I refer to the letter by Melanie Abdullah Why was 'Da Vinci Code' allowed?

There could be many reasons why the writer's niece found the movie confusing, one of which could be because she's only 16. Perhaps the Malaysian Censorship Board got it right when it decided that this movie requires the maturity of an average 18-year-old Malaysian. And lest the writer retaliates by saying that her niece is at least as mature as that, let me reiterate the point that there could be many reasons why she found it confusing, reasons which I do not wish to speculate further.

Unless this movie causes unrest in Malaysia, I would like to think that the passing of this movie without any cuts is a step forward for both the Censorship Board and Malaysians. This movie challenges traditional Christian beliefs and actually 'supports' (a most unsuitable word but one which I hope is able to convey my opinion) Islamic beliefs to a certain extent.

If the central theme of this movie becomes a point for peaceful and mature discussion at mamak stalls nationwide, maybe some Malaysians will start realising the belief that it takes political parties to unite Malaysians is outdated.

On the subject of the initial absolute ban on the movie 'Passion of the Christ' this was because it had a live portrayal of Jesus, not to mention a fair amount of blood and gore. 'Da Vinci Code' is less gory, with images of Jesus being restricted to the works of Da Vinci. This could still be argued as being a double standard in film classification and it would also be fair to say that the images of Jesus could offend some Muslim viewers.

If the writer still feels strongly about this issue, I suggest she writes to the Censorship Board to complain and ask for an explanation.

As to the writer's underage niece being allowed into the cinema. I would like to say that the Censorship Board is not a law enforcement agency. The cinema could potentially be found guilty of not asking for proof of age from a young patron but, believe it or not, the writer's niece and any guardian who accompanied her into the cinema are guilty for knowingly flouting the law.

The purpose of the movie is to entertain, not to enlighten.

I would advise the writer, in her capacity as a mature adult, to make an informed decision for herself whether to see the movie, especially since she has read the book and knows what it is all about. The Censorship Board's classification was never meant to be an endorsement. It is but a guideline which they have made quite clear with the '18PL' rating.

I would also advise the writer to have a discussion with her niece. Ask her to form some opinions of her own and let her know yours. Ask her why her opinions might or might not be acceptable to her family, her friends and Malaysian society in general. Ask her what she thinks about flouting the law and whether the classification guidelines turned out to be appropriate ie, based on her level of maturity as a 16-year-old. It will be an opportunity to educate her in a way that she will rarely experience under our current education system.

I, for one, think that our film classification system needs to be fine-tuned to the likes of those in the US, UK and Singapore. But that is a topic for another day.