Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim’s statement yesterday that local councils had been given the authority to “clean up” any house of worship built in breach of existing laws has stirred much debate, not to mention angst among a section of the population.

Religion, we know, is a flammable issue.

That is why, I believe, the government did not allow a planned rally against so-called “illegal” houses of worship – seen as targeting Hindu temples – to proceed on Feb 7.

We need calm minds to prevail, and for everyone to understand the issue and Anwar’s statement properly before reacting.

What we need is a resolution to the problem, not the creation of more problems or angst, or worse, conflict of any kind.

First though, we need to understand clearly the problem of temples standing on land that belongs to the government or private owners; the problem of unregulated temples, or what some have termed “illegal temples”.

However, this is not as simple as it sounds.

Successive governments have been grappling with this problem since the 1980s, a problem that arose due to rapid physical development.

The problem has been intractable largely because many of these temples were built long before most local councils were formed and before a shift in demographics in a particular area where some of the temples were sited.

The G25, a group of prominent retired civil servants, in commenting on the proposed rally and the temples issue put it succinctly when it said, “the repeated emphasis on unregulated temples oversimplifies what is already a complex matter involving history, land ownership and government administration”.

We also need to understand that the law is there for a purpose. We cannot have everyone doing as they please, although everyone has rights.

We need to understand too that a simplistic legal solution is not the answer. We need to consider historical facts and current realities and develop a solution that is legal, practical, just and inclusive.

First, let’s look at Anwar’s statement. FMT reported Anwar as saying that Putrajaya would no longer permit the construction of any house of worship that did not comply with regulatory requirements.

It quoted Anwar as saying: “I want to announce the government’s stand: we will no longer allow (the construction of houses of worship) that breach the law.

“Local councils have been given the authority to clean up these areas (where such structures have been built without approval) so that this issue can be resolved.”

Can we take this to mean that no new houses of worship would be allowed to be built on land that does not belong to the temple authorities and which do not have planning permission or which do not comply with other related laws?

If that is so, there is no reason to be disturbed.

However, some Hindus feel the statement is not clear enough and that it is a licence to the local authorities to demolish temples that were built years ago – even more than a century ago – which do not own the title to the land on which they stand.

The fear is not unfounded as some local councils or staff of local councils have shown overzealousness in the past in carrying out such duties.

Numerous temples have been demolished by the authorities in the past, some of them even while negotiations were still underway.

One example is the Kampung Karuppiah Sri Maha Mariamman Temple which was partially demolished even apparently after then prime minister Abdullah Ahmad Badawi told the Selangor state government to hold on and to stick to the earlier agreed timeframe for the temple to be shifted.

As such I think it would ease the situation if the government could clarify exactly under what circumstances the local authorities can demolish a house of worship. If the matter is left to the interpretation of the local authorities, there is bound to be trouble.

I suggest that the Malaysia Hindu Sangam, the local authority and temple representatives in each parliamentary constituency hold meetings chaired by the elected representative to discuss and resolve any such issue in their area.

The government should consider regularising temples that have been built years ago – just as they do for factories and tahfiz schools – so long as they meet reasonable criteria set by the authorities.

Also, the government should consider categorising temples that are more than 100 years old and which have historical significance as heritage buildings, as provided for under the National Heritage Act 2005.

Yesterday too, deputy national unity minister R Yuneswaran said the government was taking a balanced and fair approach in resolving the issue of temples built without approval.

He said: “The general principle is clear: all houses of worship – whether mosques, churches or temples – are subject to the law and the same guidelines, especially when it involves land.

“Solutions need to be sought through dialogue and the proper channels, not through conflict.”

I agree.

But, as I mentioned earlier, the problem of unregulated temples is a complex issue with historical baggage and this must be clearly understood and taken into consideration.

There will always be problems in any society – what more a multiracial society – but instead of quarrelling, we should sit down and discuss matters in a civilised manner. We all lose when there is disunity or a conflict.

We need to keep this piece of advice from the G25 in mind: “This discourse on places of worship should be conducted with sensitivity to Malaysia’s plural society. Malaysia’s strength lies in its diversity, and it must be preserved through peaceful, respectful engagement that promotes understanding.”

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of FMT.