The legality and management of Hindu temples in Malaysia have long been subjects of concern, specifically among Malaysian Indians. These issues are often rooted from historical, legal and administrative complexities dating back to the colonial era when numerous temples were built on estate lands without formal land titles. Post independence with a strong movement towards urbanization and development, resulted in challenges including threats of demolition, relocation disputes and difficulties obtaining government’s support.
In Southeast Asia, temple-related issues frequently reflect deeper tensions involving religion, politics, heritage rights, and ethnic identities. For example, in Thailand, the Preah Vihear Temple dispute between Thailand and Cambodia has been a long standing source of diplomatic strain. Despite the ruling of the International Court of Justice in 2013, stating the temple belongs to Cambodia, tensions continued to persist over the surrounding land with military standoffs near the border.
Besides, in Myanmar, temple issues are involved between the Buddhist majority and the Muslim minority. One of the key concerns is the treatment of Islamic religious sites with the ongoing persecution of the Rohingya Muslim population. For instance, human rights groups reported the demolition of Mosques and Islamic cemeteries. They also stated that to some extent, Myanmar practices conversion where historical mosques are being converted into government buildings and Buddhist structures. Whereas, the temples of the majority have often been protected by the state as a symbol of national identity.
According to the Smartscrapers Data Services, there are 868 registered Hindu temples in Malaysia as for the year 2025. However, these statistics do not account for the unregistered Hindu temples. In a statement reported by The Star on 18 October 2022, Malaysian Indian Congress (MIC) Deputy President M. Saravanan estimated that there were about 2, 500 unregistered temples in Malaysia. This shows a significant number of temples that operate without formal registration.
On November 28, 2018, the Seafield Sri Maha Mariamman Temple in USJ 25 was attacked by masked individuals with knives, machetes, and sticks. According to the Chief Priest of the temple, Jeyakumar Subramaniam, the temple’s office was broken and its related documents had gone missing. He also emphasized that this attack was about the relocation issue, where the Shah Alam Court on March 11, 2014, ordered the temple to be relocated and return the power of the land to its owner.
Besides, the then Home Minister Muhiddin Yassin stated that the lawyer of One City Development hired Malay thugs to “take care of the things” at the temple. Following his statement, police investigations have confirmed that lawyers had paid RM150,000 to the leader of Malay thugs to storm and take over the Hindu temple. However, this act of violence has been denied by the developer, claiming that they only provide assistance in terms of logistics to relocate the Hindu temple. This highlights a serious failure in resolution and law enforcement, not only escalating tensions but also undermining public trust and the legal democratic process.
In July 2020, a century-old Hindu shrine (Sri Madurai Veeran Shrine), which was placed under a tree opposite Alor Setar railway stations, was torn down. The caretaker, C Vijhay Mohen, said Majlis Bandaraya Alor Setar (MBAS) was given the eviction period earlier to demolish the shrine, which was built “illegally” on the road reserved land. The caretaker also stated that the shrine was built in the early 1900s where the Malayan Railways gave the spot and when attempted to register it with the Register of Societies, it was turned down due to the shrine being “too small”. This reflects a rigid enforcement of land regulations without appropriate consideration for historical significance and minority religious heritage.
In 2024, Kedah government ordered the 71 years old Sri Maha Mariamma temple committee to vacate its land to allow the industrial park expansion. The temple chairman K. Kheesor Kumar stated that the temple was built by estate workers in 1953 and managed by Sime Darby. In 2022, the committee received an eviction order as the land owner changed. Kheesor Kumar also highlighted that they have proposed alternative vacant plot but the proposal was turned down as the state was planning to build a playground, despite the presence of an existing large playground. Despite the alternatives proposal, it shows how economic importance erodes the preservation of cultural and religious heritage.
In early 2025, the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman temple, 130 years old, at Jalan Masjid India Kuala Lumpur, received orders to relocate and make way for the construction of a mosque (Madani Mosque). It is believed that the temple was built and established in 1983 and managed by Jakel Trading. According to former Malaysia Hindu Sangam President A Vaithilingam, the temple already relocated two to three meters to accommodate a road widening project. Even though, on 27 March 2025, Anwar Ibrahim mentioned at the groundbreaking ceremony for Madani Mosque, said it is “victory” for mutual respect and compassion, the temple’s concerns on the relocation reveals the underlying tensions. It is also highlighting how in negotiations, the majority group, a malay-led enterprise, holds a greater influence, which eventually triggers the doubts on the fairness and equality for the minority group.
Race and Religion
The term “kuil haram” has been used to describe Hindu temples established without an official authorization. This term gained widespread attention when several Hindu temples in Kuala Lumpur and Selangor were labeled “kuil haram” on Google Maps by netizens. The act sparked an outrage within the Malaysian Hindu community and they believe this situation occurred following the latest temple issue at Jalan Masjid India. Google Maps allows users to edit place names, but these changes must go through a serious reviewing process before approving. According to The Hindu Press on March 31st, 2025, it believed that these changes in short time has led to the speculation where this could be a targeted discrimination.
This term derived from what Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim mentioned “not legal”, citing its location on private land and lack of official approval, based on the news released by The New Straits Times on 21 March 2025, Therefore, Anwar’s remark spotted significant criticism from civil society groups and citizens, who argued that labelling the temple as “not legal” was factually incorrect and disrespectful to Hindu community. Following the notion, on April 21st, 2025, MIC Deputy President M. Saravanan appealed to the Prime Minister to instruct all departments and agencies to stop using the delegitimizing term when referring to Hindu temples, following the letter from Hospital Kluster Perak Utara highlighting “aduan kuil haram”.
Hindu temples issues in Malaysia must be scrutinize in light of Article 3(1) and 3(2) and 11 of the Federal Constitution;
- Article 3(1) – recognizes Islam as the religion of the Federation but explicitly allows other religions to be practiced in peace and harmony in any part of the country.
- Article 3(2) – Parliament may not make laws that prohibit or restrict the practice of other religions.
- Article 11(1) – Every person has the right to profess and practice their religion freely.
In this context, the repeated threats of demolition, relocation and labeling Hindu temples with sensitive words raise questions and concerns about these constitutional protections being upheld. When long standing temples which were built before National Land Code1965 are subjected to enforcement actions without any space for proper discussions or avenues for regularization. This sparks the question whether the state is fulfilling its duty to safeguard the religious rights of minority communities.
Strengthening Legal Protections for Religious Sites
All in all, the continuous double standards and uncertain legal status of many Hindu temples, which predates Malaysia’s independence, led to immediate and meaningful reforms to ensure their protection, regularization and recognition as essential elements of the nation’s pluralistic heritage;
- The Malaysian government should enact legislation that safeguard long-established places of worship from the National Land Code 1965 – This idea is inspired from India’s Places of Worship Act 1991. The law prohibits the conversion of any places of worship and aims to maintain interfaith harmony. Therefore, the Malaysian government should enact the Places of Worship (Preservation and Protection) Act. This act will officially recognize religious sites (temples, mosques, churches and gurdwaras) that existed prior to 1957, regardless of current legal land status.
- The Malaysian government should integrate religious heritage into national planning – Develop a comprehensive legal and institutional mechanism that balances religious freedom with public order. This idea is modeled on Singapore’s Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act 2019. It will function to prevent politicization or provocation of religious issues (especially in public discourse or social media) and to ensure that all religious communities can practice in a peaceful and secured environment, in line with The Federal Constitution.
The issues not only affect the Hindu community’s sense of security and identity but also test the nation’s endorsement of constitutional guarantees of religious freedom and equality. By addressing these challenges, our government needs a political will and amicable discussions to preserve and protect the rights of religious communities and ensure Malaysia’s multiracial identities are respected and safeguarded for the future generation. A foundation for a more harmonious and inclusive Malaysia can only be done through well-structured legal interpretation.
In Malaysia, the absence of clear gatekeepers and a structured legal framework makes it difficult for the government to determine the extent of its control over religious sites. Anyhow, this issue is not only about the government, but the Hindu community itself, which they are being negligent in maintaining and safeguarding historical temples. All in all, these issues remain ongoing and unresolved, which eventually led to broader systemic and communal gaps.
The pressing question remains: where does the fault truly lie? Is it the government’s systemic failure to produce a transparent and democratic framework, or is it the Hindu community’s lack of unity and preparedness in defending its heritage and religious rights? I would say both.
Author
Kabileshwaran Kalaiselvan
