Weak English proficiency an issue of real concern

A RECENT report highlighting the poor performance of candidates in Malaysia’s Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) examination has exposed a growing and troubling issue – the declining proficiency of English among budding lawyers.

Examiners lamented not only the candidates’ weak grasp of legal concepts but, more alarmingly, their inability to write and reason properly in English, Malaysia’s working language of law.

This leads to a critical question: Are law schools becoming increasingly lenient with English language enrolment requirements?

Suppose this trend continues unchecked not only in law but across all university programmes as well. In that case, we may soon face a future with “qualified” professionals but ill-equipped to function effectively, especially in sectors that demand precision, persuasion and professionalism in English.

It is no secret that English proficiency is crucial in the legal field. Legal arguments must be constructed with clarity, precision and coherence. A contract drafted with ambiguity can spark years of litigation; a poorly worded submission can lose a case even before it begins.

Practising law without mastering the language of the law is akin to being a surgeon uncomfortable with a scalpel.

The problem, however, does not appear confined to the legal field. A similar pattern emerges if we scrutinise other sectors, such as engineering, medicine, finance and education. Students are admitted into programmes with minimal English proficiency, allowed to graduate, and expected to operate in an increasingly global and English-speaking professional environment. Predictably, many struggle.

Employers are now voicing concerns that fresh graduates, while technically employed, often lack the communication skills, critical thinking ability, and professionalism expected of their roles.

Several factors may be contri­buting to this worrying trend.

First, the pressure on universities to maintain high enrolment numbers may have led to relaxed admission standards, particularly on English proficiency. With education increasingly being seen as a commercial enterprise, institutions may hesitate to impose strict language requirements, fearing a drop in student numbers.

Second, some programmes priori­tise content mastery over communication skills, under­estimating the reality that in today’s workplace, being technically competent but linguistically handicapped is not good enough.

Third, Malaysia has an ongoing policy debate about the role of English versus the national language in education. While promoting national identity is vital, it must be balanced with the pragmatic needs of a workforce that must engage locally and globally.

If we continue treating English proficiency as an afterthought, we are setting up our graduates and country for failure in the long term. Malaysia’s ambition to remain competitive in the global economy depends heavily on producing professionals who can engage with international partners, negotiate deals, draft documents, conduct research, and innovate, which require strong English language skills.

This is not an argument against national pride nor a dismissal of the importance of Bahasa Malaysia. Rather, it is a call for honest realism.

In the world of business, law, diplomacy, and science, English is the operating system. We must equip our students to operate effectively in that system or risk isolating them in an increasingly interconnected world.

What can be done? First, universities must reinstate stricter English language requirements to enter professional courses such as law, medicine and engineering. Good intentions and academic ability must be matched by language competency.

Second, curriculum designs must integrate English communication skills across all years of study, not just leave it to isolated language courses.

Third, students must be made aware from the beginning that English is not just an examination subject but also a survival tool in the professional world.

Finally, employers and professional bodies must raise their expectations and demand higher communication standards in ­hiring and certification.

We cannot afford complacency. Producing graduates who are technically certified but linguistically incompetent is a betrayal of the students themselves, of the industries that rely on them, and of the nation’s future.

ASSOC PROF DR AZMI ABDUL LATIFF

Dean, Centre for Language Studies

Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia