A public charitable trust cannot be converted to a private trust without proper judicial consent; unauthorized transfers of trust property are null and void.

[1] The dispute in this case has its genesis in a document of some antiquity. It is an indenture of 1845, written in cursive, created by Queen Victoria on behalf of the British Crown, declaring a piece of 5-acre land be held as a public charitable trust for the Thai and Burmese community in that part of Penang Island where Burma Lane is now.

[2] The beauty of a public charitable trust is that the rule against perpetuity does not apply to it and it may well survive the reckless authority of time. The passage of time cannot generally thwart its public charitable purpose for so long as its charitable purpose is still relevant and not spent. Here it is for the advancement of religion of the Thai and Burmese community in Penang and being the religious or spiritual being that we all are, Blaise Pascal's saying would resonate with us: "There is a God-shaped vacuum in each one of us and the human heart is restless until it finds its rest in God."

[3] What was once someone's backyard is now prime land not far from the seafront. What was once peaceful and serene has now become a place of strife. Charities and religions may not make its adherents more amenable to living harmoniously with one another as the wars fought throughout history would testify to this fact. As time marches on relentlessly, differences led to disagreements and disagreements to disputes between the Thai and the Burmese trustees in this single piece of land which they must learn to co-exist. It has to do with the collection from the public of funds which to the Thai is legitimately theirs as they had built a temple on the land whereas the Burmese had not built anything.

[4] The parties went for a "split" of the land and so the necessary order was obtained on 19 October 1994 from the Penang High Court for the land to be partitioned into two pieces with two separate titles, one going to the Thai Trustees and the other to the Burmese Trustees. The written consent of the Attorney General ("AG") was also obtained for the application to the High Court.

[5] The mistrust simmered and so an application was made to the AG for his written consent under s 9 of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 (" GPA ") for the commencement of an action in the High Court for the appointment of Trustees respectively for the Burmese community and the Thai community and for one lot in Lot 2102 to be vested in the name of the Trustees of the Thai community and the other lot in Lot 2103 to be vested in the name of the Trustees of the Burmese community. The AG gave his written consent.

[6] The High Court order was obtained on 3 October 2002 and an order was also made for the funds then placed under the management of a receiver and manager to be split equally between the Thai Trustees and the Burmese Trustees. Nai Ninn Sararaksh ("Nai Ninn"), a Thai, whose forbears had been staying in a house erected on the land, found his house now being on the Burmese portion of the land after partitioning. It was nothing to him then as no one disturbed his quiet possession of the house in No 3 Burma Lane, Penang.

[7] Another defining milestone in this public charitable trust saga was when the 2nd to the 5th defendants in the High Court below applied to the High Court in 2007 and obtained an Order on 31 October 2007 to have themselves appointed as the new trustees based on a new Trust Deed executed on 31 July 2006 wherein they stated that they consented to be appointed as the Penang Burmese Trustees of the Burmese Community of Penang and that Lot 2103 would be held in trust by them.

[8] The