KUALA LUMPUR: A prosecution witness in the criminal trial of "Mentega Terbang" director Khairi Anwar Jailani and producer Tan Meng Kheng has testified that the film had offended her and hurt her feelings as a Muslim.
Yamna Ismail, 39, said in her witness statement that several scenes involving faith, reincarnation, prejudice, double standards towards Islam, and comparative religion had offended her.
“I was deeply offended because this film has openly insulted, belittled, mocked and ridiculed Islam,” said the housewife.
“After watching the film, I am of the opinion that it contains elements and characteristics of blasphemy against Islam.
“The film could lead Muslims astray in matters of faith."
Yamna said the film, as she understood it, was about a 16-year-old girl named Aisyah who explored various religions in search of an answer to the question, “What happens when we die?”
She said she was offended by a scene in which Aisyah appeared unbothered by eating a pau (bun) containing pork, and another scene in which Aisyah touched a dog without a valid reason.
Yamna also took issue with a scene in which Aisyah invited her friend Suresh into a room to complete an assignment.
She said she lodged a police report after watching the film at her home on Feb 26, 2023.
The film will be screened in court before magistrate Heng Yi Min tomorrow, followed by cross-examination by the defence.
Khairi, 34, who also wrote the screenplay, and Tan, 39, were charged on Jan 17, 2024, with intentionally wounding the religious feelings of others.
The charge under Section 298 of the Penal Code carries a maximum jail term of one year, a fine, or both, upon conviction.
Lawyers Zaid Malek and Mahajoth Singh represented Khairi and Tan, while deputy public prosecutors Nor Azizah Aling and Nadia Izhar appeared for the prosecution.
The defence team also included Nandakumar S Haridas, Karl Rafiq Nadzarin and Reenajir Kaur Golen.
"Mentega Terbang" was released on Nov 28, 2021 before the home ministry banned it on Sept 1, 2023.
In July, the Court of Appeal upheld the home minister’s decision to ban the screening and publicity of the film, ruling that the prohibition was lawful and that the relevant provisions of the Film Censorship Act were constitutional.