Malaysia has a long history of\nconflicts over arts and culture, pitting artists against the Japanese during\nthe Japanese Occupation, against the British during the Communist insurgency\nand anti-colonial movement that followed World War II, and, since independence\nin 1957, against the Alliance government.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Over the past 49 years, the space for freedom of expression across the board has expanded and shrunk according to the ebbs and flows of the political tide, making it a kind of barometer of the health of the nation. As such, the increased suppression of free speech over the past year — in the media, in the arts, online and in public spaces –\u00ad reveals a nation in crisis.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
This report examines the shrinking\nspace within which culture and the arts operate, looking specifically at acts\nof censorship in film, literature, popular culture and visual arts, as well as\nin the wider socio-cultural space, between January 2006 and March 2007. What\nfollows is a first reading of sorts — an attempt to capture disparate acts of\ncensorship across genres, over a diverse range of issues — in an effort to\nidentify the fault lines underlying the constriction of free space in Malaysia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Legal Framework<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Under Malaysian law, there are\nseveral guarantees to freedom of expression, and rights to artistic and\ncultural expression, Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees freedom\nof expression while the Rukunegara, or national credo, instituted in 1970,\nespouses a “liberal approach to her rich and diverse cultural\ntraditions”. Other laws and policy statements that either explicitly or\nimplicitly support freedom of expression include Vision 2020’s “strategic\nchallenge” that all Malaysians be “free to practice and profess their\ncustoms, cultures and religious beliefs” and the Multimedia Super Corridor\nBill of Guarantees, which states unequivocally that there will be “no\ninternet censorship”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n However, amendments to the Federal\nConstitution made by the Executive over the past decades have been such\n“as to completely truncate the safeguards put in place in the original\nConstitution”. The state has at its disposal several statutes, and\npolicies, with which to silence its critics, suppress dissent and maintain its\nhold on power. Key amongst these is the Internal Security Act of 1960 — which\nallows for detention without trial — the Sedition Act of 1948, the Official\nSecrets Act, the Police Act and the Penal Code. Laws and policies which\nintersect directly or indirectly with \nthe cultural and artistic sphere include the Printing Presses and Publications\nAct of 1984, the Universities and University College Act of 1971 which impacts\non both students and faculty, the Film Censorship Act of 2002, the National\nCultural Policy of 1971, the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998, the\nMalaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission Act 1998, the Content Code\nand the Entertainment (Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur) Act 1992.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are regulatory laws that\ncreate an atmosphere of fear and promote self-censorship. Their very existence\nengenders a censorious culture. It is however important to note that they are\nnot the only mechanism available to suppress and silence. The government can\nand does limit free speech without legal enactments, making it clear that\ncensorship is ultimately a function of power; in this context, not only the\npower to define what is and is not permissible, but to change that definition\nat will. In addition, acts of intimidation and suppression are not exclusive to\nthe authorities. As we shall see, non-state agents have proven to be highly\neffective players in narrowing the space for freedom of expression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Politics of Silencing<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Silencing its critics continues to\nbe a priority of the state, and various repressive actions have been taken\nagainst the print and electronic media, bloggers and opposition publications,\nfrom the suspension of publication permits to threats of using the Internal\nSecurity Act. Where necessary, the government will extended its reach beyond\nits borders. Danny Lim’s documentary “18”, which is about a series of\nanonymous political graffiti alluding to a list of 18 companies cited for\ncorruption, was selected for the EBS International Documentary Festival in\nKorea. It was however dropped at the request of the Malaysian Embassy in Seoul\non the grounds that it featured a political activist, former Internal Security\nAct detainee Hishamuddin Rais. The documentary had won an award at the 2006\nMalaysian Video Awards and had been screened at various venues in Malaysia,\nprior to the Seoul invitation. Its implied criticism of the Malaysian\ngovernment’s failure to prosecute these 18 companies was perhaps something the\ngovernment did not desire to be showcased on an international platform.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Independent research or information,\nwhich differs from official versions, was also quickly quashed, as the\ngovernment sought to ensure that its hold on power was not compromised by mere\nfacts. In October 2006, the Asian Strategy & Leadership Institute (ASLI), a\ngovernment-linked think tank, published a report which placed bumiputera\ncapital ownership higher than both government-cited figures and the target set\nby the New Economic Policy (NEP). An affirmative action policy launched in 1971\nin the wake of the 1969 riots, the NEP was designed to redress imbalances in\nthe economy in favour of the bumiputera majority, who were economically and\nsocially disadvantaged. Although the NEP formally ended in 1990, UMNO — and by\nextension, the Barisan National government — has cited statistics that showed\nthe objectives of the NEP had yet to be met, and continues to pursue programmes\nand policies which privilege bumiputera interests. This stance earns the\ngovernment considerable political currency amongst its main voter base. Under\nmounting political pressure, ASLl’s President, Mirzan Mahathir withdrew support\nof the report, leading the head researcher, Dr Lim Teck Ghee, to resign in\nprotest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a similar vein, a book\n“March 8” by K. Arumugam, which investigates the 2001 ethnic-based\nclashes at Kampung Medan, was banned in December 2006 by the Ministry of\nInternal Security, along with 56 other books. The book highlights eyewitness\nreports of the 2001 incident, which claim that the police did nothing to stop\nacts of violence committed in front of them; to date, no one has been charged\nwith the deaths of six Kampung Medan residents.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arumugam has initiated legal action\nagainst the Ministry, saying the ban “can be interpreted as the wish of\nthe government to suppress the truth and to exclude itself from any\nresponsibility for said incident.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Politics of Religion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The normative aspects of Islam in\nMalaysia appeared to be at the heart of a number of acts of censorship in the\nperiod under study, be it over issues of religious dogma and concepts of\nmorality, or contestations over its position in the evolving narrative of\nnationhood. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One of the outcomes of the\nrevivalist Islamic movement of the 1970s was the re-energising of Islamist-based\nopposition Parti Islam Se-Malaysia (PAS), which in turn led to the\npoliticisation of Islam in the battle for power. As part of a comprehensive\nstrategy to bolster its Islamic credentials over PAS, the Barisan National\ngovernment launched the Islamisation of Government Policy (1983), which\nincrementally altered the character of the administration and the nation over\nthe next 30 years. Current Prime Minister Badawi’s Islam Hadhari initiative\n(Islamic Civilisation), launched in 2004, was presented as a platform for\nmoderation, and one that would protect the interest of non-Muslims. The reality\nis more closely reflected by Meredith Weiss’s observation that “the\ncontest between UMNO and its rival for the Malay vote has increasingly come to\nrevolve around which party will do the most to advance Islam as a way of life\nand a political programme”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In its efforts to present itself as\nan administration that upholds the moral and spiritual well-being of the\ncountry’s Muslim-Malay majority, the government has been diligent in acting\nagainst elements deemed incompatible with the state’s version of Islam. The\nyear began with a police raid on an alleged ‘black metal’ music concert on New\nYear’s Day. Lurid and inaccurate reports in the media, including descriptions\nof supposed black metal rituals of animal sacrifices and satanic worship,\nfollowed. In response, the National Fatwa Council, the highest Islamic\nauthority in Malaysia, announced a ban on ‘black metal’ and threatened to\nprosecute Muslim followers under Islamic law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In February 2006, the National Art\nGallery requested that parts of an art installation, including an image of a\nnude woman, be removed from an Australian show held on its premises, “Open\nLetter”. The Australian exhibition manager Asialink complied with the\nrequest without the prior consent of the artists. Ironically, the images of the\nremoved pieces remained in the exhibition catalogue, uncensored.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Weekend Mail’s publication\npermit was temporarily suspended by the Internal Security Ministry following a\nNovember 2006 issue that focused on the sexual mores of young Malaysians. While\nthe tabloid’s often salacious news and its objectification of women has\npreviously gone unchecked, this particular issue appeared to incur the wrath of\nthe authorities for the absence of moralising in articles describing the open\nattitudes towards sex expressed by those interviewed. Early in 2007, a\nMalay-Muslim actress became the target of criticism over a casual remark on\nrelationships. In response to accusations of being a ‘cradle-snatcher’, the\nactress, appearing on the TV programme “Sensasi”, implied that\nProphet’s wife Khadijah, who was older than him, could be accused of the same\ncrime. While the ‘live’ studio audience appeared amused and even applauded her,\nshe was later severely criticised in the media by members of the public,\npoliticians and Islamic groups. The actress was banned from appearing on all\nstate-owned media for a year by the Ministry of Information, while\n“Sensasi” was banned under the Multimedia and Communications Act\n1998, on grounds that it should have “contributed to the national\naspirations and not offended the sensitivity or values of the community”\n(as reported in The Star newspaper, on 24 February 2007).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The state also held a firm grip on interpretations of Islam, censoring a number of publications on the religion, including Karen Armstrong’s \u201cThe Battle for God: Fundamentalism in Judaism, Christianity and Islam\u201d, as well as books about the banned Islamic sect Al Arqam. Significantly, in a step that echoes the creationism versus evolution argument also current in parts of the US education system, an Indonesian translation of Darwin’s “Origin of Species” was banned, although the English-language version is not. A wide range of books published in Bahasa Indonesia are routinely banned as the language is similar to Malay, the primary language of the Malay-Muslim majority in Malaysia. These books were amongst 56 books banned in 2006 under the Printing Press and Publishers Act. Also censored by the Act was a two-page report on supernatural practices amongst Muslims in Somalia and Afghanistan from The Economist’s December 2006 issue distributed in Malaysia. The Economist article, like an exhibition on the supernatural in a state-owned gallery that drew thousands of visitors, and a popular investigative series on supernatural phenomena in South East Asia screened weekly on private TV channel TV3, were all criticised for their focus on subjects considered deviant or ‘un-Islamic’. The latter two were not banned.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The government has to walk a fine\nline, however. It desires to present itself as a moderate force, both\ninternationally for its aspirations to being a model Muslim country to the\nWest, and domestically to retain the support of its non-Muslim constituency,\nwhich makes up more than 40% of the population. At the same time, it must come\nacross as an administration unafraid to champion Islam. Malaysia is currently\nthe head of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) and mindful that\nits behaviour on the international stage is closely monitored by its\nMalay-Muslim voters.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Danish cartoons debacle illustrates the delicate juggling act the state has to play between these conflicting masters. The Ministry of Internal Security suspended three newspapers in early 2006 for reproducing the cartoons. In February, Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar announced that his Danish counterpart, Per Stig M\u00f8ller, had called, seeking Malaysia’s help in “containing the situation from … causing a divide between Muslims and non-Muslims”. The request seemed to support Malaysia’s view of itself as an influential and moderating intermediary between ‘Islam’ and ‘the West’. Soon after, this ability to ‘contain’ the situation was tested when the New Straits Times (NST) published not the original Danish cartoons, but a cartoon about the cartoons. A PAS-led group of over 500 people demonstrated outside the NST office, demanding the closure of the daily. The government however chose to let the NST off after it published an apology. While it cannot be overlooked that the NST is a pro-government newspaper and enjoys government patronage, the government’s refusal to bow to the Islamist demands can be read as an example of how local and international concerns intersect and influence freedom of expression as it relates specifically to Islam in Malaysia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The PAS administration’s controversial rulings in the northern state of Kelantan, such as the making of headscarves mandatory for Muslim women and the limiting of liquor licenses, have given the federal government a chance to display its more moderate side in the past. In February 2006, another opportunity presented itself when the Kota Bahru Town Council rejected an application for a Mak Yong performance permit, saying that the ritual theatre form was incompatible with Islam. The ban came four months after the ancient art form was declared an Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity by UNESCO. The Minister of Culture, Arts and Tourism spoke out against the ban, promising the Ministry’s support for the art form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But the complexity of the Malaysian\nsituation goes beyond a government oscillating between two divergent political\nimperatives. A disturbing trend first discerned in the 1990s is the emergence\nof private citizens, civic groups and the media who take on the mantle of\ncensor, particularly over issues touching on Islam. In recent years, several high-profile\ncases involving conversions to and out of Islam have tested the constitutional\nguarantee of freedom of religion for all Malaysians. These cases put the battle\nover Islam’s position in the nation at the forefront. While Islam is the\nofficial religion of Malaysia, the country is not an Islamic state governed\nunder syariah law. However, in 2001, under mounting political pressure from the\nopposition, then Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad made the “929 Declaration”\n(named after its date of announcement, 29th<\/sup> September) that Malaysia\nwas in fact already an Islamic state. This was a politically expedient\nstatement, for the country remains, constitutionally, a secular state. But as\nthe Democratic Action Party’s Lim Kit Siang notes, it “hardened the tone\ntowards the Islamic direction”, resulting in “greater intolerance in\nthe public place”.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This was made clear in May 2006,\nwhen a mob of 100 people disrupted a public forum organized by Article 11, a\ncoalition of 13 NGOs working towards upholding the Federal Constitution’s\nguarantee of freedom of religion. In a disturbing display of punishing the\nvictim, Article 11 was accused by politicians and a wide range of Islamic-based\ngroups of undermining the place of Islam in the nation. Article 11’s position\nwas made even more precarious by the erroneous conflating of its objectives\nwith a controversial Interfaith Commission proposal, which was also seen as a\nthreat to the perceived Islamic status of the country. Article 11 was barred\nfrom holding further public forums while the Minister of Information threatened\nto censor the media for its coverage of the controversy. Eventually, the Prime\nMinister weighed in on the side of silence, declaring a ban on all discussions\nwhich touched on religion. The Prime Minister’s statement — unencumbered by\nspecific parameters of duration, scope and locale — had the effect of an\nall-encompassing decree.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In controversies involving religion,\nminority rule appears to be on the rise, as a single complaint is at times\nenough to shut down an entire event. Some newspapers and selected journalists\nhave played a crucial role in amplifying these individuals and groups, giving\ntheir voices a platform that turns them into highly efficient agents of\nsuppression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A performance art symposium\n“Satu Kali” (“One Time or Once Off’), held in April 2006, was\nsuspended by the police on the strength of a single complaint that some of the\nperformances were insulting to Islam. This, despite the fact that “Satu\nKali” was supported by local, international and regional organisations.\nThe following month, Kakikino, an amateur film club which screens European and\nAsian art films at the government-owned National Film Corporation, was shut\ndown, again on the strength of a single complaint carried in a local newspaper\nthat the films screened were pornographic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Amir Muhammad’s documentary\n“Lelaki Komunis Terakhir” (“The Last Communist”) was at the\ncentre of a manufactured controversy that eventually led to its being banned in\nMay 2006. The documentary, which touched obliquely on the exiled head of the\nnow defunct Malayan Communist Party Chin Peng, was initially given a permit\nwithout cuts by the Film Censorship Board. Given that Chin Peng’s autobiography\n“My Side of History” is easily available in Malaysia and has spent\ntime on the country’s best-seller list, it was not surprising that the film,\ndespite its apparently controversial subject matter, was approved. Although\nChin Peng is still barred from returning to Malaysia for his role in the\ncommunist insurgency following the end of World War II, there is a greater\nopenness towards this chapter of the past, perhaps because as a movement\ncommunism is no longer seen as a threat. Amir was required to screen his film\nfor the Special Branch however, which also approved it for release. Shortly\nbefore it was to be released however, Berita Harian, a Malay-language daily,\nbegan a sustained attack on the documentary, criticising the Board for not\nbanning it. Neither the Berita Harian journalist, nor any of the people\ncritical of “Lelaki Komunis Terakhir” in the articles, had seen the\ndocumentary. In response to the articles, a special screening was arranged for\nMembers of Parliament. The general consensus was that the film did not need to\nbe censored. Shortly after, however, the permit was withdrawn on grounds that\n“the public had protested”. Amir placed responsibility for the ban on\nthe newspaper, saying that the paper, “whose cultural politics verges on\nthe ethnocentric and semi-fascist’, seemed to object to the fact that the film\ncentred on a non-Malay character. The paper had led similar campaigns against\ntwo other films, “Sepet” (2005) and “Gubra” (2006), both by\nYasmin Ahmad. “Sepet” was vilified for its story of a Malay-Muslim\ngirl falling in love with a kafir (infidel) and “Gubra” for its\napparently un-Islamic portrayal of its central Muslim characters. In January\n2007, Amir’s sequel to “Lelaki Komunis Terakhir”, “Apa Khabar Orang\nKampung” (“Village People Radio Show”) — a documentary on\nexiled Communist communities in southern Thailand — was also banned by the\nFilm Censorship Board. An appeal has been rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Indeed, events that centre on the\nmulticulturalism previously celebrated have now become the target of protests.\nEarlier in the year, the Penang Global Ethic Project’s request to hold an\nexhibition on commonalities between religions in Malaysia was rejected. In an\neducational World Religions Walk, which promoted interfaith understanding,\nMuslim students were prohibited from participating by the Penang State\nEducation Department after receiving a complaint from a parent that it was un-Islamic\nfor the students to enter temples and churches.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These are but a selection of the\nnumerous incidents of censorship in the arts and wider socio-cultural space\nover the past months. The government has increased its policing of free\nexpression in Malaysia, silencing criticism of its administration over issues\nranging from corruption, to toll hikes, to police abuse, to education policies\nand the NEP, amongst others. Where Islam is a central factor however, it is\npossible to discern a shifting of power to the hands of a highly mobilised\ncitizenry, who are unafraid to take matters into their own hands if the state\ndoes not react to their satisfaction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Most troubling perhaps are those\nconflicts that have pitted ordinary citizens against each other in the battle\nover questions of religion. The groups that have perpetrated these acts of\nintimidation and suppression in the name of Islam are driven by the power of\ntheir religious convictions. In this, they are of the same ilk as\nfundamentalist of all faiths, be it the Christian right in the US or the\nultra-nationalist Hindu factions in India. In Malaysia, however, these\nindividuals and groups operating under the name of Islam are highly effective\nagents of suppression because they are empowered by their belief that such is\ntheir political entitlement — an entitlement the state has over-emphasised\nover the past 30 years in its efforts to maintain political power. The past\nyear reveals a state pushed into playing catch up with the Hydra it might well\nhave created.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ~~~<\/p>\n\n\n\n Kathy Rowland co-founded Kakiseni.com and is the website’s managing editor. <\/p>\n\n\n\n This article first appeared in the May 2007 edition of FOCAS (Forum on Contemporary Art and Society), a Singapore-based semi-academic arts journal. <\/p>\n\n\n\n First Published: 05.10.2007 on Kakiseni <\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Malaysia has a long history of conflicts over arts and culture, pitting artists against the Japanese during the Japanese Occupation, against the British during the Communist insurgency and anti-colonial movement that followed World War II, and, since independence in 1957, against the Alliance government. Over the past 49 years, the space for freedom of expression […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"iawp_total_views":1,"footnotes":""},"categories":[7758,7781,7765,7770,7769,7775],"tags":[3781,245,3074,844,946,3788,3784,3775,712,3774,3801,3802,501,3791,3792,3800,3597,975,3793,3785,3787,3776,3786,3780,535,677,3782,3777,3789,3778,3795,3783,3797,3796,500,3798,502,3794,3779,3790,3799,684,521],"language":[7785],"writer":[7963],"class_list":["post-27486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-artikel","category-seni","category-penapisan","category-budaya","category-politik","category-agama","tag-al-arqam","tag-amir-muhammad","tag-article-11","tag-arts","tag-asialink","tag-asian-strategy-leadership-institute-asli","tag-barisan-nasional","tag-berita-harian","tag-censorship","tag-chin-peng","tag-communications-and-multimedia-act","tag-content-code-and-the-entertainment-federal-territory-of-kuala-lumpur-act","tag-culture","tag-danny-lim","tag-federal-constitution","tag-film-censorship-act","tag-freedom-of-expression","tag-hishamuddin-rais","tag-internal-security-act","tag-islam-hadhari","tag-k-arumugam","tag-kakikino","tag-kampung-medan","tag-karen-armstrong","tag-national-art-gallery","tag-national-cultural-policy","tag-national-fatwa-council","tag-national-film-corporation","tag-new-economic-policy-nep","tag-new-straits-times-nst","tag-official-secrets-act","tag-parti-islam-se-malaysia-pas","tag-penal-code","tag-police-act","tag-politics","tag-printing-presses-and-publications-act","tag-religion","tag-sedition-act","tag-tv3","tag-umno","tag-universities-and-university-college-act","tag-vision-2020","tag-yasmin-ahmad","language-inggeris","writer-kathy-rowland-ms"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/11"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27486"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27486\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":39108,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27486\/revisions\/39108"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27486"},{"taxonomy":"language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/language?post=27486"},{"taxonomy":"writer","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/myartmemoryproject.com\/ms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/writer?post=27486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}