Unnecessary Censorship in Malaysia
Perhaps by easing the rules and regulations on what is acceptable for us to see, hear and think, we as a society will have the space to discuss these matters in a mature manner and grow. I am not a parent, but I am sure as hell glad that my parents gave me the sex talk when I was a teenager.
by Chin Guo Heng
I remembered two things from watching The Wolverine: when no other outlets are available, it is always possible to perform impromptu chest surgery on oneself; and the amount of cuts and bleeps in the film.
Admittedly, this was my first time catching a film at a local cinema after spending the last few years abroad, where censorship is a lot more laissez faire. The censored scenes were pretty jarring to me until a friend reminded me that liberal application of cuts and bleeps are part and parcel of the Malaysian cinema experience, besides the awesome cineplexes and delicious popcorns.
Growing up a film buff, I’ve always wondered if film cuts compromise the artistic integrity of the film (not that The Wolverine was brimming with artistic merit) and the vision of the director. Imagine how Yasmin Ahmad’s Sepet would feel like without the eight cuts imposed upon it. Complaining about cuts in films may seem petty but aesthetics and annoyance aside, film censorship, like all other forms of censorship, underlies what we are allowed to see, experience and by extension, think.
The watchman setting and implementing the guideline that defines the social, religious and moral values the rakyat are allowed to be exposed to in the cinema is the Film Censorship Board, operating under the jurisdiction of the Home Ministry. An updated guideline for film censorship came into force on March 2010 espousing the regulations in which films are expected to follow under four categories: public safety and harmony, religion, culture and manners, and morality, including a list of words deemed too rude for the rakyat to hear or see. According to the Board, the rules contained in the guidelines are of prime importance as films exert influence on the mind-set and actions of society, especially children and teenagers.
It seems reasonable that the Censorship Board adopts the monkey see, monkey do view towards public mores, but is there solid evidence to justify heavy-handed censorship in the name of defending the public morality? The significant body of research into the issue unsurprisingly offers conflicting conclusions. A segment of studies and meta-studies suggest that exposure to media violence – movies and video games – increases the propensity of violent behaviour due to desensitisation and increase in aggression-related thoughts. Critics argued that those papers are biased and methodologically flawed, and do not take into account issues beyond exposure to media violence such as family environment, peer delinquency and depressive symptoms as a predictor of youth aggression or violence. A 2008 study found that exposure to media violence is not even a predictor of youth aggression compared to the factors above, suggesting that the correlation between youth aggression and media violence is not necessarily the causation. Furthermore, longitudinal and cross-national studies yielded more non-supportive results over supportive results. A recent analysis of the data for youth sexuality and the initiation of sexual intercourse concluded that exposure to sexy media may not actually exert any significant impact compared with other well-established factors such as parental permissiveness and having sexually active peers.
