquito party Bersatu, and how low he will go to achieve his ends. Nothing is sacred because, ironically, everything may be sacrificed at the altar of Malay politics.

Anonymous_4b01265e: Dear Mahathir, temples are not being “built anywhere”; it is the new developments that are coming up everywhere.

Most of these temples were built on former estates which have been sold to developers. Why doesn’t the government come up with a solution to engage the temples which sit on the land that was sold to the developers? - Mkini