It may be a case of too little, too late for MIC Deputy President M. Saravanan to urge Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim to instruct government departments to refrain from using the derogatory term “illegal” when referring to Hindu temples.
Saravanan’s appeal comes after a recent letter from a government hospital in Taiping labeled a Hindu temple as “illegal,” sparking concern and outrage in the Indian community. While his intentions may be commendable, the timing and the nature of his request raise important questions.
For one, there is no necessity for a full Cabinet discussion on the matter. A simple directive from the Prime Minister’s Office, channeled through the Chief Secretary to the Government, would suffice to halt the use of such a term. But that, in itself, assumes a willingness from the top to correct a long-standing injustice—a willingness that remains elusive.
Saravanan, knowingly or not, is appealing to the very person who helped normalize this term in the first place. Anwar Ibrahim, played a significant role in institutionalizing the label “illegal” in reference to Hindu temples, particularly during the controversial forced relocation of the 130-year-old Dewi Sri Patharakaliamman Temple in Masjid India.
The temple was displaced to make way for the construction of Masjid Madani, and Anwar’s justification rested squarely on the temple’s supposed “illegality.”
This act sent a strong and troubling message to government departments and agencies: that branding Hindu temples as “illegal” was not just acceptable but endorsed from the highest levels of leadership.
Consequently, the term has become a convenient ideological and political tool. It is used not out of ignorance of history or legal nuance, but as a deliberate mechanism to deny legitimacy to non-Islamic places of worship and to appease majoritarian ethno-religious sentiments.
To describe these temples—many of which predate modern land laws, the Torrens system of land registration, and the National Land Code—as “illegal” is historically inaccurate and morally indefensible.
These places of worship have been integral to the Indian community since the British colonial era, often established by estate workers and migrants who had no access to land ownership but were deeply in need of spiritual and communal spaces.
Labeling them “illegal” reflects a systemic political refusal to recognize their cultural and historical significance. It reduces centuries of religious practice to a bureaucratic technicality, stripping entire communities of their heritage and rights.
The MIC, once a powerful voice for the Indian community, now finds itself in a diminished and reactive role. While Saravanan’s move may be seen as an attempt to regain relevance in the wake of the Ayer Kuning by-election, it risks appearing as a mere plea for crumbs from those who have overseen decades of institutional neglect and discrimination.
Surely, even in its weakest moments, MIC leaders must show more dignity and fortitude. Instead of passively seeking accommodation from those perpetuating these injustices, the community deserves a firm, unapologetic stand for its rights and heritage.
It is time to move beyond cosmetic appeals and symbolic gestures. The term “illegal” as applied to Hindu temples must be challenged not just semantically but systemically. What is required is not just a directive, but a national reckoning with how Malaysia treats its minority faiths—and a government willing to back its multicultural rhetoric with genuine policy change.
Subscribe Below:
The way the Indian community behave in Malaysia and the way they play second fiddle to the Chinese who in fact are the ones that exploit them and destabilise the country, they ought to be grateful for crumbs, if thats what the government has to offer them, after feeding the Malays.
The Indians of Malaysia have shown no initiative other than to complain. They have shown no desire to improve their conditions other than to draw comparissos with others.
They refuse to recognize the primacy of the Malays in their own country as custodians of Malaysia and therefore ought to be trated as second class citizens and foreigners.
They identify themselves as hyphenated Malaysias (Indian-Malaysians) and not as full Malaysians leaving aside the Indian pre qualification. It shows the rest of the nation where their true loyalties lie. As such they can't and should not be trusted.