The aim is to preserve harmony and ensure all communities can live with dignity and mutual respect. - Scoop file pic, February 12, 2026
Ancestral Temples, Modern Laws: rethinking justice for estate-era Hindu shrines in Malaysia – SM Vivekananda
What are now urban neighbourhoods were once rubber estates where Indian labourers built their temples. Today, those same temples face eviction, reopening old wounds about displacement and recognition
Updated 3 days ago
12 February, 2026
5:39 PM MYT
To start, let us as Malaysians agree that no one ought to break the law, as respect for its sanctity ensures peaceful coexistence among our diverse communities.
This must remain one of the foundations of our nation, as expressed in the fourth principle of the
Rukun Negara, Kedaulatan Undang-Undang. However, to understand the predicament faced by many unregistered Hindu temples that do not own the land they occupy, one must look back at the history of the plantation workers in Malaysia.
For historical context, the South Indian community, particularly the Tamil and the Telegu communities, came to Malaya primarily to labour in the rubber plantations.
From as early as the period before and after the First World War, the British brought in millions of Tamil and Telugu workers to clear jungles and cultivate rubber, which was later replaced in many areas by oil palm. Now, if you have any intelligence, you would appreciate that except for the coastal and river banks, only the indigenous people of Malaya resided in these jungles.
The rubber estates were large and often divided into several divisions. These were virgin jungles, not cities and towns nor housing estates and government land that exists today. The British, in order to enslave the Indians, placed their living quarters deep in the plantations with no roads or other transportation to go to the town or nearby temples.
This was done deliberately to ensure that they were cut off from other Indians in neighbouring divisions, as there were several divisions in one estate. The quarters were equipped with a provision shop with ample liquor and a Buku 555, which entrenched dependence on the estate and reinforced
conditions of indentured servitude.
The British permitted the workers to reside on the estates, rear animals, and cultivate their own vegetables and fruit.
After the land was cleared, it was plentiful and held little commercial or industrial value at the time the labourers lived there. Each settlement was allowed a Tamil primary school (usually a shack), a provision cum toddy shop (often run by a Chinese) and a field to play games and watch movies (screened using
a projector).
Many workers erected shrines to their guardian gods, as they began work before dawn and tapped rubber in darkness. With wild animals and snakes present in the surroundings, workers would pray before setting out to work.
The temples and these settlements were their world. They had little or no interaction other than with the white master and their mandors. Generations lived and worked in these estates. Independence came in 1957, yet many effectively remained in conditions resembling indentured labour.
European estate ownership gave way to Malaysian businessmen, but the daily realities for workers changed little. The Indian community continued to work in the estates and to pray at their temples. Over time, small towns expanded into cities, and development reached the plantations.
Land that had once been agricultural became valuable and was converted into housing. The
National Land Code was enacted, yet provisions such as adverse possession or overriding interests were not incorporated.
The Indian legislators were either ignorant or corrupt enough to ignore the existence of the temples in these new housing estates.
When estates were fragmented for development, the state EXCO didn’t pay any interest to these temples and allowed the development to take place without addressing these temples at all.
The workers were retrenched or summarily dismissed without compensation and many moved to ‘setinggan’ as dwellers. They were jobless, resulting to gangsterism and loafing, or maybe even robbery just to feed their families.
Almost all of these temples are decades if not centuries old.
Certainly, there are instances where newer structures have been built and claimed ownership of the land but that isn’t the majority of the temples. I agree that we can combine several temples into one but that is a mechanism for the community leaders to undertake. A drive along the recently opened WCE would reveal a temple or a shrine amongst the palm oil trees.
Often a tall tree would be adjacent or within the compound clearly demarcating that the tree was not removed by the plantation owners, and that it was built with the consent of the owners. This reality should be borne in mind before concluding that these temples appeared only later or lack historical roots in their present locations.
Yet public discourse sometimes proceeds as if the temples emerged only after subsequent communities arrived.
With this in mind, it is worth reflecting on the history of the areas we live in today. What is now Setia Alam was once the North Hummock Estate, where the population comprised of the white man and Indian labourers.
Likewise, the towns we know today as Shah Alam, Elmina and Bukit Jelutong were formerly plantation estates. When these estates were developed, the Indians were displaced, but their temples and
schools remained.
In present times, questions are sometimes raised: if demographics have changed and former estate workers are no longer concentrated in these areas, does that alone make the continued presence of their longstanding religious sites unfair or unreasonable? Some even argue that such temples should be relocated elsewhere.
Over time, many of these structures are labeled illegal and deemed squatters. Evenpro-communist new settlers were recognised and given land ownership where they resided, but not the Indians.
They were out of a job and asked to vacate the quarters and expected to demolish their ancestral temples. This raises difficult but valid questions.
Is such an outcome morally defensible? Can legality alone settle matters that carry deep historical and spiritual meaning? Should not the law also be guided by principles of equity and compassion? Are we children of a lesser God?
Malaysians are quick to defend foreigners whose ancestral rights are transgressed by bigots yet spit
at us when we say “Brothers, that’s our ancestral prayer halls and temples”. I share this with a prayer that someone, somewhere, looks at Malaysian Hindus as humans too.
It’s our Kula Theivam Temples so stop insulting us by calling it haram. Instead, seek a reasonable solution by administering them under a State Endowment Board.
As for the Hindu Community, let us start by offering a reasonable solution to this problem that is unnecessarily tearing the fabric of society. Ultimately, the aim must be to preserve harmony and ensure that all communities can live with dignity and mutual respect. – February 12, 2026
Ancestral Temples, Modern Laws: rethinking justice for estate-era Hindu shrines in Malaysia – SM Vivekananda
What are now urban neighbourhoods were once rubber estates where Indian labourers built their temples. Today, those same temples face eviction, reopening old wounds about displacement and recognition
Updated 3 days ago
12 February, 2026
5:39 PM MYT
To start, let us as Malaysians agree that no one ought to break the law, as respect for its sanctity ensures peaceful coexistence among our diverse communities.
This must remain one of the foundations of our nation, as expressed in the fourth principle of the
Rukun Negara, Kedaulatan Undang-Undang. However, to understand the predicament faced by many unregistered Hindu temples that do not own the land they occupy, one must look back at the history of the plantation workers in Malaysia.
For historical context, the South Indian community, particularly the Tamil and the Telegu communities, came to Malaya primarily to labour in the rubber plantations.
From as early as the period before and after the First World War, the British brought in millions of Tamil and Telugu workers to clear jungles and cultivate rubber, which was later replaced in many areas by oil palm. Now, if you have any intelligence, you would appreciate that except for the coastal and river banks, only the indigenous people of Malaya resided in these jungles.
The rubber estates were large and often divided into several divisions. These were virgin jungles, not cities and towns nor housing estates and government land that exists today. The British, in order to enslave the Indians, placed their living quarters deep in the plantations with no roads or other transportation to go to the town or nearby temples.
This was done deliberately to ensure that they were cut off from other Indians in neighbouring divisions, as there were several divisions in one estate. The quarters were equipped with a provision shop with ample liquor and a Buku 555, which entrenched dependence on the estate and reinforced
conditions of indentured servitude.
The British permitted the workers to reside on the estates, rear animals, and cultivate their own vegetables and fruit.
After the land was cleared, it was plentiful and held little commercial or industrial value at the time the labourers lived there. Each settlement was allowed a Tamil primary school (usually a shack), a provision cum toddy shop (often run by a Chinese) and a field to play games and watch movies (screened using
a projector).
Many workers erected shrines to their guardian gods, as they began work before dawn and tapped rubber in darkness. With wild animals and snakes present in the surroundings, workers would pray before setting out to work.
The temples and these settlements were their world. They had little or no interaction other than with the white master and their mandors. Generations lived and worked in these estates. Independence came in 1957, yet many effectively remained in conditions resembling indentured labour.
European estate ownership gave way to Malaysian businessmen, but the daily realities for workers changed little. The Indian community continued to work in the estates and to pray at their temples. Over time, small towns expanded into cities, and development reached the plantations.
Land that had once been agricultural became valuable and was converted into housing. The
National Land Code was enacted, yet provisions such as adverse possession or overriding interests were not incorporated.
The Indian legislators were either ignorant or corrupt enough to ignore the existence of the temples in these new housing estates.
When estates were fragmented for development, the state EXCO didn’t pay any interest to these temples and allowed the development to take place without addressing these temples at all.
The workers were retrenched or summarily dismissed without compensation and many moved to ‘setinggan’ as dwellers. They were jobless, resulting to gangsterism and loafing, or maybe even robbery just to feed their families.
Almost all of these temples are decades if not centuries old.
Certainly, there are instances where newer structures have been built and claimed ownership of the land but that isn’t the majority of the temples. I agree that we can combine several temples into one but that is a mechanism for the community leaders to undertake. A drive along the recently opened WCE would reveal a temple or a shrine amongst the palm oil trees.
Often a tall tree would be adjacent or within the compound clearly demarcating that the tree was not removed by the plantation owners, and that it was built with the consent of the owners. This reality should be borne in mind before concluding that these temples appeared only later or lack historical roots in their present locations.
Yet public discourse sometimes proceeds as if the temples emerged only after subsequent communities arrived.
With this in mind, it is worth reflecting on the history of the areas we live in today. What is now Setia Alam was once the North Hummock Estate, where the population comprised of the white man and Indian labourers.
Likewise, the towns we know today as Shah Alam, Elmina and Bukit Jelutong were formerly plantation estates. When these estates were developed, the Indians were displaced, but their temples and
schools remained.
In present times, questions are sometimes raised: if demographics have changed and former estate workers are no longer concentrated in these areas, does that alone make the continued presence of their longstanding religious sites unfair or unreasonable? Some even argue that such temples should be relocated elsewhere.
Over time, many of these structures are labeled illegal and deemed squatters. Evenpro-communist new settlers were recognised and given land ownership where they resided, but not the Indians.
They were out of a job and asked to vacate the quarters and expected to demolish their ancestral temples. This raises difficult but valid questions.
Is such an outcome morally defensible? Can legality alone settle matters that carry deep historical and spiritual meaning? Should not the law also be guided by principles of equity and compassion? Are we children of a lesser God?
Malaysians are quick to defend foreigners whose ancestral rights are transgressed by bigots yet spit
at us when we say “Brothers, that’s our ancestral prayer halls and temples”. I share this with a prayer that someone, somewhere, looks at Malaysian Hindus as humans too.
It’s our Kula Theivam Temples so stop insulting us by calling it haram. Instead, seek a reasonable solution by administering them under a State Endowment Board.
As for the Hindu Community, let us start by offering a reasonable solution to this problem that is unnecessarily tearing the fabric of society. Ultimately, the aim must be to preserve harmony and ensure that all communities can live with dignity and mutual respect. – February 12, 2026
SM Vivekananda is a Scoop reader
***
The destruction of the Hindu Shrine (Sri Madurai Veeran) near the Alor Setar Railway Station in July 2020 was an idiotic case of arrogant exhibition of authoritative powers, where the Shrine sitting there for more than a century and minding its own business without hindrance to modern progress or development, was ruthlessly and mindlessly demolished OVERNIGHT (virtually by stealth) and turned into an unnecessary bicycle parking lot.
What for if nothing other than an obsessive urge to strike with impunity (and indeed, probably with hatred too) on a sacred shrine of ANOTHER religion, perhaps endowing the persecutor with a despicable sense of superiority - and superiority over what???
And it was not as if the Hindu followers did not make attempts to register the small shrine with the Register of Societies but those were denied without rhyme nor reason. There was no mutual respect at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment