Trial of Malaysia Dissident May Backfire

Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad is a man of brilliance and vision but not one given to accepting blame. But he must have wondered Tuesday if his arrest of heir apparent Anwar Ibrahim had not been a grave political miscalculation.

Lawyers and human rights groups questioned Malaysia’s fairness in bringing Anwar to trial. Malaysians criticized the government’s aversion to openness. And Anwar himself, far from being politically disemboweled, was riding a wave of popularity as one of Southeast Asia’s most famous dissidents.

Anwar, 51, who was deputy prime minister and finance minister until his sacking Sept. 2, waved to family and supporters Tuesday in the courtroom where his trial on sodomy and corruption charges entered its second day. The trial might last seven or eight months. Anwar has denied all charges and said they were trumped up by Mahathir to undercut Anwar’s influence.

Justice Augustine Paul, who is both judge and jury in the trial, caused a furor Monday by denying special observer status to Amnesty International and other human rights organizations. They will be treated like other members of the public, he said, and can attend only if they find a vacant seat in the 80-seat courtroom.

“They have no right to be here,” the judge said. “In my opinion, this is an insult to the court. It’s like saying that the court won’t be fair. They are acting like a supervisor to ensure a just trial.”

Human rights activists were shocked by the ruling. On Tuesday, one U.N. observer, Pararm Cumaraswary, said: “We Malaysians want to be in the Security Council at the United Nations. We want to play an important role in the global community. Yet why are we afraid of observers coming in and seeing everything for themselves?”

Mahathir’s policies show he has always believed Asians are willing to sacrifice some civil liberties--such as the right of assembly, free speech and a truly independent judiciary--in exchange for greater economic gain. His government’s moral authority traditionally has rested on the delivery of that gain, and, until the recent recession, Malaysians got big dividends.

Ironically, Mahathir has indicated that he believes the country’s economic future lies in the free flow of information, though not necessarily within Malaysia. He created a local Internet culture with his emphasis on education and technology, and he is overseeing a massive “multimedia corridor” development project that he hopes will attract the computer and software giants of the Information Age.

“But the sad thing,” said an attorney who became a Mahathir critic after Anwar’s arrest, “is that he doesn’t have the courage to let his people think for themselves and make their own decisions. Why shouldn’t we be allowed to debate Anwar’s case openly? Why should our media be just a government mouthpiece? Mahathir educated us, and then he expects us to believe the trash in our newspapers?”

With local TV stations forbidden to show images of anti-Mahathir protesters, Malaysians increasingly get their news from CNN, which Mahathir has accused of unbalanced coverage. And they get Anwar’s side of the story from the dozens of pro-Anwar Web sites that have popped up on the Internet. Their limited access to uncensored news has added to their growing mistrust of government institutions.

The lesson for Mahathir, Western diplomats said, is that technology has negated Malaysia’s ability to control the information that shapes popular opinion. And with the economy in depression, Malaysians are willing to raise issues of civil liberties that lay dormant while making money was easy.