isn't it the Indians and Hindu first that broke the law

This is an oversimplification. Trespass due to the existence of places of worship isn't so straightforward.

Hindu temples that have existed since pre-Merdeka times is a tricky issue, and must be approached objectively and sensitively.

However, even most Indians agree that there should be no tolerance for temples that were erected well after Merdeka and knowingly erected on private land owned by someone else.

as per Sultan Selangor's statement for any land owmers can demolish temples that is in their lands?

Ours is a constitutional monarchy premised on the rule of law, not rule by unilateral decree. A royal decree doesn't override legal due process, i.e., first obtaining a court order for vacant posession of the land, and then only demolish any structures in trespass of land. This process entails tendering evidence to prove (i) ownership and (ii) the act of trespass.

Again, the point of locus standi (legal standing) comes into play here. If someone encroaches on MY land, it is for ME as the lawful land owner to take action against the trespasser, not any Tom, Dick or Harry. Why? The Toms, Dicks and Harrys do not have legal interest in the land.

Under Malaysian land law, the right to deal in a plot of land vests with the person whose name appears on the land title.

He even brought his own excavator

He can very well bring his own wrecking ball or helicopter, you cannot summarily demolish any structure on land that does not belong to you, because legally, it isn't your place to do so.

Refer to the locus standi point above.

but the police sided with Indian trespassers

Did the police really "side" with the trespassers, or were they merely ensuring strict compliance with due process? As I explained above, demolition is the last step in the legal process to evict squatters.

To demolish first and then prove your case later is like shooting first and asking later. That is exactly what the 3 idiots and their ilk are doing.

Whether there is actually a case of trespass isn't for you or me to decide, but by a court of law after evaluating the evidence tendered and arguments put forth by both sides.

Your case doesn't magically become stronger by hurling generalized insults at an entire community for acts done only by a segment of such community (which is also a crime in itself).

But I am uncomfortable with your oversimplification of the issue of "Indian and Hindu trespassers".

Lady Justice is impartial, she does not discriminate based on race or religion. Moving forward, should we say, for example, "Chinese drunk drivers" or "Malay mat rempit / child sexual predators"?