Finas Act must be reformed to protect freedom of expression

1. The licensing jurisdiction in the Finas Act needs to be clearly defined. Currently, the law could be interpreted to cover all forms of “film productions”; its definition of “films” includes feature films, short films, trailers, documentaries, moving images, films that have sound or do not and films that are meant for public viewing or otherwise. It is also silent on platforms so it could cover cinema, digital, public or private film production and screening. This means that “film production” could technically refer to a home-made video shot on a handphone to a multi-million ringgit movie production for cinema screening. The definition of “film production” will have to be amended and clearly defined to prevent the risk of the Finas Act being used arbitrarily depending on the “intentions” of the government.

2. There needs to be a clear justification of the purpose of licensing – for instance, for collecting data, planning or filmmaker funding purposes. These requirements should also be matched and limited to stated needs. The Finas Act’s current requirement for companies to have at least RM50,000 paid-up capital in order to qualify for a film or video production license has long caused anxiety and dissatisfaction among young and independent filmmakers making non-commercial films who do not have the financial requirements. This requirement will have to be removed from the law. Otherwise, it will result in a drop in the number and quality of films, including documentaries, and severely impact the growth of the film industry in Malaysia.

3. News production companies such as Al Jazeera should not fall under the purview of the Finas Act if they are already accredited as media by the Information Department. It is also noteworthy that any decision on the case of the Al Jazeera “Locked Up In Malaysia’s Lockdown” documentary will act as a precedent and has the potential for misuse as it could be used arbitrarily on any production, including those screened online, as long as it is deemed as questioning or being critical of the State. Furthermore, it has the potential to create a climate of fear and censorship among filmmakers and drive away international production and film companies from investing and setting up operations in Malaysia.

4. The licensing of films by Finas must not be used as a form of control and censorship. The recent reported remark by Zakaria Abdul Hamid, the chairperson of Finas, that all video recordings must have a license from his agency to ensure said video recordings do not “incite unrest or cause a public nuisance” is very telling of how Finas perceives its role. This is also clearly indicative of: (i) an overlap of roles between Finas, the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission and the Film Censorship Board; (ii) a breach of the covenant of industry self-regulation under the Communications and Multimedia Act, and; (iii) a double layer of censorship and film content control.

For media inquiries, contact Vinodh Pillai at media_comms@cijmalaysia.net