I refer to the Malaysiakini letter, Too many temples built on illegal land by MP.

I would be pleased if MP could provide just one instance of a mosque being torn down in this country to make way for development projects without alternative land provided for it to be rebuilt.

Temples are destroyed at whim in many states of the peninsula, with the exception of Penang (under Gerakan) and Kelantan, which is ruled by PAS, and that too with a minuscule non-Muslim population. PAS-led Kelantan provided alternative land for a temple to be rebuilt some months ago following its demolition.

It is pertinent to recognise that many temples and other places of worship were built in this country decades before the laws that govern them today came into existence. The latest temple that was demolished in Shah Alam last week was 100 years old.

Even then, demolishing a place of worship is a criminal offence or could be construed as such under various provisions of the Penal Code viz section 295 (defiling a place of worship), section 296 (disturbing a religious assembly), section 298A (causing racial disharmony) and section 441 (criminal trespass) besides the focal provision of Article 11 of the Federal Constitution guaranteeing freedom of religion. By right, a court order should first be obtained before demolition but local governments do not bother to do so.

It is public knowledge that state governments gazette land in new development projects for mosques to be built. Sadly, the same cannot be said for non-Muslim places of worship. Whereas the problem of illegal temples is valid, there can be a just solution to resolve this predicament amicably.

The oft-cited figure of 17,000 temples in the country definitely includes every 'little hut of a temple' built under countless rubber trees in numerous estates settled by Indians over the nearly 200 years of immigration to Malaysia.

Having travelled thousands of miles to a new land to start a life, the only solace and avenue Indian labourers had to keep in touch with their roots were the temples; where religion, culture and language were kept alive. The temples certainly did not get bigger and bigger as MP claims but then again if they did, why demolish them as they are obviously catering to a need?

In view of the fact that the demography of estates have changed remarkably since Independence, with Indians now making up a good proportion of the urban and suburban folks (mostly living in poverty and resorting to crime, I must add), it is incumbent upon MIC as the sole representative of the community in a racist government to establish the numbers and locality of temples not serving a need and propose that they be demolished.

However, it is vital to ascertain whether the estate temples are currently serving a fair number of Hindus bearing in mind Indians still make up 25 to 30 percent of rubber tappers in the land of milk and honey, earning monthly wages barely enough for pet food in some urban homes.

Once the aforementioned exercise has been carried out, the sole representative of Indians in the BN government should liaise with state governments to gazette all remaining temples forthwith. Surely a 100-year-old temple in the Klang Valley cannot be under-served?

MP does not seem to understand that a place of worship cannot simply be built even on private land. It is subject to state government approval, which has not been forthcoming for non-Muslim places of worship.

The statement that 'the number of mosques where they mostly sit in private and government land' is nonsensical. Indians could have a thousand millionaires ready to give private land for building temples but the BN-controlled state governments would not approve the land use for places of worship.

MP's expectation of Shankaran to stand up for non-Indian rights is laudable (other places of worship demolished?) but certainly rich, given that citizens have been ingrained over the years to only stand up for their own community ala BN. In fact, Indians have a problem standing up for themselves at the moment.

It appears that MP has not an iota of sympathy for the plight of his fellow countrymen with his highly emotive and scathing outburst without understanding the issues at hand. Perhaps he feels more for minorities in Thailand, Chechnya and southern Philippines, etc?

Lastly, we all know the quality of non-Malay representation in the ruling coalition. The fact that Umno can hold its general assembly during Deepavali speaks volumes of its regard for its fellow racist coalition members representing the non-Malays in the country. So who cares if Shankaran's criticism has a direct bearing on non-Muslim leaders, and rightly so?

The truth hurts.