A rational perspective on land trespassing

LAND trespassing is not unique to Malaysia. It is a governance issue faced by nations everywhere because land sits at the intersection of survival, livelihood, economic gain, identity, history and power.

In Malaysia, pressures arise from housing needs, small-scale farming, plantations and extraction, religious and cultural identity, colonial-era titling gaps, and the question of who controls resources. These forces overlap, but they do not operate at the same scale.

Public debate today often magnifies religious land disputes. They are visible, emotive and politically combustible. But when we step back and examine total physical impact, the narrative changes. Land trespassing in Malaysia is primarily structural, historical and economic – not religious.

Based on cumulative public reports and enforcement trends, and acknowledging that we do not have a single consolidated national database, a reasonable working model suggests the following approximate acreage distribution: Indigenous and customary land disputes about 45%; agricultural encroachment into forest or state land about 35%; illegal logging and mining about 10%; historical squatter and informal housing about 8%; and all religious land disputes combined roughly 2%.

Even allowing for adjustments, the proportional reality remains clear: religious disputes occupy a very small fraction of total affected land. Yet they dominate headlines. A 0.2ha temple dispute can trigger national outrage, while tens of thousands of hectares involving customary claims or forest encroachment receive far less attention. This is not merely a legal observation. It is a diagnostic of how we allocate attention.

Every nation operates with limited enforcement capacity, limited investigative bandwidth, limited political capital and limited public focus. The question is not whether land law should be enforced. It should. The real question is where we should allocate more energy, resources and talent. Should the bulk of our national focus be on 2% of land impact, or on the 80% involving indigenous claims and agricultural encroachment?

A rational society aligns effort with magnitude. Justice without proportionality becomes theatre. Enforcement without scale awareness becomes selective. Outrage without data becomes drama and distortion.

This does not mean religious land disputes should be ignored. They must be handled fairly and consistently. A clear and principled framework is needed for legacy religious sites. Where land on which a temple/mosque/surau/church/gurdwara sits is to be sold, the affected community should be given a transparent right of first offer, reasonable time to raise funds, and pricing that is fair and regulated. The principle must be universal, not selective. Consistency prevents politicisation.

But we must also confront the structural dimension. Indigenous and customary disputes involve historical land use, native rights and long-standing documentation gaps. Agricultural encroachment into forests affects water security, biodiversity and long-term ecological stability. Illegal logging and mining degrade rivers and soil. These categories involve thousands, sometimes tens of thousands, of hectares. They are structurally significant.

Religious disputes are symbolically intense but physically small. We must distinguish between symbolic visibility and structural magnitude.

Attention is a national resource. Where we direct it shapes budgets, enforcement priorities and public perception. If we focus disproportionately on the smallest category, we risk under-addressing the largest.

The real issue may not be trespassing alone. It may be how we decide what deserves our attention. Are we responding to the loudest issue or the largest? Are we allocating resources based on data or emotion? Are we strengthening governance or amplifying symbolic battles?

If we want to be rational, and build a mature citizenship, we must restore proportionality to our national conversation.

ANAS ZUBEDY

Kuala Lumpur