Multi-Faith Community Institution Safety and Compliance Programme
Faith-based and community institutions serving Malaysian Indian communities face unaddressed safety, accessibility and regulatory-compliance problems; temples affected by estate displacement also face distinct tenure, relocation and registration issues
Programme Logic
Problem
Faith-based and community institutions serving Malaysian Indian communities face unaddressed safety, accessibility and regulatory-compliance problems; temples affected by estate displacement also face distinct tenure, relocation and registration issues
Structural Cause
Facilities are often built and maintained by community subscription without access to public safety-capital programmes; legal and administrative pathways differ by institution and faith, while some temples occupy land with unresolved tenure
Intervention
Common track: joint safety, accessibility and compliance audit plus matched funding for safety-critical works. Differentiated track: documentation and referral of temple and estate-legacy tenure, relocation and registration cases to competent state authorities. Institution-specific coordination follows the relevant legal and religious-administration regime. Funding excludes worship, proselytisation, ceremonies, devotional fixtures and doctrinal activity
Who & How
Target Group
Faith-based and community institutions serving Malaysian Indian communities in high-need localities, including Hindu temples, mosques and surau serving Indian Muslim communities, churches, Sikh gurdwaras, Baha'i facilities and other eligible institutions
Eligibility
Documented education, welfare, youth, elderly, cultural or other public-interest community service; demonstrated safety, accessibility or compliance need; participation is voluntary and requires state, institutional and any applicable religious-authority consent; eligibility is needs-based with no fixed allocation by religion
Deliverables
Outputs
Multi-faith facility map and consent framework completed; participating institutions audited; prioritised safety works list and recipient grants published by institution type; safety-critical works completed with matched funding; temple and estate-legacy documentation compiled for state referral
Outcomes
Participating institutions meet defined safety and accessibility standards and can lawfully continue eligible community-service functions; distinct temple and estate-legacy cases enter a documented state-referral pathway
Key Performance Indicators
Multi-faith institution safety and compliance
Number and proportion of participating faith-based and community institutions meeting defined safety and accessibility standards; number of temple and estate-legacy cases documented and referred to competent state authorities
Costing (Central Scenario)
Where these figures come from
Why this figure?· RM 44.4m over 6 yearsProvisional
- Method
- Multi-faith facility model: (institutions audited x audit cost) + (priority institutions x matched safety works) + compliance and temple or estate-legacy referral advisory
- Key inputs
- RM 12,000 — Audit RM12k per institution; matched safety works averaging RM120k for approximately 400 priority institutions, federal share 50%; compliance and referral advisory RM6m over six years
- Population
- Up to 1,200 participating faith-based and community institutions under the current provisional envelope; this is not a verified multi-faith facility baseline (Voluntary participation with state, institutional and any applicable religious-authority consent; needs-ranked with no fixed allocation by religion)
- Benchmark
- Current envelope only: audit up to 1,200 institutions x RM12k = RM14.400m; safety works at approximately 400 priority institutions x RM120k x 50% federal share = RM24.000m; compliance and temple or estate-legacy referral advisory = RM6.000m; total RM44.400m. The expanded multi-faith definition does not validate or enlarge these volumes. A Phase 1 facility map must recalculate the eligible population, faith-type distribution, priority caseload, partner capacity and fiscal envelope before formal approval. No fixed allocation by religion is assumed.
- Funding split
- existing 0.10 = local-authority safety-inspection capacity already funded; reallocated 0.35 = provisional MITRA community-institution grant capacity; new 0.55 = the federal share of matched safety works plus audit. All shares require MOF, state and agency validation. The RM44.400m envelope is a planning cap pending the multi-faith facility map, not a coverage commitment (VAL-13).
- Source
- Internal estimate — no external source cited.
- Status
- Planning assumption pending validation· pending validation (VAL-13)
- Note
- Current envelope only: audit up to 1,200 institutions x RM12k = RM14.400m; safety works at approximately 400 priority institutions x RM120k x 50% federal share = RM24.000m; compliance and temple or estate-legacy referral advisory = RM6.000m; total RM44.400m. The expanded multi-faith definition does
Delivery & Accountability
Lead Ministry
Ministry of National Unity (delivered through the Department of National Unity and National Integration, JPNIN)
Accounting Officer
Secretary-General Ministry of National Unity
Supporting Agencies
Department of National Unity and National Integration; state governments and local authorities; Public Works Department; Fire and Rescue Department; relevant Islamic religious authorities; Hindu, Christian, Sikh, Baha'i and other representative or trustee bodies
Mandate Basis
Community cohesion and community-institution support are within the Ministry's mandate; this does not displace state land, local-government or religious-administration powers
Risks & Safeguards
constitutional
Federal programmes encroach on state jurisdiction over land, local government or religious institutions operating under differentiated legal and administrative regimes
Safeguard
Participation requires state, institutional and any applicable religious-authority consent, facility by facility and project by project; federal funding is religion-neutral and confined to life safety, accessibility, compliance and documented public-interest community-service spaces; worship, proselytisation, ceremonies, devotional fixtures and doctrinal activity are excluded; land-tenure findings are documented for referral rather than determined federally; institution-specific questions go to the competent state or religious authority
leakage
Grants and subsidies are diverted, repeating the governance failures that have damaged confidence in community programmes
Safeguard
Payments made to institutions and verified accounts rather than in cash where possible; published recipient lists for all grants above a threshold; annual Auditor-General audit tabled in Parliament; open competitive procurement; immediate referral of irregularities to the MACC; the delivery secretariat holds no programme funds
procurement
Capital works under PRG-03 and PRG-04 are let without competitive tender or to related parties
Safeguard
All works follow standard Treasury procurement instructions with no exemption sought; award lists published; the prioritised remediation schedule is published in advance so departures from audited priority order are visible
fiscal
RM246.456m of the portfolio is classed development expenditure (PRG-03, PRG-04, PRG-12). In Malaysian practice development expenditure is appropriated through the Malaysia Plan rolling-plan process administered by the Ministry of Economy, not by a Cabinet decision plus annual supply. A six-year plan commencing 2026 straddles two Malaysia Plans
Safeguard
The Ministry of Economy must be engaged as a co-lead on the development-expenditure component and the requirement entered into the applicable rolling plan; CE-02 treats the central fiscal scenario only as an indicative planning case and NA-01/NA-03 expressly withhold envelope and appropriation approval; the Public Finance and Fiscal Responsibility Act 2023 compliance position must be established before any formal submission