A transition from glorious Hindu Malay Kingdoms to crumbling Hindu temples

A transition from glorious Hindu Malay Kingdoms to crumbling Hindu temples:
The past and present of Hinduism in Malaysia.

Part II of II

Down the years following independence, the days of the British divide et impera, are long gone, but the waves of its repercussions still shake the wreaking foundations of our multiracial society. The demographics of Malaysia have changed remarkably, and there are much less single ethnic based local populations who remain confined within a certain geographic distribution. With the window of opportunity to break their confines, many Malaysian Indians have managed to migrate into larger towns. But remnants of their previous settlement still exist with a small proportion of Malaysian Indians who are unable to break into the larger mould, mostly because of the lack of opportunities but also due to complacency; with all their needs fulfilled within the small local population, I hypothesize that many Malaysian Indians chose to remain faithful to their existing state to avoid the hassle and pure convenience. Therefore, regardless of how small a Hindu population, their religious needs for a temple within the local population will never cease to exist.

But not all temples experience the same fate. Numerous small temples have been abandoned or poorly maintained and do not serve their intended purpose as a place of worship. Also with the increasing migration of Malaysian Indians from rural to urban areas, many temples have lost a significant amount of their worshipers or those that have been abandoned remain situated in inconvenient (or impractical) locations. Furthermore, the numbers and scatter of some of these temples do not reflect on the demographics of Hindus in Malaysia. Whilst Malaysian Indians only make up approximately 8% (2 million) of the general population, most whom are Hindu devotees, the number of Hindu temples in certain areas are disproportionately high.

The Selangor Chief Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo said that a study conducted through its local authorities estimated that there are over 5000 Hindu temples in Selangor and certain areas within the state had too many temples located too closely together. He also said that it is the state’s policy that a place of worship can only be built in an area where there are between 2500 and 5000 followers, and the ratio applies to all religions. In October 2006, he released a statement to the press, which implied that 95% of the temples in Selangor will be demolished for numerous reasons, including others that have not been cited above.

Whilst I thoroughly recognize the problems that beset many of the Hindu temples in Malaysia, is this mass demolishment of Hindu temples justified, albeit its’ numerous shortcomings and inadequacies?

HINDRAF (Hindu Rights Action Force) have filed a civil suit at the high court against Datuk Seri Dr Mohamad Khir Toyo and several other Chief Ministers for the unlawful ‘Hindu temple cleansing’ in Malaysia, but I regret to say that is the extent of my knowledge on the legal proceedings. Currently, statistics by HINDRAF estimates that at least 1 temple is being demolished every 3 weeks in Malaysia. Between 22^nd February and 30^th November 2006, at least 15 temples have been demolished; 3 temples were at least 100 years old. During this period, at least 48 other temples have been issued notices and threatened with demolitions; at least 9 beyond the century mark and one temple even having allegedly received recognition from UNESCO.

Subang Jaya Muncipal Council President, Ahmad Fuad Ismail claimed that most Hindu temples in Subang Jaya were illegally built, as they occupied state land and failed to apply for permission to use the land for temples. Here I deem it necessary to educate readers that occupancy of land prior to Merdeka, does not grant any form immunity to the occupants against state or government land acquisition as stated under the constitution and the Land Acquisition Act 1960. This thereby requires temples to applying for permits to allow them to continue to occupy these sites. In a huge number of cases, many of the temples were built on privately owned plantations prior to Merdeka, but were transferred to government ownership afterwards.

However, on the other side of the argument, numerous temple officials have claimed that fault was not on their side for the failure to apply for permits, instead they have rigorously applied for permits, only to repeatedly receive rejections for their applications. This inconsistency between the government administrators’ and temple officials’ account of the event has not only contributed to a major communication breakdown but has the potential to escalate racial tensions. What bemuses me most is that under government ownership, these temples should be valued as national monuments and symbolic of our diverse culture and tolerance within our multiracial society, instead the decision to demolish these places of worship over petty paperwork implies that there may be a more sinister motive hidden underneath the red tape.

This however, is merely the tip of the iceberg revolving around the ‘Hindu temple cleansing’ saga. Demolishment notices have even been issued to temples for failing to gain approval for buildings, when these buildings have existed years prior to the governmental organizations. Some temples have been issued notices for demolishment to make way for housing projects, which can so easily be manipulated to accommodate both the temples and the housing projects. Let me be quick to remind you that these were only the cases that were reported to, and discovered by HINDAF, and there is much reason to suspect that many more such cases exists throughout the country, falling onto deaf ears.

The legalities surrounding these issues are grey. The constitution states, that under Section 295 of the Malaysian Penal Code that it is a criminal offence to violate or defile places of worship. It is mystifying how the demolishment of Hindu temples can proceed even with the Land Acquisition Act when such an implicit contraindication in the constitution exists. The Land Acquisition Act 1960, also states that those affected by land acquisition will receive adequate compensation based on the value of the premises as evaluated by Jabatan Penilaian dan Perkhidmatan Harta. How ‘adequate’ translates into moving a place of worship adjacent to sewerage tanks or into a 10x10 feet allotment, I fail to understand.

However, it would be folly to blindly accuse the government administrators and place all blame on them. It is undeniable that there exist numerous temples scattered too closely together that have been poorly maintained and provided inadequate service to meet the religious needs of a small number of Hindus. From the government administrators’ perspectives, it is important to identify these temples located in prime areas that are redundant in purpose and adopt strategies that will allow the state government to ensure the necessary development in these areas. Some of these poorly maintained temples which fail to fulfil their purpose certainly need to give way and warrant demolishment or relocation.

While the state governments’ hopes that these numerous smaller poorly temples should cleared in place of a single well maintained temple has its impracticalities, which demonstrates further evidence of a lack of sensitivity of the government towards Hinduism and essentially a communication breakdown between community leaders and administrators. The nature of Hinduism’s “many forms of Gods” (within its monotheist concept) makes it difficult for a single temple to cater for the needs any given Hindu population in a similar manner there exists numerous sects within any given religion.

This is exemplified by a statement by Muniandy (Section 11, Shah Alam Temple Chairman) who said, “It seems that they want us to build all the temples under a single roof in a complex-like manner or even a pasar malam. All we’re asking for is a room for prayers. Just as much as their need for a room for their prayers, we’re simply conducting our prayers in our room…. If this continues, how can we pray?”

Nevertheless, what angered the Hindu devotees most above all was the manner in which the temples were demolished. Ahmad Fuad Ismail stated that although notices were issued well in advance, the temple authorities despite having more than ample time to carry out the necessary arrangements to vacate the premises in a respectable manner failed to do so. He also stated that the failure of the temple authorities was the reason behind the fracas of the demolishment of temples, and even so the enforcement team on one occasion gave the temple authorities an hour to relocate the deities, and even helped them do so. This however is contrary to experience of the majority of the Hindu devotees during the many temple demolishments.

A witness of a temple demolishment in Seksyen 7, Shah Alam on June 12^th, claimed that during the demolishment, the municipal council officers all had sticks in their hands, accompanied with police and the Federal Reserve Unit (FRU). He deemed that all this effort was unnecessary to demolish such a small temple and questioned the need for the presence of about 100 law enforcers at the temple’s premises. He also added that he perceived this action by the authorities as a mockery towards the inability of Tamils (Hindus) to respond or retaliate.

Nevertheless, before I am accused of bias, I wish to clarify, that there also have been accounts on which the local authorities had made attempts to be sensitive to the Hindus. There is evidence to Fuad’s claims that the authorities did attempt to preserve the deities and religious symbols whilst only demolishing the building structures of the temple. There were instances where the local authorities allowed the temple authorities and the temple’s worshipers to remove the deities respectably immediately prior to the demolishment, even despite the fact that this should have been settled by the temple authorities at a more convenient time after the clearance notice had been issued.

In separate events however, there have been other reports of wrongdoings by the authorities at several other unrelated temple demolishments. In Setiawan, the Manjung local council in Perak had allegedly thrown the smashed deities into drains after the demolishment. At another temple demolishment in Ipoh, an estimated RM17, 000 worth of jewellery and donation money was reported stolen after the demolishment in the presence of Ipoh City Hall Enforcement Officers and the police force. Whereas, in Setapak, a mentally challenged Hindu devotee was allegedly beaten up by enforcement officers after being held for false accusations of robbery in a series of events that followed a temple demolishment.

In view of the potential damage the mass Hindu temple demolishment could cause to ethnic ties, there is no doubt that this should have been approached with greater sensitivity and a greater effort by dialogue between government administrators, leading political parties with MIC as a frontrunner, community leaders and a the general public. The failure to do will lead to devastating consequences and for some cause irreparable damage.

On the 20^th October 2006, about 200 Hindu devotees, Hindu Servai Sangam officials and NGOs protested against the demolishment of Hindu temples at the parliament house and hoped to submit a memorandum regarding this issue to UMNO ministers. However, the Chief Security Officer of the parliament stated that there were no UMNO ministers present to receive the memorandum. A video presentation by Malaysiakini truly captured the emotions and sufferings of the Hindu devotees during the protest, and presented the rest of Malaysia with much reason to lament our flailing multiethnic society.

An interviewee in the 10 minute video presentation said, “We cannot be expected to go to Batu Caves every time we want to pray. Other religions in Malaysia have their places of worship, so why can’t we? Why are Hindu temples being demolished?”…the expression on his face said it all; his brows furrowed in frustration, his voice trembled with anger as he demanded an answer to this atrocity towards Hindus in Malaysia.

For argument sake, even if the temple demolishment proved to be lawful, we must acknowledge that legislation has its limitations, and reason can sometimes elude us when it involves matters close to our hearts such as religion and God. The actions of Malaysia as a moderate Muslim country can be perceived as a denial of its deep Hindu heritage which has played an immense role and a significant influence on its society, culture, traditions and language. The glorious days of the Hindu Malay kingdoms are long gone and it appears that history is repeating itself as the future of Hinduism in Malaysia is looking increasingly bleak. This is simply a testament of Malaysia’s blatant intolerance towards other Hinduism, despite priding itself as a democratic multiracial country which allows the freedom of religion.

…Unfortunately, I still am only human. My thoughts, judgements and rationale, are not impervious to my emotions.”