A Simulation Framework for Assessing ‘Appropriateness’ of Musical Parody in 21st-century...

UPM Book Series on Music Research, No.7, 2015 (ISSN 2289-3938).

A Simulation Framework for Assessing the ‘Appropriateness’ of Musical Parody in 21st Century Malaysia

Chow Ow Wei

“Number one: When this is our programme, we allow you to speak.

Number two: When I speak, you listen.”

Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin1

One of the ways to evaluate the appropriateness of a subject is to inspect its

inappropriateness within a given setting. This paper intends to explore how

an institution approaches a musical parody by investigating whether

musical parody is appropriate in the construction of Malaysian social norms

that are mainly reflected by the laws and regulations commissioned in 21st

century Malaysia. A simulation framework is designed to study the

‘appropriateness’ of “Dance Remix: Listen, Listen, When I Speak, Listen!”,

which is chosen as a case of musical parody, within the rule set defined and

bounded by Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) and Film

Censorship Act 2002 (Act 620), with special reference to the Guideline on

Malaysian Content Definition, Guidelines on Film Censorship and the

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code 2 . A further

discussion of simulation results and problematizing of the simulation

framework follows. In this paper, musical parody is used as variously

explained by Jewell and Louise (2012). Any arguments on parody,

plagiarism and forgery that may morally question parody or use another

person’s work in order to critique that work (Jewell & Louise, 2012: 9) must

be left for another investigation.

1 N.N., 2013, 00:04:44–00:04:54.

2 Its liability is stipulated in Subsection 213 (1) & (2) of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) (Commissioner of Law Division, 2006a: 108–109).

19

284 Chow Ow Wei

Listen, Listen, Listen: Phenomenon and Analysis

On 14 January 2013, Suara Wanita 1 Malaysia, a non-government

organisation in Malaysia abbreviated as SW1M, uploaded a video on

YouTube3 that unexpectedly made it viral over the social media 4 . Two

protagonists, namely Sharifah Zohra Jabeen Syed Shah Miskin as the host

and the president of SW1M and Bawani K. S. as an undergraduate student

of Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), turned into an overnight sensation. In

a controversial scene, Internet citizens or 'netizens' see how Sharifah

blocked Bawani from asking questions by repeating, “Listen! Listen!

Listen!” 11 times and “Let me speak! Let me speak!” five times, before she

removed the microphone from Bawani who was also berated with

numerous insulting remarks 5 . A public uproar was triggered as most

netizens inclined to defend Bawani and scrutinised both Sharifah’s

oppressive bullying and brainwashing operations run by the government’s

ruling party. The mentality of present-day university students and the

quality of Malaysian universities was also put in question (Netto, 2013; Erzi,

2013).

The ‘Listen, Listen, Listen’ phenomenon escalates when internet memes and

parodies, as well as parodies derived from other existing parodied works,

were proliferated and spoofed in the mediasphere where the ‘listen’ tagline

and animals mentioned in the video were associated to Sharifah (Chong,

2013). Among the outcomes6, a musical parody titled “Dance Remix: Listen,

Listen! When I Speak, Listen!” spawned the mediasphere and therefore

‘further speculated the phenomenon with certain political wit and musical

creativity’ (Chow, 2015).

3 The video was a live recording of Forum Suara Mahasiswa (forum of the graduates’

voices), titled “Seiringkah Mahasiswa dan Politik?” (Are graduates and politics aligned?), which took place on 8 December 2012 at Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM), Sintok, Kedah. The video was split and uploaded in four parts.

4 1,388,238 views, 12,741 likes, 305 dislikes, 5,751 subscriptions and 3,600 comments as of 19 March 2014.

5 Sharifah cynically thanked Bawani for “having the guts” (N.N., 2013: 00:04:40–00:04:41), rebuked her for not showing respect and comparing Malaysia with other countries, and berated her for having “the very least of pendidikan (education)” (N.N., 2013: 00:07:53–00:07:55). Other remarks include animal problems, animal rights, and the following line: “If you are not happy, you are very much suitable to go to another university” (N.N., 2013: 00:11:10–00:11:15; Chow, 2015).

6 Prominent examples are Namewee (2013) and Mat Lufthi (2013).

Musical Parody in 21st Century Malaysia 285

Figure 1: Zunar’s Cartoon “Listen, Listen, Listen”. [Source: Listen! Listen! Listen!

Zunar Cartoonist. http://www.zunar.my/toons/listen-listen-listen/. Retrieved 15 May

2014]

Figure 2: A parody on Sharifah’s speech at Universiti Utara Malaysia in December

2012. [Source: Sharifah Zohra Jabeen's Tirade / "Listen Listen Listen Listen" - I will

answer your questions, but animals have problems too. Know Your Meme.

http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/479424-sharifah-zohra-jabeens-tirade-listen-listen-

listen-listen. Retrieved 15 May 2014]

The music video published by Yuri Wong Music (2013) features an

electronic dance beat in 4/4 time with synthesised strings, bass and an auto-

tuned looping catchphrase, “Listen! Listen! When I speak, listen!” as a

haunting chorus. The following three verses parody Sharifah’s lines in clear,

logical narratives: the first establishes authority in speech with “when this is

our programme, we allow you to speak”, “number one… number two…

number three…” and “let me speak! let me speak!”; the second launches the

286 Chow Ow Wei

problem statements with “do you think only humans have problems”, “I’ll

show you what else have problems”, “animals have problems” and “I’ll tell

you which animal has problems”; the last exemplifies animals that have

problems with the curiously rhetorical line, “have you ever thought of all

these animal rights?” The recurring keyword “listen”, combined with

Sharifah’s official affiliation, her sarcasm and the cyclic scene of microphone

removal, formulates an instantly recognisable idea about hegemony in

Malaysian politics. That said, the video was well-received and the creator

was highly praised, perhaps for the ‘justice’ done by turning the audio

visual data into another form of sarcasm through poking fun at a believable

repressor. Sounding rather appealing to audiences who have also embrace

with little hesitation the global hit “Gangnam Style”7 popularised by South

Korea’s Psy, this musical parody potentially addresses to netizens

particularly urbanite, educated and tech-savvy Malaysians ranging from

teenagers to the working class who may also have extensively developed

sentiments towards pro-opposition political views.

Work title Dance Remix: Listen! Listen! When I Speak, Listen!

Uniform resource locator https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL25dpv_cg0

Composer/ Music mixer Yuri Wong Music

‘Scriptwriter’/ ‘Lyricist’ Sharifah Zohra Jabeen

‘Artists’/ ‘Performer’ Sharifah Zohra Jabeen, Bawani KS

‘Producer’/ ‘Director’/ ‘Editor’ Yuri Wong Music

‘Production crew’ Yuri Wong Music

Publisher The Factory Music Studio, Petaling Jaya, Selangor,

Malaysia

Date published 14 January 2013

Duration 122 seconds

Figure 3: General information about the creative parodied work by Yuri Wong Music

to suit the ‘Malaysian Content’ inquiries in the simulation framework.

In a recent study on musical parody on the Internet, the YouTube online

commentary on Yuri Wong Music’s parody video “Dance Remix: Listen!

7 Accumulating 2,072,932,951 views, 8,560,069 likes, 1,090,731 dislikes, 7,402,608

subscriptions and 5,248,030 online comments on YouTube as of 28 August 2014 (OfficialPSY, 2012), it is the most viewed video on YouTube at present (Benjamin, 2014). “Gangnam”, together with “Psy” and “Listen style” were among top keywords that hit 118 counts on Yuri Wong Music (2013) as of 24 January 2013.


Listen! When I Speak, Listen!” has been hermeneutically analysed (Chow,

2015). The result has highlighted a comprehensive understanding in 3,402

comments in total: 47.4% showing ‘appreciation and amazement to the

parodied work and the creativity of the producer, the overall video

presentation, the view hits it received and the media hype it has henceforth

created’. Among those who commented beyond the context of this musical

parody, 15.4% and 3.3% scrutinised the institutional representation and

students of the institution appearing in the video; 7.9% inclined to further

parody what is represented on the video; and 1.4% inclined to bring out

issues of discrimination on race, religion, gender and nationalities. The

musical parody has collected 1,384,312 views, and among all 13,024 ‘like’/

‘dislike’ indicators, 97.7% likes it (Chow, 2015).

Norms and Music in Malaysia

What shapes the music environment and appropriates music to be

performed, produced or made accessible to the general public are often the

social norms. In Malaysia, the soundscape is characterised by the many,

pluralist norms that advocates the predominantly Malay–Muslim culture as

well as the cultural bearers of other ethnicities and religions. It is believed

that the historical past in the Malay Peninsula that for centuries welcome

Buddhist, Hindu, Islamic and European worldviews, has enabled the

making of the multiple facets of social ethics in a society that develops

cultural diversity. Despite the Secular Law 8 and the Syariah Law

representing the dual justice system, there is a mixture of conceptions of

many belief systems – of actual or presumed standards of ethnic, religious,

cultural, historical or political considerations – in present-day Malaysia, and

therefore constituting a set of rather complex social norms that narrate

diverse ideas, however, tolerating their divergence. Thus, within the

relatively ‘undefined’, ‘fragile’, ‘grey’ areas, one may find music as one of

the many subjects which is considered ‘sensitive’, ‘controversial’ or ‘taboo’

and often becoming the basis of administrative concerns over social stability

or national security. This may explain the significant role of commissioned

laws and regulations that seemingly neutralises social biases and safeguards

the present conditions of normative music accessibility in Malaysia. In order

to keep ‘harmony’ within all norms in the country, censorship of

multimedia contents is sophisticatedly operated in Malaysia with existing

8 Comprising English common law and customary law.

288 Chow Ow Wei

laws and guidelines such as the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998

(Act 588) and the Film Censorship Act 2002 (Act 620)9.

Considering this scenario, one may subsequently wonder how a parody

work is perceived by the law abiders in Malaysia who may presume to

widely understand a parody. A ‘parody’ is a deliberate imitation of another

work, style, genre or body of works by ‘treating light, satirical or mock-

heroic subjects’ (Dentith, 2000: 10), assuming the original is recognisable to

the audience whose attention is drawn to ‘significant features of the

original’ (Jewell & Louise, 2012: 6). It can be recognised as a form of

recontextualisation of the original text, or be referred to ‘any cultural

practice which provides a relatively polemical allusive imitation of another

cultural production or practice’ (Dentith, 2000: 9). In contemporary China, a

relatively authoritarian institution where Internet policing is practiced, the

parodic activities demonstrates ‘a site where issues of power struggle, class

reconsolidation, social stratification, (online) community formation, and

cultural intervention, along with the transformative power of digital

technologies, intersect’, and thus ‘provides an alternative locus of power,

permitting the transgression of existing social and cultural hierarchies’

(Gong & Yang, 2010: 4). The phenomenal “grass mud horse” parody in the

Chinese Internet has reflected ‘a rebellious idea to resist institutional

surveillance’ (Chow, 2014: 157) as how netizens reacted against the Internet

censorship that is better known as the Great Firewall of China.

Running the Simulation Framework

Justifying ‘Malaysian content’

Before evaluating an audiovisual work, it is essential for Malaysians to

assess whether the work contains any ‘Malaysian content’. Four statements

in the Guideline on Malaysian Content Definition10 (Ministry of Information,

9 The first Act adopted as the film censorship policy all across Malaysia was

Cinematograph Films Act 1952 (Amendment 1966). Source:

http://www.moha.gov.my/index.php/en/maklumat-korporat/maklumat-bahagian/lembaga-penapis-filem, retrieved on 26 April 2014.

10 This definition was developed as a solution to ‘difficulties and ineffectiveness of enforcement on the regulations regarding content development activities in Malaysia’ since there was yet ‘no common reference on the definition of Malaysian Content to be used by ministries, government agencies, broadcasters and content producers’. Jointly developed by the Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture (MICC) and Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission


Communications and Culture, 2012: 4–5) explain what aspects constitute

‘Malaysian content’:

1. Notwithstanding anything contained herein, ‘content’ (except

advertisements which are subject to the Made In Malaysia or MIM

Advertisement Guideline under the jurisdiction of FINAS) means any

sound, text, still picture, moving picture or other audio visual

representation, tactile representation or any combination of the

preceding which is capable of being created, manipulated, stored,

retrieved or communicated through any platform.

2. ‘Malaysian’ means an individual who is a citizen or a permanent

resident of Malaysia.

3. ‘Producer’ or ‘programme manager’ means the person who has overall

responsibility for a programme from the beginning to the end and not

limited to any particular platform.

4. ‘Malaysian values and norms’ mean Malaysian values and norms that

are acceptable under the philosophy and concept of 1Malaysia11.

At a glance (see Figure 3), it is clear that “Dance Remix: Listen, Listen, When

I Speak, Listen!” contains ‘Malaysian content’ since it is an audio visual

representation being edited, produced and disseminated by an individual

who is a citizen of Malaysia. From the beginning to the end the individual is

responsible for the creative work that develops a certain acceptable source

of Malaysian values and norms 12 , as it satisfies certain criteria to be

considered as Malaysian content (as stipulated in Ministry of Information,

Communications and Culture, 2012: 6 –11) as in the following rationales:

(MCMC) with the cooperation of Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MOSTI), Multimedia Development Corporation (MDeC), Measat Broadcast Network Systems Sdn. Bhd. (ASTRO), Kumpulan Media Prima Berhad (MPB), Radio Televisyen Malaysia (RTM), National Film Development Corporation Malaysia (FINAS) and the Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia (CMCF) as industry representative, this definition applies to various forms of multimedia content ranging from audio, video, digital, analogue to networked and non-networked content (Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture, 2012: 1).

11 As stipulated in http://www.1malaysia.com.my/en/my-record/1-malaysia/ viewed 22 April 2014.

12 The source is a video recorded and uploaded by a Malaysian non-government organisation on a debate between two Malaysians about some issues in Malaysia at a forum organised at a Malaysian national university.

290 Chow Ow Wei

Section E (i): Content is considered produced under the creative control of

Malaysians since any three of the following criteria are fulfilled:

(a) The producer is a Malaysian.

(b) The director is a Malaysian.

(c) The scriptwriter is a Malaysian.

(d) All ‘lead performers’ are Malaysians.

(e) All ‘production crew’ such as make-up artist, cameraman

and others are Malaysians.

(f) The content is produced or post-produced in Malaysia.

(ii): At least 70% of the overall production cost (including production) of the

content is expended in Malaysia.

(iii): Contents material comprises content that is identifiably Malaysian and

be in accordance with the philosophy and concept of 1Malaysia13.

Section F (3)(i): Music based content broadcast over radio14 is considered

Malaysian since any following criteria is fulfilled:

(a) The lyrics were ‘written’ by a Malaysian.

(b) The music was composed by a Malaysian.

(c) The music or lyrics was or were principally ‘performed’ or

‘sung’ by ‘musicians’ who are Malaysians.

(d) The recording and production of music was made in

Malaysia (if the artist is non-Malaysian).

(e) The ‘artist’ or ‘musicians’ are Malaysians (if the recording

and production of music is made overseas).

Censoring

Even though the Communication and Multimedia Content Forum of

Malaysia has a set of rating classifications for broadcasting and audiotext

media15, the Film Censorship Board practices classifying and altering16 films

13 The creative works contain both English and Malay languages and depict Muslim

and non-Muslim Malaysians. 14 Criteria of Radio Content is considered since there is no category for ‘Internet

Content’ in this context.

15 Communication and Multimedia Content Forum in Malaysia, 2004: 34–35, 53.


that are intended to be screened or distributed to the general public. Films

are classified according to the following definitions17:

This category is suitable for viewing by all levels of

society without any age restrictions. The film

displays noble values, is decent, imparts positive

messages and is entertaining.

This category is suitable for viewing by those aged

13 years and above. Viewers below 13 years require

the guidance of their parents or guardian. The

film has some scenes of violence or horror.

This category is suitable for viewing by those aged

18 years and above. The film contains elements of

violence, horror and sex that are not excessive or

may touch on aspects of religion, socio-culture and

politics.

Figure 4: Categories and definitions of film classification as practiced by the Film

Censorship Board of Malaysia (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2012: 25).

For a creative work considered to contain ‘Malaysian content’, the result of

the simulation framework would look like the following:

Type: Musical (Music Video)

Themes: Entertainment, Social, Politics

Total Cut: None (Passed Clean)

Classification: 18

Synopsis/ Description: The audiovisual material appears as a music video

developed from a video recording, “Forum Suara Mahasiswa”. This 122-

second video begins with a scene showing two women arguing in a seminar

16 ‘Alteration’ is interpreted as an act that includes excision, addition, deletion, erasure,

reconstruction or removal of scenes, dialogues or sound, in totality or in part, of a film, and also includes the insertion or amendment of subtitles in a film (Commissioner of Law Division, 2006b: 9).

17 Films that fail to be approved and classified may be given the following statuses: Tidak Lulus Untuk Tayangan or TUT (not suitable for screening), or Ditolak Atas Asas Teknikal or TTK (rejected on a technical basis).

292 Chow Ow Wei

hall in Malaysia filled with some university students, as the woman in black

interrupts another and speaks dominantly. Recurring items throughout the

video are:

1. Audio expressions such as “listen”, “when I speak, listen” and “let me

speak”.

2. Visual loops showing the woman in black seizes the microphone from

another, her exaggerating body movements and finger-pointing

gestures as well as funny-looking expression of another woman.

3. Animal cartoons.

The Basis of Classification: This video has been given the classification of “18”

based on the following reasons:

1. The video is produced based on a parody theme on another video

which was chosen as the source of spoofing without a substantial,

positive meaning to the society.

2. The video has no obvious plot and only to imply the dominance of a

woman by emphasising “listen, listen…” in the ‘lyrics’ and being seen

‘dancing’ to the accompanying musical beat.

3. There is no violent, horror or sexual connotations as seen in the video.

However, it clearly depicts racist behaviour and aggressive

confrontation that may bring about doubt and uneasiness among

audience and therefore it only is recommended for mature audience.

4. No coarse language or profanity has been observed.

5. This video is a parody work that may contain some negative

implications that is not in coherence with the following guidelines as

stipulated in the following:

Guidelines for Film Censorship (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2012: 5–13):

Subsection 2.1.1 (v):

Dialogue, lyrics and actions that are provocative, slanderous or stir social

unrest by bringing about doubt and uneasiness which finally threaten

safety, public order and national security.


Subsection 2.3.1 (i):

Display of negative content that degrades, mocks and dispute the

customs and traditions and the sovereignty of the Malay rulers,

governors and national issues.

Subsection 2.3.1 (vii):

Mocking or scaremongering that can lead to confusion about the

customs and ceremonies in Malaysia.

Subsection 2.3.1 (ix):

Scenes of oppression of a race or society.

Subsection 2.3.2:

Does not reflect the cultures and the arts of the nation.

Subsection 2.4.1 (v):

Dialogue or scenes which show contemptible, discourteous and

despicable actions that are projected as normal or a source of amusement.

The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) (Commissioner of

Law Division, 2006a: 108–109):

Subsection 211 (1):

No content applications service provider, or other person using a content

applications service, shall provide content which is indecent, obscene,

false, menacing, or offensive in character with intent to annoy, abuse,

threaten or harass any person.

The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code

(Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia, 2004: 17):

Section 7: False Content

7.1: Content, which contains false material and is likely to mislead, due

amongst others to incomplete information is to be avoided. Content

providers must observe measures outlined in specific parts of this Code

to limit the likelihood of perpetuating untruths via the communication of

false content.

7.2: Content is false where prior to communications reasonable measures

to verify its truth have not been adopted or taken.

294 Chow Ow Wei

7.3: Content which is false is expressly prohibited except in any of the

following circumstances: (a) Satire and parody; (b) Where it is clear to an

ordinary user that the content is fiction.

7.4: Code Subjects must take all necessary steps outlined in the specific

parts of this Code to limit the likelihood of provision of false Content.

According to Section 2 of Part V: Films that are not Approved for Screening

in Guidelines for Film Censorship (Ministry of Home Affairs, 2012: 23),

films that have an illogical theme, storyline or plot that may lead the

citizens astray and cause foreign countries to have a poor perception of the

socio-culture and noble values of the local population will not be approved

for screening. However, being an exception as described in Subsection 7.3 of

the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code, the film

does not contain an excessive degree of illogical theme, storyline or plot,

and therefore it is approved for screening for restricted audiences above 18

years old.

Deconstructing the Simulation Framework

The constructed simulation framework contains some contradictions:

Inapplicability: The Film Censorship Act 2002 (Act 620) cannot be applied

to YouTube videos like “Dance Remix: Listen, Listen, When I Speak,

Listen!” on the ground of the definition of ‘film’ according to Section 318.

Moreover, as stipulated in Section 2 (3), it shall not be construed as

permitting the censorship of any film or film-publicity material published,

displayed, circulated, exhibited, distributed or transmitted over the internet

or over intranets (Commissioner of Law Division, 2006b: 8).

Indefinition of Roles: The music video contains audiovisual content

parodied from another video by video editing, ‘auto-tuning’ and sound

mixing probably done by only an editor or a mixer. In this derivative work,

unfortunately, it is not possible to credit anybody as the artist, performer,

scriptwriter, lyricist or other production crew (in this study the roles are

somehow ‘appropriated’ to fulfill the ‘Malaysian content’ definition).

18 ‘Film’ includes the original or duplicate of the whole or any part of (a) a

cinematograph film; and (b) a videotape, diskette, laser disc, compact disc, hard disc and other record, of a sequence of visual images, being a record capable of being used as a means of showing that sequence as a moving picture, whether or not accompanied by sound.


Ironically, it will bring about confusion over ‘Malaysian content’ if a ‘non-

Malaysian’ makes a parody from an original ‘Malaysian’ video with the

same method.

Nationalised Stereotype: The constitution of ‘Malaysian content’ is

problematic. On the subject of multiculturalism which is seen as a ‘greatly

misused and highly misunderstood’ term in America (Rosado, 1996: 2),

Rosado questioned what constitutes an ‘American’ phenotypically, and

affirmed that those who differ from this visual image of what is perceived

to be an ‘American’ to experience rejection (Rosado, 1996: 7–8). Similarly, to

define ‘Malaysian content’ is to simultaneously inquire what constitute a

‘Malaysian’ and what creative component in the content can officially be

owned by ‘Malaysian’. Besides, to associate this distinction by nationality

with the acceptable Malaysian values and norms under the philosophy and

concept of 1Malaysia is like creating a ‘multiculturalist paradox’, which

seems to segregate a production team into some fixed (and sometimes

mistaken) categories and to ultimately discourage multi-disciplinary or

transnational undertakings. Furthermore, such constitution does not work

in cases where social and cultural hybridity greatly exists.

Falsity: The Communication and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588) and the

Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code prohibit false

content to be disseminated in the Internet, but according to the Malaysian

Communications and Multimedia Content Code, an exception is given to

satire, parody, or a clearly fictional content (Communications and

Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia, 2004: 17). Despite an unreasonable

exclusion of other types of parody art (pastiche, caricature, spoof, irony), the

boundary between ‘falseness’ and ‘truth’ is still indefinite. Moreover,

‘mocking’, ‘degrading’ or ‘dispute’ in criticism are usually found as in any

parody work that may seems ‘contemptible’, ‘discourteous’ and ‘despicable’

to some but also appears as ‘a source of amusement’ to others. Whether the

work potentially puts up some ‘negatively’ perceived content depends on a

censor’s critical judgment, which is, however, dependent on personal

subjectivity.

Questionability of Parody: Conditions like ‘confusion’, ‘controversy’,

‘doubt’ and ‘uneasiness’ that stir ‘social unrest’ and eventually ‘threaten

safety, public order and national security’ are seen as an interpretation of

the effects a film may trigger, but factors that cause these conditions are not

specifically provided. In order to avoid these conditions, audience should

recognise and understand the parody completely. The perception of

296 Chow Ow Wei

audience is, however, always the question because ‘the success of a parody

requires the audience to understand both the reference to the original and

the critical intend’ (Powell & Louise, 2012: 6).

Random (Mis)interpretations of Culture: There is no official definition on

the ‘cultures and the arts of the nation’, and therefore the allegation that a

film ‘does not reflect cultures and the arts of the nation’ is often obscure. As

a result, ‘undefined’, ‘grey’ normative areas are often interpreted by many

unspoken rules. One of the possible issues is the appearance of Muslim in

the parody video viewed by over 1.3 million netizens. Two sharp netizens

named Dodalalal91 and WcW criticised Sharifah Johra Jabeen, who

represents a Muslim woman, for not knowing the ‘need’ to cover her

awrah19 as the ‘basic’, and therefore she is regarded not respectful to Islam

(Yuri Wong Music, 2013).

Masked Man Fallacy: The parody work inevitably projects the racial issues

where in the original video a race is seen ‘oppressed’ by another, but the

video is not of false content as it materialises scenes from a true, unjust

incident. The exaggeration of the scene in the parody does not help

oppressing the victim but in contrary help to publicly scrutinise the

oppressor. In the name of harmony, if a ban is necessarily called, the

oppressor should be put in question as well as the original video should be

banned instead.

The biggest issue in problematising the framework is that the decision to

permit or to prohibit people in Malaysia watching a multimedia work is

only made by a closed, elitist minority group in the institution. In the case of

this simulation, the author made his own decision without consulting any

expertise from various fields such as film making, audio mixing, media

broadcast, sociology, psychology and cultural studies. The process of

decision-making, including assessment, interpretation, classification and

alteration of multimedia works based on the acts and guidelines, does not

usually involve discussion, inquiry, or feedback from the public domain

especially intellectuals. Animah Kosai, a former member of the Malaysian

Bar Council Human Rights Committee, indicates that the Film Censorship

Board, ‘Has no fixed guidelines, but there is a lot of uncertainty and it is not

applied consistently’ (Khoo et al, 2003: 70). Though having been first

19 There are many complicated rules for the awrah of Muslim women. Among many

schools of thought, every body part, except a woman’s face and hands, is awrah (BBC, 2009). In this context, Sharifah’s extremely vocal manner also became questionable as reflected in WcW’s comment (Yuri Wong Music, 2013).


published in 2011, the censorship guidelines are not comprehensive or well-

researched as a rule set applicable to all cultural carriers in Malaysia.

Furthermore, decisions approved by the Film Censorship Board are

sometimes susceptible to modification as to compromise with some

opinions of ‘ethno-nationalist cultural critics’ (Khoo, 2011: 200)20. At present,

people can rely on the internet as a more important information source that

transmits faster and wider, the existing standards of Film Censorship Board

may have appeared rather irreconcilable with the globalised development

of culture and ethics.

In a nutshell, this simulation framework cannot sufficiently indicate the

appropriateness of musical parody to the general audience across different

social strata in Malaysia, despite the fact that it is designed for the reason to

propagate uniformity that also eliminates dissonant views.

Troublemaker or 'Alerter'?

The trouble of musical parody in Malaysia is that parody presentations are

often denounced and the parodists are blamed for causing ‘social unrest’,

while the subject of parody is shifted from the public attention. The way

parodists are dealt with in Malaysia illustrates the reluctance of the

authorities and their associates to understand the content and to recognise

the constructiveness in parody. Rather, parodists are often seen as

delinquent or illicit troublemakers. Zunar, a local political cartoonist (Soon,

2011a & 2011b), and Ernest Zacharevic, a visual artist from Lithuania (BBC

Trending, 2013; AFP Relaxnews, 2014), have produced highly stimulating

parody works in Malaysia, and they have experienced repressive reactions

from the government. Much earlier, a composer and performer named

Namewee produced a provocative musical parody based on the national

anthem and he faced a downpour of condemnation from politicians due to

the controversy (The Star Online, 2007). Yuri Wong, who produced another

musical parody called “Kangkung Remix” (Yuri Wong Music, 2014) a year

after the “Listen” remix, was questioned by the police when the video went

viral (Jastin Ahmad Tarmizi, 2014).

20 Akmal Abdullah (2006) published a vocal critique on Berita Harian against the

approved screening of “The Last Communist”, a film directed by Amir Muhammad. He succeeded finally to get the film banned by Film Censorship Board (Khoo, 2011: 200).

298 Chow Ow Wei

However, parodists should be defended as notifiers or 'alerters' instead of

troublemakers. A Zen metaphor of ‘finger pointing to the moon’ says: “To

look at the moon, it is necessary to gaze beyond the finger” (Thum, 2008).

Likewise, a music parody intends to forward criticism to the parodied

subject that may have appeared more ‘sensitive’, ‘controversial’ and ‘taboo’

than the parody work. Parodists, who highlight a subject like a pointing

finger, do not start the subject; they are a medium to alert their audience to

the subject, and so their audience could engage with it, offer an opinion,

and learn through exposure. The case of the ‘grass mud horse’ phenomenon

in China, Chow (2014) probed a situation when music expressing a different

opinion is not ‘what the authorities of any institution want to hear’, and he

questioned ‘how much effort in ‘harmonisation’ (censorship) need to be

done in a more sophisticated approach in order to silence music’ (2014: 157).

Therefore, in the worst case when parodists are arrested by an institution, it

definitely brings about an indication that the society is seriously stricken

with decadence of ethics, and numerous deep seated problems in need of

urgent solutions.

More Questions Derived and Conclusive Statements

1. Can the appropriateness of musical parody be assessed with laws and

regulations?

2. How would laws and regulations be conditioned?

3. What are the normative considerations included and excluded?

4. Are the guidelines currently in use sufficient to neutralize all social

biases? How can we ensure the guidelines are not susceptible to

preordained perceptions and diverse interpretations, as to enable the

highest objectivity in a censor’s judgment?

5. Would it be a different scenario if decision makers of censorship

represent the majority of Malaysian society and also understand music,

dance, films and the arts?

A typical irony arises as some would rebuke a parody work for its falseness

in creative content but its popularity may offer a depiction of the truth that

people cannot express explicitly. A general scenario in Malaysia is to believe

that parody allegedly collides with ‘national security’ concerns, while the

authorities’ effort to find discrepancies in the creative work is as if a better

means to terminate any ‘controversy’.


Nevertheless, general performers and musicians in Malaysia should have

learned the complication that their works and personalities are not just

being susceptible to disputes arising from the aforementioned laws and

guidelines but also being potentially alleged to offences of a ‘seditious

tendency’21 as defined in the Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15), a more formidable

law enacted by the British in the same year when the Federation of Malaya

was established. A recent article on a social-related art involvement in

Malaysia confirms the general fear surrounding most Malaysian artists who

would rather work on ‘less risky issues’ and ‘avoid involvement in sensitive

issues’ (Thassanaphak, 2009: 184).

Therefore, this leads to the final question: How would we propose a

perspective to see and appreciate a musical parody instead of being morally

petrified? As the self-mocking presentation in the closing ceremony of the

XXII Winter Olympic Games in Sochi, Russia has showed the world how a

parody on the Olympic rings malfunction could help to alleviate an

embarrassment out of a big mistake done by one of the great powers in the

world (Grossman, 2014), we may have grasped an answer that is

surprisingly less complicated: Just engage more wit and humour!

References

AFP Relaxnews (2014, 9 February). Lithuanian ‘Banksy’ Makes Malaysian Streets His Canvas. The Malay Mail Online. http://www.themalaymailonline.com/ features/article/lithuanian-banksy-makes-malaysian-streets-his-canvas. Retrieved 2 May, 2014.

Akmal Abdullah (2006, 4 May). Filem Lelaki Komunis Terakhir Untuk Rakyat Malaysia? [The Last Communist for Malaysian Citizens?] Berita Harian Online. Accessible via: Komunis & Kampung. http://lastcommunist.blogspot.com/2006/05/from-berita-harian-4-may.html. Retrieved 3 May, 2014.

BBC Trending (2013, 13 November). Trending: Ernest Zacharevic, Malaysia's Answer to Banksy. BBC News. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-24924283. Retrieved 2 May, 2014.

BBC (2009, 3 September). Hijab. BBC – Religion: Islam. http://www.bbc.co.uk /religion/ religions/islam/beliefs/hijab_1.shtml. Retrieved 2 May, 2014.

21 Section 3 (1) stipulates 6 conditions that constitutes a seditious tendency, and these

include an event of ‘to question any matter, right, status, position, privilege, sovereignty or prerogative established or protected by the provisions of Part III of the Federal Constitution or Article 152, 153 or 181 of the Federal Constitution’ (Commission of Law Division, 2006c: 6).

300 Chow Ow Wei

Benjamin, Jeff (2014, 30 May). PSY's 'Gangnam Style' Hits 2 Billion YouTube Views. Billboard. http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/k-town/6106224/psy-gang nam-style-2-billion-views-youtube-kpop. Retrieved 28 August, 2014.

Chong, Debra (2013a, 15 January). ‘Listen, listen, Listen’ Woman Sparks New Memes. The Malaysian Insider. http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/ listen-listen-listen-woman-sparks-new-memes/. Retrieved 23 February, 2014.

Chong, Debra (2013b, 15 January). On Facebook, ‘Listen, Listen, Listen’ Woman’s NGO Attacks Vocal ‘Little Ambiga’. The Malaysian Insider. http://www. themalaysianinsider.com/malaysia/article/on-facebook-listen-listen-listen-womans-ngo-attacks-vocal-little-ambiga/. Retrieved 23 February, 2014.

Chow Ow Wei (2015). YouTubing ‘Malaysia’s Gangnam Style with LOL: A Hermeneutic Study on the ‘Listen, Listen, Listen’ Phenomenon in the Internet. Kuandu Music Journal, 21 (in print).

Chow Ow Wei (2014). Song about ‘Mother’ at the Verge of Being ‘Harmonised’: Propagation of Resistance against the Great Firewall of China. Music and Mind. Serdang: Univ. Putra Malaysia, 143–160.

Commissioner of Law Division (2006a). The Communications and Multimedia Act 1998 (Act 588). Kuala Lumpur: Commissioner of Law Division, Malaysia.

Commissioner of Law Division (2006b). The Film Censorship Act 2002 (Act 620). Kuala Lumpur: Commissioner of Law Division, Malaysia.

Commissioner of Law Division (2006c). The Sedition Act 1948 (Act 15). Kuala Lumpur: Commissioner of Law Division, Malaysia.

Communications and Multimedia Content Forum of Malaysia (2004). The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Content Code. www.skmm.gov.my/ skmmgovmy/files/attachments/ContentCode.pdf‎. Retrieved 3 May, 2014.

Dentith, Simon (2000). Parody. London: Routledge.

Erzi (尔子)(2013, 13 February). “Listen 大学生”了没？(Aren’t you the ‘listen’ generation?) Guang Ming Daily 光明日报 . http://www.guangming.com.my/node/ 158775? tid=2. Retrieved 26 February, 2014.

Gomez, Lydia (2013, 14 January). Video of Forum Speaker Insulting Student Goes Viral. Yahoo News. http://my.news.yahoo.com/video-of-university-forum-panelist-insulting-student-goes-viral-092706199.html. Retrieved 23 March, 2014.

Gong Haomin and Yang Xin (2010). Digitised Parody: the Politics of Egao in Contemporary China. China Information. 24 (3), 3–26.

Grossman, Samantha (2013, 23 February). Russia Pokes Fun at Itself by Recreating Olympic Rings Malfunction. Time. http:// http://time.com/9287/russia-pokes-fun-at-itself-by-recreating-olympic-rings-malfunction/. Retrieved 15 May, 2014.

Jastin Ahmad Tarmizi (2014, 17 January). Police: No Arrest of Musician over “Kangkung” Song. The Star Online. http://m.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?hl= Police+No+arrest+of+musician+over+kangkung+song&id=%7BCE818FF1-D56A-4130-A82D-2CFD82B53492%7D. Retrieved 2 May, 2014.


Jewell, Paul and Jennie Louise (2012). It's Just a Joke – Defining and Defending (Musical) Parody. Australian Review of Public Affairs. 10 (2), 1–12.

Khoo, Eddin, et al (2003). Freedom of Expression in the Arts. Kuala Lumpur: National Human Rights Society (HAKAM).

Khoo Gaik Cheng (2011). Taking Liberties: Independent Filmmakers Representing the Tudung in Malaysia. Islam and Popular Culture in Indonesia and Malaysia. Andrew N. Weintraub, ed. Abingdon: Routledge. 195–211.

Ministry of Home Affairs (2012). Guidelines on Film Censorship. 2nd ed. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Home Affairs.

Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture (2012). Guidelines on Malaysian Content Definition. Kuala Lumpur: Ministry of Information, Communications and Culture.

Netto, Anil (2013, 18 January). 'Listen! Listen!' Dance Remix Surges past 1 Million Views. http://anilnetto.com/society/arts-and-culture/listen-listen-dance-remix-surges-to-1-million-views/. Retrieved 23 March, 2014.

Rosado, Caleb (1996). Towards a Definition of Multiculturalism. http://www.rosado.net /pdf/Def_of_Multiculturalism.pdf. Retrieved 1 May, 2014.

Soon Chuan Yean (2011a). A Cartoonist’s Resistance. Inter-Asia Cultural Studies. 12 (3), 420–429.

Soon Chuan Yean (2011b). The Contest for Moral Politics: Interrogating the Cultural Politics of Malaysian Cultural Groups. Kajian Malaysia. 29 (1), 215–238.

Star, The (2007, 15 August). Student Rapper Apologies. Archives – the Star Online. http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx/?file=%2f2007%2f8%2f15%2fnation%2f18592215&sec=nation. Retrieved 2 May, 2014.

Thassanaphak, Karnt (2009). The Art of ‘Campaign Media’: the Art of Presenting ‘Alternative Media’ in the World of ‘Mainstream Media’. Confluences and Challenges in Building the Asian Community in the Early 21st Century: the Work of the 2008/2009 API Fellow. Tokyo: The Nippon Foundation, 179–185.

Thum, Myrko (2008). The Meaning of Finger Pointing to the Moon. http://www. myrkothum.com/the-meaning-of-the-finger-pointing-to-the-moon/. Retrieved 3 May, 2014.

Videography

Namewee (2013, 15 January). Namewee Tokok 009: listen 听我说 15-01-2013 [video presentation]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Qcd6GkPM-k. Retrieved 11 August, 2014.

N.N. (2013, 14 January). Listen! Listen! Listen! – Sharifah Zohra Jabeen [live recording]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV2-IrTKt3o. Retrieved 11 August, 2014.

OfficialPSY (2012, 15 July). PSY – Gangnam Style (강남스타일) M/V [music video]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bZkp7q19f0. Retrieved 28 August, 2014.

302 Chow Ow Wei

Mat Lufthi (2013, 16 January). Parodi Forum Suara Mahasiswa [video presentation]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCjsMr658ZQ. Retrieved 11 August, 2014.

Yuri Wong Music (2013, 14 January). Dance remix: Listen! Listen! When I Speak, Listen! [music video]. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xL25dpv_cg0. Retrieved 11 August, 2014.

Yuri Wong Music (2014, 13 January). Kangkung Remix. [music video]. http://www. youtube.com/watch?v=Uwy5MH14i8M. Retrieved 11 August, 2014.

A Simulation Framework for Assessing ‘Appropriateness’ of Musical Parody in 21st-century...

Documents

Transcript of A Simulation Framework for Assessing ‘Appropriateness’ of Musical Parody in 21st-century...