CLP graduates reminded of need for high standards16 Feb 2007
The Legal Qualifying Board has a duty to ensure that lawyers are of the highest standards of professionalism, its chairman Tan Sri Abdul Gani Patail said.
He said that was why a high standard was set for the Certificate of Legal Practice examinations. “The board is aware of its public duty to make sure that those issued with a practising certificate have achieved a standard worthy of the needs of the public and the legal profession,” he said.
There was a decline in pass rates for the 2006 exams from the previous year. The pass rate in 2005 was 26.28 per cent, while the figure in 2006 was 26.24 per cent. Out of the 705 candidates who sat for the examination in July and the resit papers in September, 185 achieved full passes.
However,law graduates from local public universities do not have to sit for the CLP exam as they are exempted and would only need to register with the Bar Council to get their licence to practice law. We don't understand why was there a need for this double standard. All of those who have to sit for the CLP exam are graduates with foreign degrees and many are graduates from University of London (UOL). Does it mean to say that UOL graduates are less competent as compared with local graduates? University of London LLB are not easy to attain as the university had set quite a high standard.
If Gani and the CLP board are passionate and wanted the legal fraternity to be professionally competent, they should conduct a survey to determine the quality of graduates produced by the local universities as benchmarked against those who graduated from UOL. That way, we will understand why the Public Prosecutors, largely manned by local graduates, had lost so many cases in the court, in particular, criminal cases and corruption cases. Over the past few months, we have seen and read about those cases where those indicted for drug crimes, rape and murder, had escape punishment largely due to technicality and incompetence. Norjan's murder case, Norrita's murder, and many other drug cases were lost in the court due to prosecution failure to establish the required actus reus and mens rea. In recent cases, we hear of complains and comments by presiding judges over the lack of competencies of the prosecution team and the police. Aren't most of those prosecutors from local universities?
I do not doubt that there are some local graduates that had work hard and acquired good knowledge of law and jurisprudence. But if they are not tested at CLP exams, how could we know that they have had equal or better competencies than those who did CLP exam? Is it that the local universities feared that most, if not all, would fail the CLP exam and expose the local universities incompetencies and disabilities?
He said that was why a high standard was set for the Certificate of Legal Practice examinations. “The board is aware of its public duty to make sure that those issued with a practising certificate have achieved a standard worthy of the needs of the public and the legal profession,” he said.
There was a decline in pass rates for the 2006 exams from the previous year. The pass rate in 2005 was 26.28 per cent, while the figure in 2006 was 26.24 per cent. Out of the 705 candidates who sat for the examination in July and the resit papers in September, 185 achieved full passes.
However,law graduates from local public universities do not have to sit for the CLP exam as they are exempted and would only need to register with the Bar Council to get their licence to practice law. We don't understand why was there a need for this double standard. All of those who have to sit for the CLP exam are graduates with foreign degrees and many are graduates from University of London (UOL). Does it mean to say that UOL graduates are less competent as compared with local graduates? University of London LLB are not easy to attain as the university had set quite a high standard.
If Gani and the CLP board are passionate and wanted the legal fraternity to be professionally competent, they should conduct a survey to determine the quality of graduates produced by the local universities as benchmarked against those who graduated from UOL. That way, we will understand why the Public Prosecutors, largely manned by local graduates, had lost so many cases in the court, in particular, criminal cases and corruption cases. Over the past few months, we have seen and read about those cases where those indicted for drug crimes, rape and murder, had escape punishment largely due to technicality and incompetence. Norjan's murder case, Norrita's murder, and many other drug cases were lost in the court due to prosecution failure to establish the required actus reus and mens rea. In recent cases, we hear of complains and comments by presiding judges over the lack of competencies of the prosecution team and the police. Aren't most of those prosecutors from local universities?
I do not doubt that there are some local graduates that had work hard and acquired good knowledge of law and jurisprudence. But if they are not tested at CLP exams, how could we know that they have had equal or better competencies than those who did CLP exam? Is it that the local universities feared that most, if not all, would fail the CLP exam and expose the local universities incompetencies and disabilities?
