Posts Tagged ‘intolerance’

The Controversial Deepavali Ad by FINAS

November 9th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Here’s the ad. Have a look and share your thoughts.

Basically the ad is about a Hindu guy who marries a Muslim. The pregnant wife is seen singing Tamil song while cooking muruku (symbolising her acceptance of some of the Indian-Tamil aspects) and later the couple is invited to celebrate Deepavali with the husband’s family.

At the grandmother’s house, the husband’s father and grandma are comfortable with the couple (symbolising that older generation are more forgiving and tolerant?) while the the husband’s siblings ignore the couple (symbolising that younger generation is more intolerant, narrow-minded, ignorant?).

The muslim wife is seen not partaking in the lunch because worried about the food being served. However, a malay neighbor drops by and informs the wife that the food was prepared by her (the malay neighbor) and its safe to eat (here, the muslim is seen worried about halalness of the food).

After the meal, the wife gets labor pain and we see everyone rushing to help her (symbolising that in times of need, the younger and older generation will help regardless of religion, race?).

Finally, the scene cuts to a hospital where everyone is in a joyful mood  due to the first grandchildren (twins) being born to the family. Here the meaning may be that our differences (race/religion) can be overcome/forgotten when there’s good thing happening.

The ad can be easily misinterpreted to convey the message that converting is acceptable and the families of the convert will accept the convert. Indirectly, some feels its subtly (or subconsciously) promotes conversion to Islam among Hindus.

The ad doesn’t show any signs that husband has converted (he eats the food without thinking about the halalness nor does he advice his wife to eat), thus giving false impression that he is still a Hindu, but its a known fact that once you want to  marry a Muslim, you must convert.

The ad also tells us that we should get a muslim to prepare the food for Deepavali because to cater for muslim. Well, sorry to say, its our open house and we will serve it any which way we like it. We can’t guarantee that the Muslim won’t use same utensils used to cook non-halal item like beef when preparing food for Deepavali. All my life, never did I see food prepared specially for Muslims for Deepavali (not including the Deepavali open house by politicians). I think this is a bad precedent to set.

While the ad doesn’t insult Hinduism (to me), i’ll say its an ad to promote conversion to Islam rather than a Deepavali ad. Its telling “OK to convert because everything will be OK in the end”. Unfortunately, we are leaving in an unequal state, thus we have lesser rights and depend a lot on the interpretation of the authorities on the “rights”.  So, I expect nothing to change after this.

Some, like Senator Ramakrishnan questioned the ad, saying its belittling the holy festival. He also questioned why not show a reverse scenario where a person converts from Islam to Hinduism. But I think they forgot that’s a no-no in a unequal-rights country. Silap silap, get caught under ISA!

Finas on their behalf said there’s nothing wrong with the ad:

The Deepavali commercial by the National Film Development Corporation (Finas) has nothing to do with religious conversions and it should not be taken out of context in the way it was conceived and acted out in the commercial.

Finas director-general Mohd Mahyidin Mustakim (right) said that the commercial was aimed at promoting 1Malaysia in the spirit of various races and families celebrating the different Malaysian festivals. 

“This commercial is a follow-up to the commercial we had during Hari Raya when Muthu marries the Sarawakian, Rina.

“So we are portraying how Malaysians of different races celebrate their festivals and we will also have another follow-up during Christmas and Chinese New Year.

“This is a work of creativity and should not be mixed with politics. 

“The advertisement was certainly not conceived to put down any race and the idea of conversions was not on our minds at all.”

Mahyidin was responding to senator S Ramakrishnan who had questioned the message the commercial’s producers were trying to put across.

The storyline, he added was similar to a Bollywood drama where there is conflict in the beginning and eventually it all ends well with a happy ending. When the commercial ends it shows a positive and happy mood among the two families. 

The 30-second film – said to have appeared on RTM and Astro – shows how a male member of a Hindu family faces reluctance on the part of his siblings to accept his marriage to a Muslim girl. 

The Muslim girl, on her part, shows reluctance to partake of the meals prepared by her in-laws. She concedes, however, after being assured the food is halal by a friend of the family.

It is only after the Muslim girl has given birth that her in-laws warm up to the fact of their marriage and display affection toward the new-born child. 

Ramakrishnan noted that the Finas advertisement showed the hostility of the Hindu family while neglecting to address the compulsion on non-Muslims to convert before marrying Muslims.

Mahyidin said the advertisement was actually projecting tolerance and caring feelings among the different races. It demonstrates the various races showing respect for one another even when food is served and this is visible in the way the halal food is prepared for the visitors.

Hindu Sangam just issued statement protesting the ad:

Hindu Sangam has called a recent television advertisement on Deepavali insensitive and is meeting Finas officials tonight to protest its screening.

The advertisement, produced by Finas, or the National Film Development Corporation, and aired in conjunction with Deepavali, has provoked protests from Hindu politicians and community leaders.

They are unhappy with what they say is the insensitive undertones portrayed in the advertisement.

In the commercial, a Muslim convert and his pregnant Muslim Sarawakian wife visit his Hindu family members for Deepavali. They are treated with hostility by the man’s brother and sister-in-law.

At lunch, the man’s wife is hesitant to eat the food until a Malay guest assures her that it is halal.

The advertisement however ends on a joyous note with the wife giving birth to twins.

“I find this advertisement insensitive. Even some of my Malay friends are unhappy with it,” Hindu Sangam central council member Shanta Venugopal said.

She said the advertisement in no way portrays the spirit of 1 Malaysia, adding that instead an advertisement showing all the races enjoying a Deepavali meal would have served the purpose.

DAP’s Senator S. Ramakrishnan said: “This advertisement was done in bad faith. It has a subtle message underlying it.”

Calling it a mockery of Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s 1 Malaysia concept, Ramakrishnan told The Malaysian Insider that the repeated airing of the commercial could “subtly influence gullible and innocent people. They will be more accepting of Hindus converting to Islam. And why are they playing this advertisement during Deepavali?”

“The advertisement seems to be leading the community in one direction. Why does it have to be a Hindu converting to Islam? Why can’t it be the other way around?” Ramakrishnan asked.

Hindu Sangam deputy president Dr M Bala Tharumalingam said 45 Hindu NGOs, including the Hindu Sevai Sangam and the Hindu Youth Organisation, would be attending the meeting at its Petaling Jaya headquarters.

For me, say no to “conversion without proper counseling and information”. Counseling here means the convert-to-be should be counselled by his/her current religion officials/authority to ensure he/she is clear on leaving current religion. Information means the next of kin is made aware of the conversion plan BEFORE converting. Can or not? 🙂

Note: Still waiting for self-proclaimed guardians of Indian community to open mouth. Maybe to tired from all the deepavali open houses.

Inter-faith and inter-racial relationship is NOT easy!

November 2nd, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


I read the coverage of the final hearing for Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) draft plan as reported by The Star below, and could only shake my head in wonder. There’s so many complications and factors involved in deciding things like location of places of worship , crematorium and cemeteries, and schools. Have to consider the feelings of the various stakeholders, and the “relative” rights of individual (we live in an unequal rights country).

Its well-known that approval for non-Muslim place of worships is rarely given, thus some of them are located in shoplots and houses (can easily find many churches in my area).  Even the statistics are not proven to be correct, and often misused to say that there’s too many temples for population ratio. I think the government should fund an study to count the number of places of worship in the country. Can arrange for some research company to do it, and overseen by relevant ministries, respective state/district authorities and NGOs.

Another problem is cemetery. No one wants a cemetery next to their house (I think even mentioned in Hinduism scriptures to built house away from cemetery and crematorium) as it brings a negative conotation and usually leads to lower property value. Problem is, the people also want to have a burial place/crematorioum “nearby” for convenience, but as long as not “too near”. Its not easy to find such “ideal” location that can please everyone, but the effort must be undertaken. Let more public participation to take place so that can brainstorm better suggestions. Maybe MPAJ (or other authorities as well) can’t solve every problem because they are not smart enough or lack manpower.

Same goes for school relocation. If the majority population in an area is Chinese or Indian (or even if not majority,  25% and above will do), then should allocate enough space for both national school and vernacular school. If not, how to relocate schools from rural/underutilised areas? You can’t expect many sizeable areas to be 70-80% population by Chinese or Indian community, and then only want to relocate schools there.

THE Buddhist and Christian communities in Ampang are worried over the lack of space to build temples and churches following the final hearing for the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ) draft plan yesterday.

Selangor Buddhist Development Committee (SBDC) secretary Chua Teck Seong said the Selangor Planning Guidelines and Standards from the Town and Country Planning Department, released in June 2006, stated that for non-Muslims, there should be a place of worship for every 2,600 devotees or 5,000 residents.

“Taking the figures from the 2000 census carried out by the National Statistics Department, there are 160,748 Buddhists in Ampang and therefore there should be 62 temples here,” he said.

He pointed out that there were only three sites in Ampang allocated in the draft plan for non-Muslims’ places of worship.

Another religion-based issue discussed at the hearing was Charis Christian Association spokesman Chok Poi Fong’s request for a Christian crematorium in Ampang.

Making his point: Ee speaking at the hearing as Lee (seated right) looks on.

“The nearest one is in Cheras and there is one in Petaling Jaya and Seremban respectively. Not only is the one in Cheras far away but it often breaks down and has a long wait-list,” Chok said during the hearing, adding that the crematorium could be shared by churches in the area.

State Housing, Building Management and Squatters Committee chairman Iskandar Abdul Samad, who chaired the hearing, said there was a discrepancy in the statistics provided by the religious groups who attended the hearing.

“For instance, we have been told at the hearing by SBDC that there are fewer than 10 temples in Ampang, but we know of two registered ones and another 24 which operate in homes and shoplots,” he said.

He said that according to state records, there were 10 Hindu temples, two Gurdwaras and 22 churces in Ampang.

“The state Town and Country Planning Department will have to meet with these groups and figure out these discrepancies,” he said.

Another issue heard was the proposal to allocate land for a Muslim cemetery in Taman Bukit Permai 2 that was met with both objections and support from the residents who turned up.

Pangsapuri Anggerik Joint Management Body (JMB) chairman A. Karim Mohd Esin said there was a critical need for a Muslim cemetery in Ampang.

“We support the gazetting of the land which is just next to our apartment and separated by a ditch.

“However, we would like to suggest that the community hall that will be built in the buffer zone to also have a surau and a funeral parlour,” he said.

Opposing the cemetery plan was resident Julia Long, 48, who said that it was unfair to the residents who had been living there since 2000 to have to put up with a cemetery beside their homes.

“When we bought our houses, the master plan indicated that the land next to our area was a forest reserve. I would prefer it to remain as such,” she said.

She added that bulldozers and excavators had tried to level the forest in 2008 without residents’ knowledge and it was only stopped after the latter appealed to MPAJ.

“A cemetery will mean increase in traffic in the area, she said, adding that she did not want any kind of development taking place at the site.

Another resident, Sara Chan, 44, said she would approve of the building community facilities like playgrounds at the site.

Our property value will drop if a cemetery is built and I do not think that is right,” Chan added.

Another hot topic at the hearing was the issue of primary vernacular schools.

“We have received objections from five residents of Bukit Indah who do not want SJK (T) Ampang to be relocated to their area.

“We have also received petitions from residents who want part of a land to be used for a national school in Taman Saga to be given to the building of a Tamil vernacular school,” said Iskandar.

Taman Pandan Glades Residents’ Association chairman Terence Ee and Teratai assemblyman Jenice Lee voiced their support for the construction of a vernacular Chinese primary school in the open space along Jalan Perdana 6/2 in Pandan Perdana.

“I believe only a portion of the 2.45ha land is needed for such a school. The rest can still remain as an open space,” said Lee.

Iskandar said that the hearing, the last of four held for the MPAJ draft plan, was very good as residents came armed with facts and relevant arguments.

“All the information, suggestions and objections we have heard will be discussed at the State Planning Committee along with experts in December,” he said.

JHEOA denies building of church

September 22nd, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


This in interesting! Does the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Orang Asli has the right to deny the Orang Asli in the case below? Is it similar like us in town who need to get permission from local council and other agency before putting structures on our land?

I think the department should have stated in its letter under which Act or law the stop-work order was issued. This will clear the air and may even lead to revision of outdated laws.

Just sending letter without proper support from the law can be construed as interfering with freedom to practice religion.

Not only that, if the order is illegal, the government may have to pay costs if the case goes to court, as in an earlier case. Better be vigilant instead of simply issuing orders.

The Council of Churches Malaysia Youth have slammed the stop-work order on an Orang Asli church by the federal government, calling it an act of “bullying”.

“The CCM Youth opines that the Department of Orang Asli Affairs (JHEOA) has overstepped its boundaries in denying the Orang Asli community their rights to choose to empower themselves, be it building upon their own land, homes, wells, a community hall, a temple, a mosque, a shrine or even a church, if they so wish, within the aboriginal reserves.

orang asli church to be demolished in kelantan 170910 new church under construction 01“These land rights of our Orang Asli community are protected by the Aboriginal Peoples Act 1954 whereby the lands which they occupy are protected as aboriginal reserves, belonging to them and they have every right to their land,” it said in a statement today.

It added that the department should instead focus on its primary responsibility and objectives of caring for the well-being of the indigenous community as stipulated in its mission statement.

“As we have only just celebrated our National Day and Malaysia Day as well, may we remind the JHEOA, as well as all other state and federal government agencies, of our Prime Minister’s 1Malaysia message of seeking to build community and unity through harmonious respect for one another, and celebrate proudly our colourful ‘Ais Kacang’ heritage.

“CCM Youth reiterates our call to stop bullying our indigenous peoples and for the JHEOA to respect their chosen Christian faith and, in the spirit of 1Malaysia, allow them to proceed
peacefully in building their church at Pos Pasik without further obstacles,” they said.

The youth wing of the religious umbrella body will also be setting up an online petition in support of the Orang Asli communities.

Orang Asli fight back

It was previously reported that the Orang Asli community in the Temiar Village of Pos Pasik, Kelantan, had built a church halfway, only to be met with a letter from JHEOA last month saying that their application had been rejected.

orang asli church to be demolished in kelantan 170910 present bamboo churchThe federal government agency also issued a stop-work order in their Aug 9 reply to the village head, Setmen Belungei, who had written to inform the department that they would be replacing their existing structure made of bamboo and leaves.

The agency did not include any other reason for their stop-work order, apart from the community not obtaining prior permission.

To that, Setmen – through his lawyers – has fought back, saying that his initial letter dated May 20 was merely to inform, and not to seek approval from the department.

In a copy of the correspondence from his lawyer, Lum Chee Seng, to the department, it was also stated that the rejection was “baseless”.

“You have failed in stating any reasons in your letter on why my client’s intention to build a church has been rejected. Therefore, your rejection is unreasonable, baseless, unfounded and illegal in the eyes of the law.

“With that, your letter will be ignored,” said the letter obtained byMalaysiakini.

Banggarma and Rani ask for divine intervention

August 24th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


These two ladies literally challenged the stated religion’s authorities. I wonder what the body snatchers are going to do now. Probably haul them to syariah court or order counseling? This will be considered as apostasy I guess, so may be fine, jail and rehabilitation.

We can see that most of the problems faced is due to their parents. I guess this gives an idea of the perils of converting due to marriage. I hope our makkal will think carefully before making the fateful decision, so that the chance of our children suffering will be reduced. No point making wrong decision and regret later.

Two women seen in the eyes of the law as Muslims but who consider themselves as Hindus took part in the Timithi Vizla (annual fire walking ceremony) at the Sri Muthu Mariamman Kovil temple in Parit Buntar last Friday.

NONEAccording to Parit Buntar district Human Rights Party Malaysia (HRP) chief M Sivakumar, S Banggarma (left), 28, (Muslim name Siti Hasnah Vangarama Abdullah) had carried the milk pot for a kilometre from Muneesuarar temple to the Sri Muthu Mariamman temple praying for a swift solution to her conversion dilemma.

Rani @ Jamillah Abdul Kadir, 46, also attended the temple function asking for the same favour.

At the religious function, the HRP also went on a signature campaign to highlight the plight of four women trapped in a religious twilight zone.

Besides Banggarma and Rani, M Indira Gandhi and Regina Mohd Zaini, are also attempting to seek royal intervention to solve their conversion dilemmas.

They have exhausted their legal avenues including the religious departments, courts, registration departments and the police.

Their last resort is to appeal for royal intervention from the Sultans of Perak, Johor and the Agong who are heads of Islamic matters in the country.

NONETheir contention is that they have the right to freedom of religion as enshrined in Article 11 of the federal constitution.

Indira is from Ipoh and Banggarma is from Tanjong Piandang, while Rani is from Malacca and Regina from Johore.

According to Perak HRP chief P Ramesh, these four are members of his party, which has collected about 5,000 signatures in support of them.

HRP will present the first memorandum of appeal to Sultan Azlan Shah at Istana Kinta in Ipoh on Sunday at 11am.

They will then approach the Johor Sultan on the case of Regina, followed by the Agong for Rani as Malacca does not have a sultan.

Given away

According to HRP national information officer and Hindraf information chief S Jayathas, Rani’s parents, due to financial difficulties, had given her away to their Hindu neighbour by the name of Kandasamy.

NONEHer Muslim mother Aminnah Ahmadu had married her converted father Abdul Kadir @ Krishnan.

When Rani (right) was 16, she married her Hindu husband who was later forced to convert to Islam as Mustapha @ M Muniandy and they have four children – two daughters and two sons.

Their eldest daughter, 27, is named as Aishah bt Mustapha Muniandy in her birth certificate but the parents managed to change her name to Vijaya Letchumy A/P M Muniandy in her identity card.

However, the other three children, Abdul, 26, Hamzah, 24, and Citra Devi, 16, still carry their Muslim names in their identity cards.

According to Jayathas, Rani had made declarations before a commissioner of oaths that she wanted Abdul to be known by his Hindu name as Ganesan and Hamzah as Nagendran, but the registration department has allegedly refused to make the changes.

Application turned down 

As for Banggama’s conversion case, on Aug 4 the Penang High Court had turned down her application for a court order that would nullify her conversion to Islam when she was seven.

Judicial Commissioner Yaacob Sam had found that Banggama is a Muslim since her parents had converted to Islam in 1983 together with their children and said the civil court has no jurisdiction to hear a case involving conversion to Islam.

NONEBanggama is living in Tanjong Piandang with her fisherman husband, S Sockalingam and their two children Kanagaraj, eight, and Hisyanthini, two.

Banggama’s contention is that she has always been a Hindu and will die one even after the High Court ruled against her.

Banggarma claimed that she was unwittingly converted by the state Islamic religious authorities at the age of seven while she was staying in a welfare home in Kepala Batas, Penang.

Banggarma’s birth certificate revealed that she was born a Hindu on Aug 13, 1982, in Keratong, Pahang, to plantation workers B Subramaniam and Latchumy Ramadu.

She has practised Hinduism even though her identity card stipulated she is a Muslim.

Meanwhile Regina’s father Mohd Zaini @ Krishnan, who had earlier married a Malay woman, had taken her Hindu mother as a second wife and they have three children – two daughters and a son.

The elder daughter was able to convert to Hinduism but not Regina and her younger brother who are still classified as Muslims.

The father died when Regina was four years old and her mother died about five years ago.

Regina had married a Hindu and her problem started when her son Thinas was born and she was unable to register his birth with the registration department.

As for Indira, she had obtained an Ipoh High Court order on March 11, for the custody of her third child Prasana Diksa but is unable to enforce the ruling on her converted husband Mohd Riduan Abdullah @ K Pathmanathan who is hiding in Kelantan with the child.

On July 31, Indira had lodged a police report against her husband for criminal intimidation over using abusive words against her during a phone conversation on July 29 and for refusing to surrender the child to her according to the court order of March 11.

Church gets approval after 20 years!

August 24th, 2010
|  Subscribe in a reader | Subscribe to poobalan.com by Email


Nope, this is not a movie or story in Talibanesque settings. It right here in our own Bolehland, errr, TakBolehland in this case.  I guess the RM200k donation will go a small way to alleviate the misery of those rakyat.

Maybe PERKOSA can highlight to us how this delay is justifiable or tramples on those rights they always talk about. Maybe they didn’t get any contract from this?

Just reading this article shows you the gap between ideal and reality. And we are expected to be thankful and grateful???

It remains one of the non-Muslims’ gravamina that they find it increasingly difficult to build their places of worship. But recently, the Johor state government not only approved the building of a church, it also contributed RM200,000 to its construction.

ON Aug 1, the congregation of my church, the Holy Light Church (English), Johor Baru (HLCE), was elated to learn at a special fund-raising service that Johor Mentri Besar Datuk Abdul Ghani Othman had granted a sum of RM200,000 towards the construction of our first church building.

A member of the congregation, Suzie Teo, who shed tears of joy upon hearing the announcement, said: “We are overwhelmed by the Mentri Besar’s kind gesture. What was initially a pipe dream is now a dream come true.

“I am so touched to learn that after waiting for 20 years, the Johor state government has not only approved our application but has also decided to partially contribute towards the construction cost of RM3mil.”

Indeed, the Mentri Besar’s thoughtful gesture in our time of need, which is not given at election time, will go a long way to assure the HLCE congregation that the state government is not just a government of one particular race or religion, but that of all Johoreans.

In fact, as we look back at the last 20 years, the entire journey is one of faith, which is obviously not suitable for the faint-hearted lacking any tenacity to persevere from the application stage to the final approval.

It was in September 1989 that HLCE acquired this piece of agricultural land in Pandan, next to the Ponderosa Golf Resort, measuring 8.925 acres. As the HLCE congregation has been worshipping on rented premises since 1952, it is hoped that a permanent place of worship would be erected on this land.

In 1991, the HLCE applied to the Johor state authority to convert the land use from “agriculture” to “religious use”, but this was turned down in 1993. In August 1993, the HLCE received notice that the land would be compulsorily acquired for a joint-venture project between a state agency and a private developer. The HLCE then filed a suit in 1995 against the state government challenging the validity of the acquisition. At this time, I had already moved from Kuala Lumpur and started worshipping at the HLCE.

When I brought to the attention of then Mentri Besar Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin that the land belonged to a church, Muhyiddin immediately instructed that the land acquisition be withdrawn. When Ghani became the Mentri Besar in 1995, he arranged for the withdrawal of the acquisition to be officially gazetted on Sept 3, 1996.

Being only too aware that it would be near impossible for the state authority to convert the land use to religious use over a piece of property measuring about nine acres, the HLCE then had it sub-divided equally into two plots.

Over the years, the HLCE applied for the two plots to be separately converted for institutional and religious purposes. In 2000, the state government approved the piece meant for institutional use. It was not until April 2008, and that also only after the personal intervention of Ghani, that the other piece was converted for religious use.

In June 2010 and early this month, the state security committee and the Johor Baru City Council respectively approved the building plans for the new church sanctuary. Piling work is expected to commence in October.

As shown above, the application and approval process for the erection of non-Muslim places of worship is most cumbersome. As it is almost unheard of that state governments would alienate lands for building non-Muslim places of worship, most lands involved are private lands. Hence, the necessity of having first to convert the land use to religious use before a place of worship can be erected thereon.

Only after the land conversion is approved can one submit the building plan for approval by the local authority. It must be emphasised that when applying for both the land conversion and building plan approvals, the entire approval process is repeated in that the approvals of the district and state security committees are mandatory for both stages. It is also open knowledge that representatives from the Islamic Affairs Department would sit in these committees.

It follows that it is not unusual to take at least five to 10 years from the time the application is submitted until the project finally comes to fruition. Perhaps what creates the most resentment among non-Muslims is the fact that the erection of their places of worship is treated as a security threat.

In the last general election and even today, it remains one of the non-Muslims’ gravamina that they find it increasingly difficult to build their places of worship. They are upset that the approving authorities have scant regard to Articles 3 and 11(3) of the Federal Constitution which guarantee them the right to profess and practise their religions as well as to establish and maintain institutions for religious purposes.

In the case of the HLCE, it had to seek the assistance of various high-ranking government officials and politicians in the last 20 years. While I find them most understanding and helpful, the same cannot be said of the junior and local government officers. As the civil service is almost mono-religious and often devoid of multi-religious sensitisation, it is understandable if they feel that it is against their religion to support the erection of other places of worship.

So when applications are so frequently turned down and approvals are so difficult to obtain, it is axiomatic that the only human reaction is, of course, to convert, albeit illegally, houses, shoplots and commercial premises into worship places.

In the true spirit of the Federal Constitu tion, I wish to reiterate my calls made over the years on the need to establish a non-Muslim Affairs Committee/Department in each state to deal with all matters relating to non-Muslim places of worship.

I understand this has been done in Selangor and Penang. In fact, it was reported that since Pakatan Rakyat took over Selangor, the state government has approved 86 non-Muslim places of worship, comprising 42 Hindu temples, 26 Chinese temples, 13 churches and five gurdwaras.

So if the Barisan state governments want to capture the hearts and minds of non-Muslims, this is one area of contentment which needs their serious and immediate attention.

As a start, the federal government should ensure that any guidelines on non-Muslim places of worship imposed by the National Council for Local Government under Article 95A of the Federal Constitution are adhered to and implemented properly by the respective state governments and local authorities.

There should be relaxation with regard to limitations placed on size, height, length and width of all places of worship, regardless of the religion.

In my opinion, we should also not have too wide a buffer zone between two different places of worship if we want to encourage tolerance and understanding in our multi-racial and multi-religious society, particularly among our young people.

At state level, the state governments should allocate sufficient development funds and ensure that it is built into the structure/local plans and planning approvals requiring developers to set aside ample lands for the erection of places of worship in new housing townships.

If I am not mistaken, the current permitted ratio for the number of non-Muslim places of worship in a housing development is one house of worship for every 2,600 followers of that faith.

This formula should be reviewed because it is neither equitable nor constitutional as it ought to be needs-based, that is, according to the needs of each religious community in that area.

One must also take into account that unlike the Muslims who are homogeneous, followers of Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism and Christianity are not, and within them, there are different sectors and denominations.

In this regard, I am confident that many of our Muslim brethren are sympathetic to the predicament faced by non-Muslims. It is hoped that those in high places will appreciate that withholding and delaying the approval for the erection of non-Muslim places of worship is both unjust and unconscionable.

In fact, all religions teach their followers to be good. It is, therefore, in the national interest to have a society which is religious as this will in turn bring about a healthy nation imbued with the highest moral and ethical standards.

A fortiori, at this Internet age, having a religious society founded on strong spiritual values is the elixir to corruption of morality and mores among our young people.

As a matter of record, it will not be complete without my expressing on behalf of the HLCE congregation our gratitude to Ghani for the financial grant and his kind assistance. Thank God too, for a moment, I thought our church building would not even materialise during my lifetime!

> The writer is a senior lawyer. He can be contacted at Twitter@rogertankm or www.roger tan.com.