CLP abolishment a good move.

Sorry for this outdated piece of news and also for not posting in quite awhile because I've been busy with my finals. However, this piece of news probably will have an impact very significant to fellow law students and aspiring future lawyers such as oneself.

I remember a couple of months ago there was an open letter posted on Malaysia-Today regarding the CLP exams. The writer lamented that CLP had a very low passing rate and the marking scheme was discretionary so you couldn't tell why someone failed the paper. A rough figure (hearsay mostly) that I can come up with on the CLP passing rate is roughly about 10-15% a year. Compare this to the Bar exams in the UK which is about 60-70% a year!

Now that we've cleared up the boring statistics, lets get down to the real issue! The CLP exam was introduced initially to aid students who did not qualify for the Bar exams with the minimum of a second lower class honours. Then, in 2002 it was revamped to admit only second class lower degrees and above just like the Bar exams.

One of the comments of the letter, stating that if we students can't pass the CLP then we should forget about being a lawyer is clearly harsh in the light of circumstances surrounding students who sit for the exam.

Note, CLP is not taken by local grads, only degrees from other countries have to sit for it. Now, if most students can afford to spend their final years in UK, then really they would opt to sit for the Bar exam because it is more recognized and the chances of passing is much much higher.

Unfortunately, for students like me, we only achieve a UK LLB degree through a distance learning programme with the University of London, therefore limited resources forces us to sit for the CLP exam locally.

Also, The UOL external is one of the toughest degree programmes to get through with the amount of students achieving second class lower and above averaging only about 40% a year.

Now, when these 40% sit for the CLP, only 10-15% out of them pass. Do you see the inconsistency yet?

How is it possible that a local exam initially intended to help academically deficient students have a much lower passing rate when they are admitting students of much better quality compared to what they planned earlier?

And also imagine how it feels for students who go into the exam halls, and the invigilators saying things like "well 70% of you will fail, so I'll see you next year". How would they know that beforehand?

Therefore, I welcome the abolishment of the CLP, although I'll probably still have to sit for it since it won't be implemented so soon. However good for future students and also the legal system in the country since if they really do plan to implement it across the board for both local and overseas graduates, definitely they will be able to filter out and produce better legal scientists for the future.

Perhaps with proper implementation, our judiciary which has not yet been able to recover from the 1988 crisis will have hope in one day restoring it's integrity. As Hans Kelsen the famous Austrian jurist once said, 'ideas are held in greater esteem than power'. We seriously need that in our country.

1 comment:

  1. whether its a good move is still depending on what is coming up in the new system.. plus...
    it would not do any good in the law profession field if the passing rate is to be increased. The demand for lawyers is considerable low in professional field. This raised the doubt in the quality of the lawyer in this country. The improvement should be more focus on the system for student from local university. i din mean that there should not be changes for clp. it needs both way...
    or else life is still gonna be difficult in the future >.<