.png)
Every time the phrase “illegal worship houses” gets thrown around, I notice how quickly the conversation turns rigid. Legal. Illegal. Black. White. End of discussion.
But Malaysia has never worked like that - not socially, not historically, not emotionally.
In Zamri Vinoth’s case, what bothers me isn’t even the argument that illegal structures should be taken down. On paper, that’s correct. A law is a law. If something is built without approval, enforcement should happen.
What bothers me is the timing, the framing, and the selective outrage.
These worship places didn’t appear yesterday. Many have existed quietly for decades. They were there when roads were built around them, when town councils changed names, when politicians came and went. Nobody woke up one morning shocked to discover their existence. So when someone suddenly decides now is the time to champion legality, it’s fair to ask - why now, and why like this?
Law enforcement that waits 20, 30, 50 years is not neutral enforcement. It becomes symbolic. And symbols, especially religious ones, are dangerous tools when handled carelessly.
Let’s also address the elephant everyone pretends not to see.
It is not equally easy to get approval to build houses of worship in this country if you’re not Muslim. At some point, communities stop seeking approval not because they don’t respect the law, but because the law doesn’t seem designed to include them.
People of faith don’t stop needing prayer just because paperwork fails. So yes - some build without permits. Not as an act of defiance, but as an act of survival. When the choice is between legality and faith, people will choose faith every time.
Now here’s where the fairness question really stings.
In Malaysia, it is common to have apartments with suraus built in - even when there are already mosques nearby. This is normalised. It’s expected. Nobody asks if it’s excessive or redundant.
Meanwhile, minority communities are worshipping in shop lots and converted business spaces - because they cannot build elsewhere. Not because they want to bend rules, but because the system gives them no alternative.
So when Zamri talks about “illegal worship houses” without acknowledging this imbalance, it doesn’t feel like a stand for the rule of law. It feels like a performance - one that lands heavier on some communities than others.
If enforcement were truly about order, it would be early, consistent, and quiet. Not decades later. Not through rallies. Not with loaded language that turns administrative failures into communal fault lines.
Yes, illegal structures should be dealt with. But historical value should be assessed. Access to permits should be equal. And enforcement should not arrive only when it can score points.
If we really care about harmony, the solution isn’t shouting about illegality. It’s fixing the system that quietly produces it.
Because the problem was never just buildings.
The problem is pretending the rules are the same for everyone - when everyone knows they aren’t.
Fa Abdul (fa.abdul.penang@gmail.com) is a content creator under the Newswav Creator programme, where you get to express yourself, be a citizen journalist, and at the same time monetize your content & reach millions of users on Newswav. Log in to creator.newswav.com and become a Newswav Creator now!
The User Content (as defined on Newswav Terms of Use) above including the views expressed and media (pictures, videos, citations etc) were submitted & posted by the author. Newswav is solely an aggregation platform that hosts the User Content. If you have any questions about the content, copyright or other issues of the work, please contact creator@newswav.com.
