IN under a decade, Saudi Arabia has shifted from banning cinemas and concerts to hosting Formula 1 races, boxing bouts, golf tournaments, WWE events, and operating more than 600 cinema screens. Large-scale events like Riyadh Season draw millions and generate billions in economic activity.
The kingdom’s General Entertainment Authority now oversees an industry worth over SAR 50 billion (RM62 billion) annually, employing more than 100,000 people.
Cinema alone brought in SAR 3 billion (RM3.72billion) in box office revenue in 2024. Analysts have pointed out that this is not just cultural change—it is an economic strategy. By creating domestic entertainment options, Saudi Arabia retains money that used to flow abroad, generates jobs, and caters to a growing youth population. Projects under Vision 2030, such as Qiddiya, NEOM’s Trojena ski resort, and the Red Sea Project, combine leisure, tourism, sustainability, and global branding.
A key factor behind Saudi Arabia’s social changes is its youthful population, with around 70% under the age of 30. Observers note that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman appears to be prioritising the aspirations of young people alongside traditional religious expectations. By expanding domestic entertainment and tourism options, the state is offering opportunities that resonate with a globally connected generation, helping address the interests and expectations of its youth.
Both Saudi Arabia and Malaysia are highly dependent on oil and gas exports, but these are finite resources, and both countries know they must diversify their income streams even more if they are to remain sustainable and prosperous.
Malaysia has made tentative moves in the same direction. Cultural budgets are up, and organisers face fewer hurdles to host festivals and concerts. The message is clear: entertainment is more than leisure—it is an industry with immense economic potential. Yet progress is constrained. Urban youths, globally connected and economically vital, often clash with rural conservatism.
The outlook and lived experiences of Malaysians in urban and rural areas often differ significantly, and policies or cultural approaches that work for one group may not suit the other, requiring nuanced strategies rather than one-size-fits-all solutions.
Fewer rural voters wield outsized political influence. Many rural youths are taught to view concerts and cinema-going as immoral, only to later migrate to cities for better employment opportunities. They vote for conservative politicians back home but expect urban society to adapt to their moral and prohibitive standards.
This rise in conservatism has deep roots. Influences include the Islamic revivalism of 1979 in the Arab world, heightened global tensions after 9/11, and more recently the Gaza genocide, which has hardened attitudes. The West has equally contributed to this, by the way it handled the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and now the conflict plaguing much of the Middle East that has spread Islamophobia across societies.
These have also given rise to the growth of preachers and religious influencers spreading restrictive views, which have further reinforced a culture of distrust and alienation. Many have antagonised people of other faiths and backgrounds, often more for personal financial gains and clout rather than spiritual guidance.
Adding to the challenge is the demonisation of the word “liberal.” During former Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Razak’s tenure, he used it to criticise opponents, including current Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim. Over time, “liberal” became a slur, implying those associated with it lacked morals or were corrupt. This is a dangerous distortion. Liberal does not mean amoral—it means open, tolerant, and willing to embrace diversity. By turning the term into an insult, Malaysia undermines the very values that could help it compete in a globalised world.
Events like the Rain Rave Festival in Bukit Bintang, and the contentious debates that ensued, illustrate the tension. Religious authorities condemned the festival as immoral, and some netizens even prayed for disaster to strike attendees. Authorities, and fellow adherents, need to recognise that wishing harm on others is not piety—it is malice disguised as righteousness.
Coldplay’s Kuala Lumpur concert in November 2023 drew an enormous crowd of over 80,000 fans at Bukit Jalil Stadium, making it one of the biggest international shows Malaysia has ever hosted. Despite calls from conservative groups to cancel the event, it went ahead and delivered a major boost to the local economy. Hotels, restaurants, transport operators, and vendors all benefited, with estimates suggesting the concert generated tens of millions of ringgit in tourism and hospitality revenue.
Together with Blackpink’s show earlier that year, the two mega concerts contributed over RM200 million to Malaysia’s economy.
So when critics panned the Rain Rave Festival as immoral and suggested it should only be held in closed or private areas, the Coldplay case shows the contradiction: even globally celebrated acts - those deemed "safe" for all ages - faced cancellation demands despite being held in a closed environment, yet their presence clearly demonstrated the economic and cultural value such events bring to Malaysia.
There is barely a hint of entertainment activity in Kota Bharu. Kelantan has long banned cinemas, concerts, and nightlife venues under the auspices of its state government. As a result, many Kelantanese regularly cross the border into southern Thailand, especially Narathiwat and Hat Yai, to enjoy what is denied to them at home, from live music to nightlife. Would young Klang Valley dwellers eventually be forced into the same situation, heading over to Singapore for concerts and festivals, thereby allowing neighbouring countries to reap the rewards and hundreds of millions in tourism and hospitality revenue that Malaysia itself could have captured?
Malaysia faces two pressing risks. First, brain drain: ambitious urban talent may leave for societies that respect their aspirations. Second, political futility: urban youths who feel sidelined may not support the government at the ballot box, while rural youths remain steadfast in their support for their ultra-conservative leaders. Religious education often reinforces conformity rather than critical thinking, shaping young minds in rigid ways.
Those who hope Malaysia’s urban youth will leave the country, ostensibly because of their “liberal” leanings, do so at their own peril. In time, it will become clear that these are the very people who drive economies and sustain public and private sector services. Without their talent and drive, tax revenue and professional capacity will falter. It is also presumptuous to assume they lack boundaries or morals, when in many cases they are more informed about self-respect, responsibility, and ethical engagement than those who seek to constrain them.
For many urban youths, entertainment is not mere frivolity—it offers a necessary outlet from the pressures of high living costs and work, a form of stress relief and escapism that is enjoyed in moderation. They are not hedonists or those without moral boundaries, they simply value moments of leisure before returning to the challenges of their daily lives.
Looking forward, there is an opportunity for soft power to be re‑channelled. For decades, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states exported conservative religious narratives that shaped Malaysia’s trajectory. Now, with Saudi Arabia itself liberalising, that same soft power can be used to soften stances in Malaysia.
Joint cultural exchanges, collaborative festivals, and educational partnerships could help reframe Islamic values as compatible with openness, creativity, and good‑natured coexistence. Both countries, along with partners in Southeast Asia and the Middle East, can work together to ensure sustainability and prosperity while promoting Islamic values rooted in compassion, respect, and intellectualism rather than policing and fear.
Saudi Arabia shows a model of “liberalisation”—offering entertainment as part of a broader economic and social strategy. Malaysia, by contrast, often limits leisure to appease conservative voices. Both are balancing acts, but only one prioritises its youth’s long-term potential.
If Malaysia continues to restrict cultural experiences, urban youth risk being alienated—both from the political process and the country itself. The takeaway is clear: while Saudi Arabia channels entertainment into growth, Malaysia risks losing economic opportunities and its most talented young minds by keeping the door only slightly open. - May 6, 2026
***A. Azim Idris is a news editor at Scoop.
The post Urban youth in Malaysia face a difficult choice: conform to religious bigots or leave – A. Azim Idris appeared first on Scoop.