Free and safe environment needed for film industry to flourish

 

By Freedom Film Network

Last week, Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim said the government did not want to interfere in the creative industry and supported freedom of expression for artists.

His remarks came after he watched the local film “Sheriff: Narko Integriti”.

While such statements are welcomed, they stand in stark contrast to the reality on the ground for local filmmakers, especially in light of the new Film Censorship Board’s (LPF) guidelines, and several recent cases faced by local filmmakers and community screenings.

We agree with the prime minister that film is an important medium. Our experience of using human rights films for education and discussion demonstrates the importance of film as a medium that can foster positive social change and promote human rights.

We hoped to expand the reach and power of such social films by providing feedback during engagements with LPF.

Our feedback was aimed at reducing prior censorship and instead empowering audiences to make educated decisions about their viewing material.

However, we note with concern that the new guidelines expand LPF’s scope. Part one of the LPF’s general policy (Bahagian I Dasar Umum) 2.1.3 lays out types of screenings and methods of censorship, and expands the kinds of screenings subject to censorship.

The new guidelines state that “all forms of films screened in hotels, video on demand (VoD), tapes for sale, film festivals, associations or organisations, screenings in embassies and other places must be screened according to cinema censorship.”

Under the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, to which Malaysia is a signatory, foreign embassies are treated as sovereign territories. The expansion of the new censorship guidelines to “pejabat kedutaan”, or the offices of embassies, could potentially breach this.

The inclusion of film festivals, associations or organisations as subject to cinema censorship is also concerning, as the Film Censorship Act (FCA) 2002 should only apply to films being screened in a commercial public context.

Small-scale, private and non-profit film screenings should be excluded from these guidelines. The inclusion of such screenings under the new guidelines appears to be an expansion of LPF’s jurisdiction to platforms and spaces that are ultra vires, or beyond the powers of the FCA.

The FCA is already restrictive and has been used to criminalise non-profit screenings by civil society organisations. The most recent example being the investigation and subsequent fine issued to Johor Yellow Flame (JYF). The organisation’s planned screening of the Hong Kong film “She’s in Jail” (2024) was cancelled by enforcement officers from the home ministry on March 30. Organiser Lee Chen Kang, who was arrested, has now been issued a fine of RM2,500.

Such investigations breach Malaysians right to freedom of expression and freedom of association. With the new LPF guidelines we can potentially see an increase in such arrests and investigations. Filmmakers and films are also subject to the Penal Code, as the case against the “Mentega Terbang” filmmakers demonstrates.

Last week, the magistrates’ court decided that the filmmakers could challenge in the High Court the constitutionality of the charges under Section 298 of the Act laid against them.

While we are glad that these questions of law will be determined in court, it is a clear example of how filmmaking is now a dangerous vocation in Malaysia and far from the internationally competitive industry the prime minister imagines.

Filmmakers have to contend with potential prosecution for their films and the new LPF guidelines, which were lauded as new and improved.

The guidelines not only maintain the status quo but are in fact more restrictive in some instances. They explicitly state that their purpose is to protect the government and its leaders from films that are anti-government, which begs the question: why does the government need to be protected from films?

While “Sheriff: Narko Integriti” is notable for its portrayal of police corruption, often a red line in Malaysian film censorship, the new guidelines do not make it easier for such themes. At their launch, home minister Saifuddin Nasution Ismail said the guidelines were formulated within the context of the Rukun Negara.

However, some of the guidelines raise concerns about their compatibility with the Rukun Negara. For example, under Section 2.1.1 of the religious guidelines, films that touch on “teaching that promotes anti-God (beliefs), atheism, agnosticism, scientology, religious pluralism, liberalism, blasphemy, supporting fanatical beliefs, criticising, denouncing or discrediting any religion” will be subject to more scrutiny.

First, the classification of “liberalism” and “religious pluralism” as unacceptable elements in films is directly contrary to the Rukun Negara, the preamble of which guarantees “a liberal approach towards our traditional heritage that is rich and diverse”.

Accordingly in the context of the Rukun Negara, liberalism is a positive value to ensure inclusivity and a diversity of ideas and expression in our plural society.

Second, it is unacceptable that religious pluralism is cast as a negative value in the LPF guidelines, let alone that it is equated or categorised alongside negative elements such as “supporting fanatical beliefs”.

In 2023, the United Nations called on all states to foster religious freedom and pluralism as a way to combat intolerance against persons based on religion or belief. To cast “religious pluralism” as something negative in films is in itself religious intolerance. As a multicultural and multi-religious country, religious pluralism should be seen as a positive value in Malaysia.

The fact that religious pluralism in a film warrants scrutiny from the censors is a disservice to us all. Film can be used to foster greater understanding and appreciation of our diverse society.

We are a nation of people with different faiths, cultures and values who must be able to encounter each other honestly, and learn to deal with the differences in a respectful way without violence and discrimination.

Peace in our country cannot be “maintained” by suppressing difficult realities. If we approach film as a tool for good, rather than a potentially seditious product, then we can potentially facilitate difficult conversations about our society that are too often deemed sensitive and suppressed.

If the government is serious about encouraging the local film industry then there are concrete steps it can take.

First, it is high time for the government to consider moving LPF out of the home ministry. The filmmaking industry cannot flourish as long as filmmakers are restricted to making films that adhere to a national security lens.

Second, what filmmakers need is a free and safe environment to create. The government can create that by establishing a clear timeline for abolishing the prior censorship system that makes it mandatory for all films to be subjected to the approval of the film censorship board before they can be screened.

Ultimately, all stakeholders of the Malaysian film ecosystem have the right to freedom of expression under Article 10 of the Federal Constitution. Therefore, a balanced framework for film regulation and creation must be adopted; one that respects filmmakers’ freedom, supports industry growth, protects consumer rights and safeguards vulnerable groups. - FMT

Freedom Film Network is a community and network of social filmmakers.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.