©The
Star (Used by permission)
PETALING JAYA: Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) examination candidates are
judged solely on their knowledge and merit and not on any quota system, the
Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) said.
Its CLP examinations director K. Muniandy said the paper setters and markers did
not know the candidates’ names as only their index numbers appeared on the
answer scripts.
“This negates any notion that there is a quota system practised by the LPQB. We
reiterate that the system put in place does not allow for it at all,” he said.
Results for the CLP exam in July were released yesterday.
Muniandy said there was a misconception for years that candidates were failed on
purpose, that a racial quota existed to be met by the board and that the
examination only tested candidates’ memory function.
“It is the candidates who resort to regurgitation of information memorised by
them.”
Muniandy stressed that the LPQB did not seek to fail any candidate and the
answer scripts were marked purely on the candidate’s knowledge and merit.
“Candidates must be able to identify legal issues raised in the examination
questions and advise on an appropriate legal recourse without going into an
academic exercise or a discourse on the law.”
“My duty is also to ensure that the questions set are not susceptible to any
form of leakage,” he said, adding that security and safekeeping of the questions
were paramount from inception to after the exam.
According to Muniandy, the examination papers are seen only by himself, the
paper setters, the typing clerk, translator, moderator and the printer.
“The number of personnel involved in the process is kept to a minimum.”
“The prime concern of the office of the director of the CLP examination is the
integrity of the examination,” he said.
The CLP exam papers are set by retired and serving judges of the superior
courts, senior lawyers from the Malaysian Bar and officers from the Judicial and
Legal Service.
“I can assure everyone that the questions set are not to trick candidates,”
Muniandy said, adding that they were intended to be unambiguous, comprehensible
and precise.
He said some candidates often diverted into giving answers which were totally
unrelated to legal practice.