Malaysian Policy should CHANGE
If there are existing houses, Temples/Places of Worship, and even farms/plantations on existence for 10 years or more on LANDs that records today show that the LAND belongs to another or State, where there was no previous action by State and/or owners to CLAIM illegality and insist end of encroachment/trespass, then the the users/occupiers have the LEGITIMATE right to claim ownership, and/or CONSENT of State/owners of the said occupation, and the Government must do all that is necessary to ensure OWNERSHIP of the said properties be transferred to the said home owners, worshipers at said religious places, or farmers that cultivate said land.
The STATE is duty bound to prevent illegal occupation and/or usage of said land - and the failure of speedy enforcement will give the said 'illegal' occupants and/or users a LEGITIMATE belief of APPROVAL by State and/or 'legitimate' owners - more so when the activities are known and allowed to continue.
In the case of the MADANI Mosque issue, the TEMPLE in question is located in the middle of town - and it was allowed to be built and exist by the then British Colonial government, and historical documents may prove State approval. Only on MERDEKA(Independence) was the Land transferred to the Malaysian government - who should have 'corrected' legal ownership - recognizing homes, places of worship, etc... and here again the said Temple continued to exist and function for more than 60 YEARS - and the State did nothing to even claim that the TEMPLE was illegal??? Worse, the State acknowledged the TEMPLE by asking it to move a bit for road enlargement...
NEW Owners should be aware of such homes and places of worship when they bought the land. Did the new owner(in this case JAKEL) buy the land with the object to get rid of the TEMPLE - so un-Malaysian like attitude?
AND NOW, It is shocking to see that JAKEL gave KL Hindu temple 7 days to vacate, offers RM1m in 'goodwill'...
It is Malaysian to WAIT until new Temple completed, and its functions are already operational - so that USERS of the Temple for worship are uninterrupted - if NOT, where will the worship/etc .... Stop WORSHIP??? WAIT for the NEW Temple to be BUILT and is operational before asking for the OLD Temple to be demolished or RELOCATED.
To understand the WRONG in Jakel's action - imagine if you were a Muslim and it was a Mosque/Surau about to be demolished, or a Christian and it is your Church/Chapel about to be demolished, or a Buddhist/Chinese Religion and it our 100 year old Temple to be demolished...YES put yourself in the shoes of the Hindus who have used this TEMPLE for decades ....
Malaysia is a MULTI-RELIGIOUS nation - and you we should all be concerned even if it is an issue of a Minority Religion ....in this case a HINDU temple..
Is there an issue of law here - YES there is... and if the Jakel and the Temple could have landed in court, and the issue could have taken years to resolve. As mention above, the Temple has a right to claim ownership of the land on which the Temple is, and there is also LEGITIMATE expectation. Was there an approval for the Temple to exist where it is - given by the Colonial British Government, or even the Malaysian government after MERDEKA? There are issues...
If not for the SETTLEMENT agreement, which I believe also the PM and the Federal Government was involved, the Temple decided to MOVE to a new location 50 meters away - and reasonably the MOVE will happen when the new Temple is completely built and the appropriate movement of the Temple happens (being a religious place of worship, there may be prayers or religious activities when this happens).
Places of worship are sometimes considered where GOD resides - so, if JAKEL is asking the Temple to move out now before the new Temple is completed > it is GROSSLY unjust - will 'GOD' be homeless.
One must recall, how the Mid-Valley temple issue was resolved - There Mid-Valley allowed the Temple(with improvements) to remain..
This 100-year old Temple was suddenly asked by Jakel (with/without PM Anwar's knowledge) to expedite the building of the MADANI mosque.
The 'new' temple is yet to be completed, and clearly they should be waiting for the construction of the new Temple to be completed to allow for a move to the Temple so that there will be no disturbance in the Temple activities. If move now, before the new Temple is completed - what will happen to the USERS of the Temple - NO Temple for the community, and a disrupting of all other normal activities in the Temple possibly also religious classes/education, and other activities.
All Malaysians know that at any places of religious worship, be it mosque/suraus, churches, Buddhist Temples or Hindu Temples - the premises are used by the community for so many different functions besides prayers on 1 day - there is a lot of other related activities being carried out.
Back to Jakel, surely the naming of that mosque MADANI mosque and the invitation of Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim for the ground-breaking session maybe strategic to curry favour with the current MADANI government. If it was built during the Najib era - would it be called 1Malaysia Mosque.
Temple secretary Kaarthik Gunaseelan, on behalf of the temple management committee, reminded that a March 2025 directive by then-minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories), Dr Zaliha Mustafa, offered the government's commitment to ensure that the temple would not be moved until the relocation process to its new premises is fully completed.
Some are doubtful whether this MADANI Mosque issue was to show Anwar Ibrahim was a Defender of Islam, even willing to go against Malaysians of other religion. Was it to show a "KETUANAN' Islam - and to remind Malaysians of other religions that if there is a CONFLICT between Islam and any other religion, Anwar and the Government will side with ISLAM. Thankfully in this case, the Temple and its HINDU users were willing to compromise because the alternative site was 50 meters away - but then, who PAID for the purchase and the relocation(including re-building) of this NEW Temple - was it Jakel or was it the Government. Justly, it should have been JAKEL.
IN Malaysia, there are many places of worships, sometimes without LEGAL title or LEGAL permit. Likewise, there are also houses, factories, Musang King plantations too....THAT been allowed to be built and even exist for many many years - giving the people the REPRESENTATION that the government and/or the owners are OK with it and have acknowledged their ownership - LEGITIMATE expectation of ownership recognized by State, owners and/or...
IF it was not OK, would not the government have acted speedily on being aware of any illegal building/structure or even plantation...would not the authorities immediate stop the construction or the clearing of durian plantations - and act on these 'trespassers' or law breakers > but when the government fails to do so - it strengthen the LEGITIMATE EXPECTATION of ownership...
In the case of the Temple, the Local Government also had formal/official interaction with the temple - asking it to relocate a bit, when road expansion
...former Malaysia Hindu Sangam president A Vaithilingam said the temple merely shifted about two to three feet (about a metre) to accommodate a road widening project. MIC deputy president M Saravanan said the shift involved only the quarters for the temple workers, and was done at the request of Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) in 2006.
This acknowledgement of the Temple when the GOVERNMENT asked the temple to shift 2 meters - If the government considered it an ILLEGAL structure - the government will not make such a request?
Now, the issue was in March 2025 - so why did it take SO LONG for the new land where the Temple was to be relocated to be gazetted for Temple Use. Why the delay in approving the Building Plans...
Instead, he highlighted that despite constant engagement with local authorities and stakeholders since April 2025, they had only received approval for a new building plan in November 2025, and the new land was gazetted for the temple’s use on Dec 10 last year.
Next, will be the issue of MONEY needed to build the new Temple - Is JAKEL paying for it? Is PM Anwar's MADANI government paying for it - which I believe the GOVERNMENT should be paying for the building of places of worship of all Malaysians - so how much is the Government contributing? Now, it is a TEMPLE, so the question will be MONEY - and usually this is raised by seeking public donations and it will take time? Plans may have been approved - next will come making an estimate of the monies needed. Being a Temple, it will also need skilled workers, and will take some time - much more than ordinary houses and buildings?
I find it most disappointing that a Malaysian company is behaving in such a way -
About Jakel Group
Jakel Group is a diversified Malaysian conglomerate, originating from one of the nation’s most established textile enterprises.
While firmly rooted in its legacy as a textile leader, the Group has strategically expanded into a wide range of sectors, including Energy, Data Centres, Property Development, Information and Communications Technology (ICT), Renewable Energy (RE), Agriculture, and Capital Investment. This diversification underscores Jakel’s commitment to innovation, resilience, and long-term growth.
By leveraging its heritage and industry expertise, Jakel Group has built a robust portfolio that spans infrastructure, technology, sustainability, and financial investment, positioning itself as a forward-looking, multi-industry leader in both traditional and emerging markets.
How do ordinary people react to a Conglomerate doings things that are unacceptable and wrong - be it violation of worker rights or in this case actions, which I believe are un-Malaysian' with regard to freedom of religion of a MINORITY group in Malaysia.
In other countries, ORDINARY people, who are also consumers, may TAKE ACTION - expressing their views, protesting and even BOYCOTTING products and services of the wrongdoer companies.
Now, any company has their SUPPLY CHAIN - which includes companies that supplies products/services to the said COMPANY, and who market products/services provided the said company. TODAY, blame is also on all these companies in the SUPPLY CHAIN - who still continue to have dealings with the alleged perpetrator company.
While adidas was busy stalling on actingon antisemitism, the workers who make adidas products were in the streets demanding an end to pervasive wage theft and union-busting.
In more than a dozen countries, including Pakistan, Cambodia, Italy, and the United States, unions and workers' rights groups protested at adidas supplier factories and stores in a united chorus to tell the brand: it’s time to #PayYourWorkers and #RespectLabourRights. In Myanmar, striking workers called on adidas supplier Pou Chen, which dismissed 26 union members this week, to stop retaliating against their union and agree to a wage increase. Demonstrations in Germany brought together activists in dance flash mobs in Leipzig, Muenster, and Cologne. In Italy a public poster campaign raised awareness about adidas' responsibility to the workers who make its products.
“With adidas’ reluctance to end its lucrative deal with Kanye West despite his antisemitic comments, the world saw something garment workers have known for decades: adidas will only do the right thing when forced to by public outrage,” said Nasir Mansoor, General Secretary of the National Trade Union Federation in Pakistan.
Garment worker unions have been demonstrating for months to bring attention to the brand’s long and storied history of wage theft and anti-union repression in its apparel and footwear supply chains. The Pay Your Workers campaign, endorsed by 260 civil society organisations around the world, including dozens of unions representing garment workers, is calling on adidas to respect workers’ rights in its supply chain.
Whilst, it usually is about worker rights, now it is broader - as calls for BOYCOTT of companies supporting the Israel Zionist Regime in protest of the Human Rights Violation of the Palestinian people.
And does the protest work - YES it does. Recently, a Malaysian Company Mediceram, NOW former supplier for the Australian glove company Ansell...Minister Steven Sim - Migrant Workers' Rights Violated/Terminated and Deported? MEDICERAM - Supply Chain of ANSELL, Top Glove, Etc..Ansell suspend its relationship with MediCeram?
Ansell, which had been supporting the remediation program, suspended MediCeram as a supplier and publicly expressed its unhappiness with the company.
On November 5, Ansell told the ABC it had suspended purchases from MediCeram, saying it was "surprised" by the sackings.
"We promptly expressed our clear view to MediCeram that this was not an appropriate course of action in the circumstances," a spokesperson said.
"In the absence of any willingness by MediCeram to reconsider, Ansell has made the decision to suspend its supplier relationship with the company."
So, people in Malaysia and those in the SUPPLY CHAIN of JAKEL need to consider this issue and how we RESPOND?
The MADANI government also should respond - and how it response will be a consideration that VOTERS will take.
PERSONALLY, I would ask JAKEL to withdraw their recent EVICTION NOTICE - and wait until the new Temple in the NEW site is completed, and the Temple relocation is done...
WAIT until the Temple Users have a new place to move and continue their religious obligations and other related activities. That will be the PROPER Malaysian response as we all certainly respect our fellow Malaysians, including their freedom of religion.
We are MALAYSIANS, and so it is SAD to see the SILENCE of many Malaysian Political Parties? Are we still in the 'Divide and Rule' based on religion/ethnicity that was introduced the British Colonial government to weaken Malaysian peoples' unity in their struggle for Independence and Human Rights?
Are these political parties still following the 'practice' that only Indian political parties should be responding to issues affecting Indians/Hindus? SO SAD, if this is the case.
What is Akmal and UMNO's stance? Do they only CARE about Malay and Muslim Malaysian issues...? Amanah, PAS, BERSATU, MUDA,...?? Political parties may still be DIVIDED based on religion/ethnicity - but Malaysian people have moved on and we CARE about all issues of RIGHTS and JUSTICE irrespective of who is the perpetrator and victim, or what their ethnicity/religion are?
Sadly, PM Anwar and the MADANI government is also slow to ACT....WHY?
The TIMING of Jakel Notice is also an act of insensitivity - it was during the Hindu festival of Ponggal?
JAKEL should also APOLOGIZE ,,, and the Public Prosecutor should also consider whether JAKEL has violated any laws...????
Jakel Trading has given the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman temple management seven days to relocate the existing structure from a land parcel owned by the textile company along Jalan Munshi Abdullah in Kuala Lumpur.
According to a notice dated Jan 13, sighted by Malaysiakini, the company is seeking the temple’s immediate cooperation to vacate the site, for development works to begin within a month.
In the letter signed by Jakel Trading’s general manager, Khadijah Yatib, the company said it has set aside RM1 million, which may be disbursed by Jakel’s lawyers “at any time upon confirmation that the temple has fully vacated the site”.
The notice also warned that failure to comply would leave the company with no alternative but to withdraw its “goodwill offer” and take all necessary legal action to enforce its rights as the landowner.
Malaysiakini contacted Jakel Trading director Nizam Jakel, who confirmed the notice.
“I sent the letter (to the temple) just yesterday. We hope they can vacate the land immediately,” he said in a text message.
Nizam also confirmed that the RM1 million contribution was based on a previous agreement reached between Jakel and the temple.
Temple questions feasibility of move
However, temple committee secretary G Kaarthik told Malaysiakini that he is seeking advice from lawyers.
“Yes, we got the letter from Jakel yesterday. They want us to vacate within seven days. We want to negotiate, as we have not gotten a vacant possession (status) for the new land.
“Also, is it possible to move a whole temple within seven days? It’s impossible. We have already shared all these with the government, so we are surprised as to why they are not commenting.
“And where is the government’s commitment made in their letter to us on March 25 last year, in which they agreed that the temple need not move until the relocation process is completed fully? The government must keep their promise,” Kaarthik said when contacted.
He said that while the new site for the temple has been gazetted, further processes must be completed before the move.
“We have already gotten it, but there are processes to observe. We feel sad about this situation,” Kaarthik added.
Dispute draws national attention
The dispute over the temple land gained national attention last year following a March 20 press conference by Lawyers for Liberty, together with former Malaysian Bar president Ambiga Sreenevasan and members of the temple management committee.
The press conference was held in response to Jakel Trading’s plans to develop a mosque on the land, a project that would require the relocation of the temple, which remains at its original location along Jalan Bunus Enam, opposite Jakel Mall.
Advocates for the temple’s preservation cited its long history, saying the shrine dates back to the British colonial era and has been a place of worship for generations.
Critics, however, argued that the temple has no legal claim to the land, which was sold by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) to Jakel, and should therefore relocate to make way for development.
Following the public outcry, discussions were held involving Jakel, the temple committee, and DBKL, after which City Hall agreed to relocate the temple to a site about 50 metres from its current location, within the same Jalan Masjid India area. This was also agreed to by the temple’s chairperson.
While a relocation plan was announced, the temple has not been physically moved and continues to operate at its original site pending the finalisation of relocation arrangements.
MIC deputy president M Saravanan later said a 4,000 sq ft plot of land would be gazetted permanently for the temple as part of the relocation exercise. - Malaysiakini, 15/1/2026
On eve of Ponggal, KL Hindu temple told to vacate in 7 days or face eviction
The government previously assured the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple that it would not be required to vacate until the new site was ready.
As Hindus celebrate Ponggal this week, a pre-Merdeka era temple in Kuala Lumpur which was at the centre of a massive dispute last year has been given notice to vacate or prepare to be evicted, MalaysiaNow has learnt.
Landowner Jakel, the textile company which had controversially announced the construction of a mosque to be named after Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim's political slogan "Madani" on the site, has given the Dewi Sri Pathrakaliamman Temple, located just across Jakel Mall in the busy Jalan Masjid India area, seven days to move to vacate the land. The letter was issued on Jan 13, 2026, on the eve of the four-day Ponggal festival.
The company said this was to allow it to "proceed with early commencement of site activities" following approval from Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) to begin construction.
The temple land dispute erupted in March last year after it was reported that Anwar would officiate at a groundbreaking ceremony for the construction of "Masjid Madani" on the same site.
At the centre of the dispute is the fact that the land on which the temple is located was sold by the government to Jakel, despite the temple's existence being facilitated by DBKL over the decades, including instructing it to be rebuilt in 2008 to allow the construction of an access road.
After the sale of the land to Jakel in 2014, DBKL gave the temple an ultimatum to move to an alternative site in Sungai Buloh, which would take it away from the large community of worshippers the temple served.
The temple has firmly rejected accusations that it is occupying the land illegally, citing its hundred year history and assurances given by successive governments and ministers.
In the midst of the storm, Anwar went ahead and officiated the groundbreaking event for the construction of the mosque named after his government's slogan.
The dispute was resolved on the eve of the groundbreaking ceremony, following negotiations involving Jakel and then minister in charge of federal territories, Dr Zaleha Mustafa, and it was agreed that the temple would be given a new plot of land about 50m away.
In addition, Zaleha in her capacity as the FT minister gave the government’s commitment to the temple committee by a letter dated March 25, 2025, that the temple was not required to move "until arrangements for relocation to the new site are completed".
In its letter this week, Jakel warned that it would seek to evict the temple if it did not vacate by Jan 20.
"Please be advised that failure to comply with this request will leave us with no alternative but to withdraw our goodwill offer and to take all necessary legal options to enforce our rights as the lawful landowner, including but not limited to initiating legal proceedings for eviction," it said.
MalaysiaNow is attempting to contact the relevant parties for their response. - MalaysiaNow, 15/1/2026
Temple secretary Kaarthik Gunaseelan, on behalf of the temple management committee, reminded that a March 2025 directive by then-minister in the Prime Minister’s Department (Federal Territories), Dr Zaliha Mustafa, offered the government's commitment to ensure that the temple would not be moved until the relocation process to its new premises is fully completed.
“We note that until now, Jakel Trading had not objected to the March 2025 agreement and undertaking of the government.
“Therefore, we deeply regret your sudden and unreasonable demand that we vacate the land, in disregard and defiance of the government's undertaking,” he said in a letter today, addressed to company directors, Faroz Jakel and Nizam Jakel.
Yesterday, Kaarthik told Malaysiakini that he would seek legal advice after receiving the notice to immediately vacate their temple from the land parcel owned by the textile company along Jalan Munshi Abdullah in Kuala Lumpur.
The Jan 13 notice sighted by Malaysiakini urged immediate cooperation and noted that development works would begin within a month’s time.
The textile company also said it has set aside RM1 million as a “goodwill offer”, which may be disbursed by Jakel’s lawyers “at any time upon confirmation that the temple has fully vacated the site”.
However, they warned that the temple’s failure to comply would leave Jakel with no alternative but to withdraw its offer and to pursue legal action in enforcing its rights as the landowner.
Nizam confirmed the matter when contacted by Malaysiakini yesterday.
Concern over threat
Meanwhile, Kaarthik said that they were reluctant to accept the company’s RM1 million “goodwill offer”, especially since they disagreed with many of the conditions imposed.
“We appreciate your proposed contribution of RM1 million towards our building costs. However, we cannot and will not accept it with any conditions attached to it as stated in your letter,” he stressed in his address to Jakel's directors.
Further, Kaarthik also emphasised that there have been no delays whatsoever in the temple’s efforts to relocate its premises.
Instead, he highlighted that despite constant engagement with local authorities and stakeholders since April 2025, they had only received approval for a new building plan in November 2025, and the new land was gazetted for the temple’s use on Dec 10 last year.
“And only yesterday, Jan 15, were we told by email that vacant possession of the plot was ready. In short, we have proceeded with all possible speed since last year,” he said.
Kaarthik also expressed concern over Jakel’s threats of “further escalation” if the temple committee failed to comply with their demands.
He described such language as “inappropriate and unacceptable”, as well as “defiant and disregarding government undertakings”.
He also rebuked the textile company’s claims that they had already received a development order and building plan for their new project on the site, noting that such approvals were also in breach of government directives.
“If such approval has been given by Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL), without our knowledge, the government is obliged to cancel or revoke it, as the government is bound by the March 25, 2025, undertaking.
“DBKL as a government body cannot act in defiance of a public undertaking made by the government itself,” he stressed.
Yesterday, Kaarthik also questioned the government’s commitment and reminded the government to fulfil its promise to the temple’s management committee.
Land dispute
The dispute over the temple land gained national attention last year when Lawyers for Liberty, together with former Malaysian Bar president Ambiga Sreenevasan had publicly criticised Jakel Trading’s plans to develop a mosque on the land.
READ MORE: KINIGUIDE | Exploring temple crisis in the heart of KL
The project would require the relocation of the temple, which remains at its original location along Jalan Bunus Enam, opposite Jakel Mall.
Advocates for the temple’s preservation cited its long history, saying the shrine dates back to the British colonial era and has been a place of worship for generations.
Critics, however, argued that the temple has no legal claim to the land, which was sold by DBKL to Jakel, and should therefore relocate to make way for development.
Following the public outcry, discussions were held involving Jakel, the temple committee, and DBKL, after which City Hall agreed to relocate the temple to a site about 50m from its current location, within the same Jalan Masjid India area. This was also agreed to by the temple’s chairperson.
While a relocation plan was announced, the temple has not been physically moved and continues to operate at its original site pending the finalisation of relocation arrangements. - Malaysiakini, 16/1/2026
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment