The proposal raises serious concerns over privacy, fairness, and the risk of media sensationalism, said anti-corruption activist Pushpan Murugiah.

He said “secretive decisions” behind the scenes were of greater harm to public trust in Malaysia’s judicial system than by court proceedings themselves. As examples, he cited such practices as the use of letters of representation to drop or amend charges.

“None of these matters are fully addressed in court, and livestreaming proceedings alone will do nothing to change that,” said Pushpan, who is chief executive of the Center to Combat Corruption and Cronyism.

The proposal for live broadcasts was raised by Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission chief Azam Baki, who said the broadcasts would boost transparency and counter attempts to manipulate public perception through social media.

However, lawyer Rajesh Nagarajan said strong legal safeguards should be put in place.

“New statutory provisions or detailed practice directions would be required to protect privacy, regulate recordings and dissemination, and ensure fair trial rights are not compromised,” he said.

Both Rajesh and Puspan also said live streams could even backfire, either causing witnesses to self-censor out of fear or turn trials into public spectacles.

Rajesh said media coverage and public opinion could pressure judges or distort the legal process.

He further questioned whether the public would fully understand what they were watching, given the complex legal jargon and procedures often involved.

On the other hand, Pushpan suggested it would be more practical to grant public access to court documents in criminal trials, as with civil cases.