Reforming unauthorised Hindu temples in Malaysia through lawful consolidation and accountable governance
THE recent February 2026 headlines have thrust the long-simmering issue of Malaysia’s “unauthorised” houses of worship into a volatile new light.
The incident in Rawang, where a group of private individuals allegedly used heavy machinery to demolish a portion of a temple, has sparked police reports, high-level government briefings and a stern decree from the King of Malaysia against politicising religious sensitivities.
While Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim has rightly emphasised that the rule of law must prevail, the incident has peeled back the bandage on a deep-seated communal wound.
It forces us to ask a question many in the Hindu community are hesitant to voice for fear of reprisal. For a population of roughly 2.1 million Hindus, do we truly need this many temples and has our “shrine culture” finally reached a breaking point?
The numbers tell a story of staggering disproportion. According to current 2026 data, there are approximately 868 registered Hindu temples in Peninsula Malaysia. However, community estimates from the Malaysia Hindu Sangam (MHS) suggest the true count, including unregistered shrines, exceeds 3,000.
To an objective observer or even a practising Hindu who enjoys the luxury of choosing between multiple temples for every festival, this proliferation feels less like spiritual abundance and more like a lack of strategic oversight.
To understand the friction, we must look at the legal framework. Most “illegal” temples fall afoul of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133). Specifically, Section 72 grants local authorities the power to demolish or remove any unauthorised building.
While this law is technically neutral, it is the primary tool used when temples are found to be encroaching on road reserves or public land.
Historically, this is an inherited problem. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, South Indian labourers built shrines on the rubber and oil palm estates where they lived. These were the only social safety nets for a community in indentured servitude.
Today, as those estates have been converted into highways and townships, these temples find themselves labelled as “squatters” under Act 133, despite preceding the very municipalities that now seek to remove them.
However, the “heritage” defence cannot be used to justify the modern phenomenon of “makeshift shrines” erected at the whims and fancies of individuals on land that does not belong to them.
We often see a small statue placed under a tree, which gradually expands into a concrete structure. When the eviction notice arrives, the community’s emotional response is often weaponised.
As a community, we must be logical. Piety does not grant us a right to bypass land laws. Building a house of worship on encroached land is a theological contradiction; it is an act of trespass masquerading as devotion.
Beyond land lies the uncomfortable issue of temple management. It is an open secret that misappropriation of temple funds is so common it is rarely raised as a scandal anymore.
Many urban temples accumulate significant wealth, yet that capital is often diverted into repetitive renovations, gold-plating a dome or adding marble while the surrounding community faces socioeconomic stagnation.
If the wealth accumulated from the “moneys of the poor” is not being used for scholarships, youth programmes or community welfare, the temple has failed its primary spiritual purpose. It has become a monument to vanity rather than a vessel for service.
The current climate provides a rare window for reform. The recently formed National Hindu Temple Steering Committee called for a six-month moratorium on demolitions. It is my desire to see this committee spring to action immediately.
In this context, the MHS has given its assurance of support to the government to resolve the Hindu temple issues. Their goal is to categorise temples into four groups. Those that are historical and must be gazetted, those that can be relocated, those that can be regularised and those that are truly non-compliant.
The way forward requires a shift from quantity to quality. We must move towards consolidation over proliferation. Instead of 10 small, struggling shrines within a 5km radius, we would be better served by one legally titled “community centre temple” that is well-funded and transparently audited.
As practising Hindus, we have been given the freedom to retain our customs but freedom carries the weight of responsibility. If we continue to allow shrines to be built without legal title, we invite the very chaos we fear. True devotion should manifest as an orderly contribution to the nation’s well-being.
The strength of our faith is not measured by the number of our structures but by the integrity of our institutions and the upliftment of our people. Having said that, it is sad that the issue has been blown out of proportion by zealots who were waiting for an opportunity to eradicate.
If the government does not handle this with urgency and maturity the country loses out.
Dr Bhavani Krishna Iyer holds a doctorate in English literature. Her professional background encompasses teaching, journalism and public relations. She is currently pursuing a second master’s degree in counselling. Comments: letters@thesundaily.com
The Sun Malaysia
