Is the CLP exam relevant?

THERE have been many complaints about the relevance of the CLP and its very low passing rate of about 20%.

This is shocking as many of those failing have already obtained their degrees from prestigious foreign and local private universities accredited and fully recognised by our government.

Many have even sat for UK Bar exams and been admitted to prestigious UK Bars, yet cannot pass the CLP. This will surely contribute to brain drain and result in our best legal brains leaving the country.

Strangely, law graduates from local public universities are not required to sit for CLP.

However, graduates from prestigious UK universities, whose syllabus we have adopted here, must do so.

The authorities concerned have previously stated that the poor performance of lawyers in court is the reason for CLP.

If that is the case, surely a proper study needs to be conducted to determine which universities are producing sub-standard lawyers and have the recognition of their degrees withdrawn.

An important question that needs to be answered is how the Legal Professional Qualifying Board (LPQB) can better assess the potential lawyers’ ability than the universities that awarded them their degrees.

Are there better qualified legal professors in LPQB than those in the prestigious foreign and private universities?

How do they determine through one written exam who is fit or not fit to practise as a lawyer?

Furthermore, shouldn’t all law graduates from private and public universities sit for the exam if the CLP is deemed necessary?Have the authorities determined that graduates from public universities are fully qualified but not graduates from prestigious foreign and private local universities?

I suggest that if the CLP is indeed needed, it should be prepared and conducted by our independent Bar Council and made compulsory for all potential lawyers from both public and private universities.

Dr PETER JOSEPH PEREIRA

Selangor