Released in 2021, the Malaysian indie film, Mentega Terbang embarked on a journey far different from its whimsical title.
The film follows Aishah, a 15-year-old grappling with her mother’s illness and existential questions about faith and the afterlife. As she explores different religions and spiritual practices, the film immediately ignites a firestorm of controversy, sparking debates on freedom of expression and religious sensitivities.
Accusations of religious offenses in the film had led to police reports and investigations. The Malaysian Islamic Development Department (Jakim) deemed the film “against the creed and way of life of Muslims”. The film was ultimately banned from any public screenings in September 2023 under Section 26 of the Film Censorship Act 2002 on the ground that it is ‘contrary to public interest’[1].
On 17 January 2024, the director, Khairi Anwar Jailani and producer, Tan Meng Kheng of Mentega Terbang were charged separately for a criminal offence under Section 298 of the Penal Code (“Offence”) wherein they were accused of deliberately wounding the religious feelings of others[2] through their film. This carries a punishment of up to one year imprisonment, a fine, or both[3].
These criminal and administrative actions against the duo raises a crucial question: does artistic expression have the right to soar, or will censorship keep it tethered?
Article 10 of the Federal Constitution guarantees a right to free speech for all Malaysians. However, it is crucial to understand that this right is not absolute and empowers Parliament to enact laws imposing reasonable restrictions.
The Malaysian courts have time and time again explained the scope and depth of that freedom of expression. In the High Court case of Public Prosecutor v Ooi Kee Saik & Ors[4], Raja Azlan Shah J (as he then was) was of the view that the right to freedom of speech is not self-subsistent or absolute and that it must be based on the realities of our contemporary society by striking a balance of the individual interest against the general security, or the general morals, or the existing political and cultural institutions.
Khairi and Tan are in good company. Other artists have painfully walked the delicate path of expressing their artistic ideas in Malaysia. On 17 April 2023, an amateur comedian, Siti Nuramira had pleaded guilty to the same offence. This charge stemmed from an incident in 2022 where she removed her baju kurung and hijab (while still being dressed underneath) during a stand-up comedy performance at the Crackhouse Comedy Club.
Further, in 2017, Tham Yut Mooi, a housewife was sentenced to six months prison and RM15,000 after being found guilty of three counts of insulting Prophet Muhammad in the prayer hall of Abu Ubaidah mosque in Ipoh.
The charge in the Mentega Terbang case has itself has earned the wrath of liberal minded Malaysians, who have accused the Government of pandering to conservative factions for political mileage. However, such accusations can cloud the legal discourse surrounding the Mentega Terbang case. It is crucial to separate concerns about appeasing specific groups from the legal requirement for the court to objectively weigh the competing interests at play.
As for the director and producer of Mentega Terbang, they will have their day in court. Will their lawyer be able to persuade the court to take a more liberal view of Article 10? We shall see.
[1] Section 26 of the Film Censorship Act 2002.
[2] Section 298 of the Penal Code.
[3] Section 298 of the Penal Code.
[4] [1971] 2 MLJ 108 (Federal Court) 112
About the Author
Dyana Parmar is a Pupil-in-Chambers at XK Law. She assists the partners of the firm in civil litigation with a focus on debt recovery, landlord and tenancy matters, and corporate commercial disputes. Committed to making a positive impact, Dyana aims to contribute to a better world through her career as an advocate and solicitor.
