Religious Regulations in Malaysia and their Implications: Lessons from Mentega Terbang
Dr Choong Pui Yee is a senior lecturer at the Department of Southeast Asian Studies at University Malaya. She teaches ASEAN studies and security issues in Southeast Asia.
In January, a director and a producer of the Malaysian fictional film Mentega Terbang were charged with “wounding the feelings” of others under Section 298 of the Penal Code. The charge carries a punishment of one years imprisonment, a fine or both. At the time of writing, both the director and the producer have applied for a judicial review at the High Court to challenge the ban and the restriction on the screening of their film. The banning of the movie and the subsequent charging of the filmmakers has raised concerns about content regulation and creative freedom in Malaysia.
Mentega Terbang is a Malaysian independent film that follows Aisyah, a Muslim teenager, and her curiosity about life and death in the face of the loss of her mother to cancer. Among others, the movie portrays a Muslim teenager reading a Christian bible verse at the dining table and her mother thanking her for the verse, a tattooed Muslim man performing prayers, a Muslim woman touching dogs, and a Hindu believer eating beef. In an ideal Malaysian society, these scenes go against the religious beliefs of each of the religious communities and are considered controversial. After Aisyah’s mother passes away, her father even suggests to Aisyah that he would be supportive of her if she wanted to convert to another religion. Now this is outrageous as any devout Muslim would never encourage anyone, let alone their child to convert to Islam. In practice, it is almost impossible for a Muslim in Malaysia to leave his or her faith. The general slant of the movie leans to the liberal camp and its appeal is that it does not take a dogmatic position, alluding to the fact that no one knows whose faith is correct. It is after all a matter of faith.
However, the controversial part is that it goes against the way that Islam is being preached and practiced in Malaysia. In Malaysia, Islam is highly regulated by the various state Islamic departments and the Malaysian Department of Islamic Development. These departments are endowed with extensive powers to define Muslim orthodoxy in Malaysia. For Muslims, conversion out of the religion is impossible and deviation from the religion is usually frowned upon. Importantly, institutionalised regulation of Islam discourages believers from questioning their faith, as Aisyah did.
Mentega Terbang obviously could not get approval from the National Film Development Corporation to be screened widely. But it was found on a streaming platform and was screened at private events and tertiary education institutions until it was banned following reports to the police. Although the film did not receive wide-acclaim, it did garner interest among some curious Malaysians. One of the many reasons being that the film approaches relatable issues such as the universal existential question of life and death and what different religions teach about it. It also struck a chord among those who are on a journey questioning whether or not the religion that they believe in is indeed true and if it is right for them. These are questions that are not all that unusual for any curious mind and have been asked by many. But it became a contentious issue when it was openly depicted, especially when the protagonist was a Muslim.
At the heart of the controversy, is the conservatives’ feelings that were wounded because the movie may have been seen as challenging their way of practicing their religion, or even the sanctity of their religion. Allowing liberal ideas from the film to float freely gave a misguided impression of how Islam is practiced. For the religious leaders, it may also segue into challenging their authority. But taking care of the wounded feelings of the conservatives is at the expense of creativity and content distribution. With this precedent, filmmakers may be inclined to self-censor their creativity which will be a loss to the industry as well as to the Malaysian audience.
The most disconcerting part is the discouragement of the freedom of thought. Many Muslims in Malaysia are conditioned to believe that studying religions other than Islam could potentially weaken their faith and may cause confusion. Hence, there has never been much widespread interest to attempt to understand the beliefs of others. But matters of faith are hard to prove, as Aisyah’s mother candidly said “Who knows?”. At the end of the movie, Aisyah remains a Muslim. If anything, one of the key messages of the film is that a faith worth believing is a faith worth questioning.
Religious issues in Malaysia have always been deemed a sensitive topic and the public is discouraged from talking about them. The government’s rationale is to prevent inter-religious tension and the misrepresentation of religious communities. Discussing religious issues may risk wounding the feelings of some, but that is the same with any other less sensitive topics because people are bound not to agree on everything. But one can always disagree without being disagreeable. A lack of encouragement for critical thinking could do more harm than good as it breeds gullible minds. Therefore, instead of punishing those who dare to challenge the norms, especially in a creative manner through fictional films, it would be wiser for the authorities to seek out alternative measures to allow such topics to be discussed, such as in private settings with different religious representatives.
In the final analysis, if there is one important lesson that we can learn from the film it is that allowing the questioning of norms only helps to facilitate tolerance and growth.
The opinions expressed are those of the contributor, not of the RSAA.