by David Tan Ah Lek, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
(via email)
I refer to the letter 'CLP candidates seek transparency' by "Hopeful candidate"
(theSun, 21 May 2007).
I think he/she is being too kind to the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) when he/she says "this letter is in
no way meant to ridicule or criticise the Legal Qualifying Board". The manner in
which the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) paper has been set in recent times is an insult to CLP candidates,
who generally have studied very hard to prepare themselves for this exam.
Therefore, I wish to set out a more exhaustive list of bona fide and material
grievances on the CLP which are shared not only by students but lecturers as
well:
1. Questions are often set on areas outside the syllabus/course outline. As they
say in Latin, res ipsa loquitor (The thing speaks for itself). This "goalpost
shifting" is obviously unfair. What is the point of having a course outline and
then not following it? Also, can the LPQB kindly tell us which other exam in
the world is set based on matters outside the syllabus?
2. Speaking of the course outline, it has apparently not been updated regularly,
contains overruled cases and it is more of a directory of cases rather than a
brief explanation of the law and principles, which is what a syllabus outline
should contain. If the LPQB claims that the low passing rate is due to students
not being up to mark, then may I ask, how do you expect us to come up to that
mark when you wont even be more specific as to what is required of us and you
also do not release the examiner's report?
3. The CLP fees have been hiked to RM4000. This is a 60% increase over last
year's RM2500. This increase is not only exorbitant it is also unfair.
Therefore, I think it is only fair and reasonable that the passing rate for 2007
CLP exams should increase by 60% as well.
The LPQB only sets papers. It does not conduct any classes, lectures, seminars,
etc. Its costs for running the CLP exams therefore can't be much. Moreover, the
questions are ripped off from case head notes (as is the case for Land questions
in the Professional Practice paper) or sometimes merely repeated from past year
questions (with only the names of the characters being changed)
In fact, instead of setting questions on general principles of Land law,
questions are set based on the facts of a specific case and to make it worse,
students are expected to cite the specific case in their answer. Even if
students answer the question correctly based on principles, provisions and other
cases that they know, they are not given any marks. If the CLP is supposedly an
exam which is designed to maintain the standards of prospective lawyers, is the
LPQB trying to suggest that good lawyers are "walking case directories"?
4. Other bar exams in the world have a higher passing rate. In USA, it is
generally about 40%. In UK, it is around 60–70%. The CLP pass rate is about 20%.
Is the LPQB trying to suggest that Malaysian standards are that high?
5. It is said that the CLP pass rates are low because the students don't come up
to mark. But then the LPQB fails to explain why are the passing rates among
local public university (UM, IIU, etc) law graduates much higher than the CLP.
CLP students have been awarded law degrees from prestigious foreign universities
which are internationally acknowledged to be of high standard (University of
London, Bristol, Sheffield, Melbourne, Monash, etc). In fact, if I can recall
correctly, some time back there was a lot of hue and cry when Malaysian
universities rankings had slipped compared to other global universities. Is the
LPQB suggesting that public university law graduates are much better than
foreign university graduates?
Those who are fortunate and well affording enough to get in to do the UK Bar
Vocational Course do not have to do the CLP. Therefore, may I ask the LPQB, how
does studying the practical procedure of the legal system of another country
(which in UK's case, although materially similar, still has many differences)
help to ensure that those who return from doing the BVC are sufficiently
qualified to practise in Malaysia? And in any case, a comparison between the BVC and CLP is not legitimate because the BVC, unlike the CLP, is not 100% exam
based. The BVC contains practical elements such as negotiation, drafting,
advocacy skills, etc.
6.The Attorney General has claimed that there is no "quota" for CLP passes. In
that case, may I ask the learned AG, why are prospective CLP candidates required
to state their race in the application form?
Why does the LPQB need statistics on the racial composition of candidates?
I hope the LPQB will take all these matters seriously into consideration when
setting, marking and releasing the results for CLP.
While I concede that standards are to be maintained, the standards should not be intentionally and arbitrarily set to ensure that so few students pass the exam. Becoming a lawyer is not about being able to advise (answer) 4 clients (questions) in 3 hours!