"Giving priority to cases involving civil servants is not meant to delay other cases. Rather, it would save the Government money as civil servants were still getting paid while waiting for their cases to be disposed of." - Tun Ahmad Fairuz Sheikh Abdul Halim, Chief Justice (Malaysia)

That statement offers an awfully interesting insight as to how our judiciary system works, no?

Justice means 'the upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with an honour, standard or law'. I struggle to see the fairness in prioritizing cases involving civil servants.

Scenario

Let's assume that both me and a civil servant are charged with contempt of court. Let's also assume that both me and the civil servant are sentenced to a three-month jail term and we have both appealed for that decision to be overturned.

If we apply the rules of our Chief Justice, the civil servant's appeal would be processed first, seeing as he's getting paid by our Government while I am not. His appeal is successful and he gets off. Only then do our courts process my appeal.

Since these processes take a friggin' long time to process in the first place, I wonder how long I have to wait before they finally see my appeal. A case in point this one involving Murray Hiebert (1999).

If you read that article, you'll soon come to the realization that he waited two years for his appeal to be processed. So is it fair if a civil servant's court case processed in say, six months or a year while I wait for two?

Hmm?

Let's all be civil servants, guys and gals...