Case Study: Malaysia

The largely followed trial of Anwar Ibrahim in Malaysia encouraged a debate in that country over whether or not a video camera should be allowed in the courtroom. A trial in Malaysia has never been shown on TV before.

Malaysia’s finance minister and Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was charged with sodomy and corruption on October 5, 1998 after being ousted from office on September 2.

The trial is surrounded by heated emotions. Keith Richburg, a "Washington Post" foreign service correspondent, wrote, "Anwar said the way out of the economic crisis was to adopt a tight money policy, keep interest rates high and start the painful process of cleaning up insolvent companies and banks with too many bad loans. But many of those companies and banks were owned by friends and allies of Mahathir." Apparently, differences between Anwar and the new Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad over fiscal policy may have been what got him supplanted.

Anwar has accused the police of brutality and showed up in court "visibly battered." Malaysian human rights activists are complaining about his treatment. Limitations were put on Anwar and his lawyers in terms of when and how they could prepare their defense. The judge also decided that the trial would be held in English, in order to stymie accusations of injustice outside of Malaysia.

More than two hundred people showed up on the first day of the trial. Riot police were present to keep people from getting to close to the courthouse. For one month Friday prayers at the national mosque in the country’s capitol were followed by protests by Anwar’s supporters.

Because of limited space in the court room, many people were turned away. Only 60 people could be seated in the public gallery of the courtroom. Reporters with seats in the courtroom were not allowed to use audio tapes, or any cameras.

A Malaysian social-reform group said that the trial should be shown on television - "A live telecast would have the added advantage of discouraging anxious Malaysians from gathering outside the court in their vain attempt to follow the proceedings of Malaysia’s most important legal case."

Video can either threaten or assist those in power. There are several instances, besides this one, in which governments - perhaps because they do not have the strong support of their people - push the prohibition of video, among other things.