THIS year is the 40th anniversary of the National Film Development Corporation (Finas). But unfortunately, there is nothing for this corporation and country to celebrate.

In 1982, when I met the first director-general of Finas, Ismail Zain, at its first headquarters in Jalan Ampang Hilir, he said Finas was facing “teething problems”.

Forty years later, Finas is still facing teething problems. The first headquarters of Finas is now a kindergarten for the affluent. 

Finas’ annual highlight was to organise a celebration to commemorate its establishment on July 26 each year, at huge costs, until I pointed out to them that no government agency did that and it was immediately cancelled.

The ministry and Finas chose May 29 as Hari Seniman, or Artistes’ Day, which was celebrated with entertainment shows, until I pointed to them that it was the day film director/actor/singer P. Ramlee died in 1974, and it should not be “celebrated” in such fashion; so the shows were cancelled to make way for more subdued events, such as forums. 

Finas, unlike the two major studios in Singapore during the era of old Malayan cinema, never drew attention to themselves for the achievements of their artistes, either when there was a box office hit or a critical acclaim that any of their films had achieved. 

Most Malaysians, including those in the film industry, are not aware that this year is exactly 40 years since the Finas Act of 1981, or Act 244, was mooted and a special committee was formed on July 26, 1980, to the draft the bill that was passed by Parliament to allow for the establishment of Finas in 1981.

A sum of RM14 million was allocated under the Fourth Malaysia Plan to allow for Finas to operate.

This is a huge amount that is now equivalent to RM60 million. Even at that time, it was large amount that could finance a typical film in Hollywood. And if the Malaysian government had done that and if the film had made money, other than to also help with its image for the promotion of the country, then surely the value will be immeasurable thus rendering further efforts to promote the country to encourage tourism unnecessary.

Unfortunately, this did not happen and Finas today, even as it approaches its fourth decade of existence is nowhere near where it was when the idea to form it was first established.

I had, in fact, gone ahead of the government move by being the first Malaysian to study film directing at a prestigious Ivy League university – Columbia University in New York.

And it was done at my desire to help development by pursuing a master’s degree so that there could be a stronger and more direct relationship between the Malaysian film industry to a major film school at such a university. Columbia was the first university in America in 1912 to offer a course in film, which was screenwriting. At that time, even the film industry, such as those in Hollywood, had not yet realised that university courses could be offered to anyone wishing to pursue a career in film.

I had written to the then deputy prime minister, Dr Mahathir Mohamad, about Finas and the film industry. To my surprise, I received a personal reply from him with his signature in March, 1979.

I was in my second semester at Columbia and was staying in a dormitory, Harmony Hall, with a Columbia university address, so it was very impressive, even by American standards, so it should be easier for many in the country to relate and appreciate, especially when I needed to apply to be a member of any public library, etc.

Unfortunately, the reply I got from Dr Mahathir was not positive and encouraging. It merely said the Malaysian government was trying to establish Finas, but it did not say how I could be of any help in drafting the bill that would be sent to Parliament.

And because of that, the government had allocated hundreds of millions of ringgit since 1981 to today, and the amount may be around RM1.5 billion. Hundreds of staff have been employed, all of whom had not been given any training in film abroad or even in Malaysian universities, so they could be more professional and productive.

I could be the only person to offer the best solutions to the problems that beset the film industry at that time; and caused Finas to become a mini-Hollywood that does not depend on government funding, but who, on the other hand, can offer immense financial returns to the government coffers every year, and trust the industry to become more than just the puerile entertainment mill that it was then and it is today.

This is sad.

And the sadness is compounded by the fact that it is not just money or financial investment alone that drove the old Malayan cinema to develop the way it did, when three enterprising Chinese entrepreneurs from Shanghai – Run Run Shaw, Run Me Shaw and Loke Wan Tho – came to Singapore to establish the Malay Film Productions Studios at 8, Jalan Ampas and East Coast Road in 1938.

No study has been done on why the Shaw brothers and Loke established their studios and started from almost nothing a whole system, with a string of cinemas throughout the country and a distribution network that allowed most of their films to be received well by audiences, which were not just Malays but from others community, too, – making film viewing a favourite pastime for a multiracial crowd. 

One cannot imagine what would have happened if old Malayan cinema had not been created. There would probably be more racial discontent.

And one can easily observe how new Malaysian cinema today has not been established and developed in the same way as old Malayan cinema, which its three founders had never envisaged to see. 

And the committee that was formed to draft the Finas Act, which was approved by Parliament only in 1981, did not comprise experts in the history of the old Malayan cinema or of Hollywood to know what they could include in the bill that could be the basis for the emergence of new Malaysian cinema.

And no one was sent out to go to the right places in the world of the cinema, especially to Hollywood and the other centers in London, Paris, Mumbai, Tokyo, and Hong Kong, to learn about the development of filmmaking in those countries.

If this was done, then the Finas Act would be more effective to allow for the development of new Malaysian cinema from what was left of the old. In the process, the Malaysian film industry, could be turned into one that is independent of funding from the government.

The film industry could be an income-generating industry, much like Hollywood, so that it can engage and employ half a million creative artists and their dependents.

The entertainment industry of Malaysia, too, can benefit from the development of cinema, as most activities in the arts are related to the creation of the cinema.

The end result can be seen in the “muhibbah”, or national harmony, among people of all the races in the country, with films getting wider audiences not only in Malaysia, but also elsewhere, including in Asean and the Muslim world.

Our experts in the arts, education, sociology, psychology, culture, religion and mostly economics have looked elsewhere and have not considered film production to be no more than distractions for those who are artistically inclined. 

The entertainment industry is the sixth or 12th largest industry in America, and if the same industry can achieve the top 20 position in the economy of Malaysia, it is still a great achievement, since earnings from its activities could more than supplement whatever income that the government could get from the other industries.

Therefore, with the awareness that I have posted in this analysis, can we expect the New Finas Act of 2020 be drafted, and this time by experts and not just people with fanciful social and political backgrounds? – July 5, 2019.

* Mansor Puteh reads The Malaysian Insight.

* Note: Though the Finas Act was passed in 1981, the idea was mooted in 1979.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.