Introduction
Malaysia has often been characterized as an illiberal or semi-authoritarian regime, in which civil liberties and forms of expression are curtailed and constrained (Yeoh 2010; Means 1996).1 Control over speech is maintained through a political economy of media ownership linked to the ruling coalition (Nain 2002), legal mechanisms such as the Sedition Act, and the promotion of a top-down National Cultural Policy which is designed âto create a stable and unified nationâ.2 These controls constrain forms of political and cultural expression, especially on âsensitiveâ topics and content that is outside permissible limits or norms. In 2006, these tensions played out in the case of the documentary film The Last Communist by Amir Muhammad. Although the film passed censorship without cuts,3 a concerted campaign by Berita Harian journalist Akmal Abdullah brought the film to the attention of the Ministry of Home Affairs which then decided to ban the film (McKay 2011). The film shows new filmmaking techniques and subject matter (Khoo 2011). But a film with âcommunistâ in the title was too provocative for what Benjamin McKay called âcurrent political anxietiesâ (2011: 54). The case of The Last Communist and others like it provoked informal and formal discussions within the arts and entertainment communities about the conditions under which culture can be made and consumed, suggesting that these are important questions for those involved in what we might otherwise call the creative industries.
It may seem a contradiction therefore that the Malaysian government has introduced and promoted the creative industries as a part of its policy agenda given that creativity invariably involves the creation or discussion of potentially contentious ideas and contrarian forms of cultural representation. Creative industries policy however seeks to depoliticize culture by downplaying the potentially political and radical elements of creativity to instead deploy the creative industries as a driver of economic growth, able to contribute to employment and national income. Like Singapore to the south, the promotion and fostering of the creative industries occurs under a contradictory set of circumstances: on the one hand the state wants to promote and develop the creative industries whilst on the other remaining highly sensitive to forms of speech and culture that go against prevailing norms (Chong 2011; Lee 2010). How this contradiction is managed if not resolved becomes an important topic of study telling us how the creative industries operate in countries without strong traditions of cultural and artistic autonomy and free speech.
It is within this contradictory space that this chapter considers the introduction of creative industries policy in Malaysia and the promotion of these industries. In 2009, the Malaysian government released a creative industries policy document called the Dasar Industri Kreatif Negara (DIKN, National Creative Industry Policy). It announced the governmentâs intention to support the countryâs creative and cultural industries while bringing Malaysia into step with many other regional jurisdictions which have similarly pursued creative industries policies since the early 2000s. While the introduction of creative industries policy seems to represent a new development in how the Malaysian government approaches the creative work of its citizens, this chapter argues that because it involves an inherent tension between its economic and development ambitions with the realities of cultural and creative activity the outcomes do not live up to the hubris and rhetoric that has surrounded discussion of the creative industries. We consider therefore the ways in which these tensions have played out in policy terms since 2009 and the consequences this has for the creative industries, arts, and culture more broadly.
Regionally the creative industries have become a prominent sector of policy attention for governments seeking to develop forms of cultural production while achieving economic ambitions. In Malaysia, arts and media were managed and promoted under national development-orientated policies such as the National Culture Policy (1970) and agencies such as the National Film Development Corporation Malaysia (FINAS) established in 1981. Since the late 1990s, the global turn to âcreative industriesâ is also a neoliberal turn towards a market-orientated arts and culture policy (Flew and Cunningham 2010), superseding existing media, arts, and cultural policy introduced in an era of post-colonial nation building. Singapore introduced one of the first creative industries policies in the Southeast Asian region through its Renaissance City Plan of 2000 which aimed in part to âunleash the economic potential of arts and cultural activitiesâ (Kong 2009: 64). More recently, the Indonesian government established Bekraf (Badan Ekonomi Kreatif, Creative Economy Body) reporting directly to the President as an agency responsible for supporting and promoting Indonesiaâs creative industries especially film, animation, fashion, and the like. Malaysiaâs DIKN situates Malaysia within this regional and international move towards identifying, supporting, and promoting the domestic creative industries for internal and external markets.
There is substantial debate and slippage around the exact definition of creative industries (Banks and OâConnor 2009; Galloway and Dunlop 2007) and it is not our intention to reiterate that debate here. For our purposes, we can use the UNCTAD definition from their 2008 Creative Economy Report which defines the creative industries as:
the cycles of creation, production and distribution of goods and services that use creativity and intellectual capital as primary inputs; constitute a set of knowledge-based activities, focused on but not limited to arts, potentially generating revenues from trade and intellectual property rights; comprise tangible products and intangible intellectual or artistic services with creative content, economic value and market objectives; are at the cross-road among the artisan, services and industrial sectors; and constitute a new dynamic sector in world trade.
(UNCTAD 2008: 13)
Typically, the creative industries encompass film and television content, publishing, art, performance, theatre, advertising, computer programs, among others. These industries or sectors may be categorized into different groupings depending on the objectives of the defining body. Common to most definitions is the acknowledgment that the creative industries generate intellectual property based on the utilization of ideas or artistic skills. Creativity is also seen as an essential ingredient in the shift to post-industrial and knowledge economies where the manipulation of information, data, and ideas are said to drive economic growth. Many developed economies in the West see the creative industries as a panacea to economic stagnation and the decline in employment in traditional sectors of the economy such as manufacturing. Even though creative industries have often been promoted in contradistinction to low-skilled manufacturing, creative industries still involve many of the same challenges such as enterprise and labor management, state support, national culture policies, and education (Tschang 2009).
Arts and culture policy that developed in many European countries after World War II saw governments supporting and developing culture as a means of broadening access to traditional art forms to larger sections of the population and supporting cultural work (Crane 1992). Following the market-driven and deregulation turn of the 1980s, government support for the arts and culture came into question, especially since lofty ideals of public edification and state-supported art were seen as economically unsustainable or ideologically suspect. In the UK for example, this shift has been documented by Hesmondhalgh and Pratt (2005) who show how the shift has moved arts and culture policy away from the idea that it would develop cultural appreciation as a social good, to a much more economic emphasis on the potential contribution of creative industries to national income and employment. In the UK, the introduction of creative industries policy in the late 1990s through the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) reflected this shift in thinking towards economic measures and was reflected in the export-orientated strategy of the âCreative Britainâ campaign. Despite the rhetoric around the creative industries and the hubris of its potential, problems have remained in defining the industries, and in subsequent policy formulation and implementation (Banks and OâConnor 2009: 366â367).
Malaysiaâs creative industries policy
Whereas developed countries have sought to promote the creative industries as a means of revitalizing economic activity following the decline in basic industry and manufacturing, Malaysia sees the creative industries as a way of becoming a developed nation. Because developed nations are seen to have a significant amount of their income derived from creative activity, Malaysia sees that to become a developed nation requires a similar-sized creative industries sector. Using the creative industries as a development pathway has been acknowledged by agencies such as UNCTAD, but arguably this link between the creative industries and becoming a developed nation has not been as clearly made as it has been in Malaysia. In the 1990s, Malaysia adopted a policy objective called Vision 2020 (Wawasan 2020) that aims for the country to be a high-income âdeveloped nationâ by 2020 (usually measured as annual income of US $15,000/capita). In order to achieve this, Malaysia is seeking to transition away from its reliance on export-orientated manufacturing and resource extraction to a diversified economy with substantial service and knowledge sectors. When Prime Minister Najib Razak took office in March 2009 he reiterated his commitment to Vision 2020 by implementing the Economic Transformation Plan (ETP) under his office (PEMANDU).4 The ETP is divided into 12 National Key Economic Areas (NKEA) which includes the creative industries.
Soon after Najib Razak became Prime Minister, Malaysia launched its own creative industries policy called the Dasar Industri Kreatif Negara (DIKN). Accompanying the policy was a MYR 200 million allocation to a Creative Industry Fund (CIF) as a âcatalyst for the development of creative industries activityâ.5 In its introduction, the DIKN is clearly positioned as part of the Vision 2020 strategy (KPKK 2009: ii), with the Minister of Information, Communication, and Culture noting in his forward that the âcreative industries represent an important source of economic growth and cultural proliferation for developed nationsâ (KPKK 2009: i).6 Although the DIKN refers to creative industry policy from other countries including Australia, Great Britain, Singapore, and Hong Kong, it defines creative industries âin the context of Malaysiaâ as:
The mobilization and production of the abilities and talents of individuals or groups based on creativity, innovation and technology leading to the source of economic growth and high income to the country, with an emphasis on aspects of copyright and intellectual work in harmony with the culture and values of the various [racial] groups in Malaysia.
(KPKK 2009: 4)7
As this definition suggests, as is also repeated throughout the DIKN document, much of the focus is on the potential economic contribution of the creative industries, especially in terms of national income and employment. As such, the economic benefits of the creative industries are seen as a means to achieve high-income status and to thereby help Malaysia fulfill its ambition of becoming a developed nation.
With such a significant emphasis on the economic contribution of the creative industries, little space is given to the meaning of culture or creativity in the DIKN. Reference is made to âenhancing national cultureâ (memartabatkan budaya bangsa, KPKK 2009: 7) and the cultures of the âvarious [racial] groupsâ,8 suggesting that culture is imagined as a manifestation of racially inflected cultural traditions and practices. This is in keeping with the dominant discourse in which culture is imagined as a static manifestation of oneâs race (or ethnicity) expressed through traditional art forms such as dance, dress, crafts, and largely fixed belief and value systems, and constituent of a greater national culture. This recalls how culture is defined in the National Culture Policy (1970) which was reiterated in April 2017 at the Culture Congress 2017 with specific links drawn to the role of the creative industries (Berita Harian 2017).9 Material for the Congress asserts that the âpurpose of the creative industry is to radiate the values, image, and face of Malaysiaâ and that âthe mistake that is often made by art practitioners is only to think of creativity within the context of a single film, telemovie, or television seriesâ. By asserting that creativity and the creative industries should fall into line with the stateâs normative definition of culture, there is little scope or recognition for communities or groups that manifest divergent or contrarian cultural forms. Other forms of culture can be delegitimized or considered outside the bounds of normative conceptualizations, thus making them prone to being denied support or recognition. This continues a top-down tradition of defining culture as a normative ideal in which the state is positioned as the arbiter or authority on cultural matters.
Accompanying the DIKN, the Creative Industry Fund (CIF) created under the auspices of the Prime Ministerâs Office (PEMANDU) was used to fund creative industries projects via loans (Kementerian Penerangan Komunikasi and Kebudayaan 2009: 3). The CIF targeted individuals and companies with a particular emphasis on supporting animation projects. When the fund was finished in 2013, it was revealed that 80 percent of the CIF was used for film and television projects, including MYR5 million (US $1.2 million) lent to production company Tanah Licin to part-finance their 2012 film Hanyut (Astray, dir. U-Wei Haji Saari) (Mahpar 2010). Few other details about projects funded under the CIF are publically available, but in a frank admission in 2013, Fadhlullah Suhaimi Abdul Malek from PEMANDU described the CIF as âa leaking bucketâ because too many recipients had defaulted on repayments (The Malaysian Reserve 2013). In the case of Hanyut, the film ended up costing a total of MYR 18 million (US $4.5 million) to make and earned only MYR 76,486.25 at the local box office when it was released in 2016.10 Although the higher budget is justified by Hanyut being a period drama, it cost more than ten tim...
