I too, encountered a similar experience as Zaman Khan in his letter, Lesson in tolerance .

Many years ago, I spoke to the wife of a prominent academic at a local university. She is a non-Muslim and was speaking to me about house-hunting.

She told me they had found a suitable house but had reservations about it, as it was close to a mosque.

So, it would seem it is not only Muslims who are sensitive about places of worship of others but this equally applies to non-Muslims as well.

However, I do not recall anyone behaving in the reprehensible manner of the Section 23 protestors.

If anyone wants to see the jahiliyah, one has only to look at these hooligans.

As for the temple, why can it not remain in Section 19 as this was its original location and the surrounding buildings only came after its inception?

The excuse that the location of the temple gives rise to traffic congestion is a lame excuse.

Tell me where in the country that traffic congestion does not exist near houses of worship?

It is all over the place on Fridays, on Sundays, Thaipusam, Hungry Ghost, Nine Emperor Feast, Chinese New Year, and the list goes on.

The only valid complaint one can have about the temple from pictures, is that it seems to have been extended beyond its original borders.

This is a problem with many of the roadside shrines - they keep extending regardless of any planning regulations.

One example of this is at Pitt Street in Penang, touted as the Street of Harmony, but at the junction of Pitt Street and Stewart Lane a shrine has emerged.

Originally there was only a statue there but since last year a shed has been built over it and there is a gate with a priest conducting services.

Now should there not be regulations about this?