I graduated with a law degree from the United Kingdom in 2004. Upon returning to Malaysia, I decided to undergo the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) examinations of 2005 in an attempt to become a member of the Bar Council so as to be able to practice my chosen field of study.

Even during my days of reading law at university, the difficulty and hardship of attempting to pass the CLP examinations were made known to me. Despite my prior knowledge however, it was to my utter dismay when I discovered that I had not passed two out of the five required subjects. This result required me to undergo the entire examination again the following year.

I re-attempted the examination again in 2006 with new vigour but I failed three out of the five required subjects; worse than my first attempt. Passing rates that year were revealed to be around 15% of all candidates, including those who were attempting the examinations more than once.

Results of the latest CLP examinations were released on Sept 19, 2007. On this occasion, I had passed; my third attempt. What was so markedly different with my study preparation this time than the two other previous attempts? I do not know.

It is this unknown element which prompts me to question the manner in which foreign graduates are examined before they are deemed fit to be honourable officers of the court. It is also this unknown element which the Legal Profession Qualifying Board should recognise as a stain in its operation; a stain of arbitrariness, and, from that, the apparent lack of transparency.

Candidates never know how they passed, nor, tragically, do they know why they performed badly. Comparisons can probably be made to the Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia but unless the LPQB is willing to concede that the manner of qualification and admission in this country of advocates and solicitors from foreign education institutions merely requires learning of the law by rote, then the LPQB should recognise that the CLP needs a deeper, more meaningful role.

That which concerns me equally is the silence of the Bar Council in what it must perceive as a carpet of injustice on its very own doorstep. For many years the Bar Council has made every opportunity to make known its dissatisfaction with the continued enforcement of the Internal Security Act 1960.

And yet it has made no qualms with the CLP which was meant to be a stop-gap measure for foreign graduates who could no longer sit for the English Bar examinations back then when rules for admission were changed. Perhaps it is slightly precocious to equate the Bar Council's efforts against the enforcement of the ISA with the problems of the CLP, but it is nevertheless disheartening to hear, or rather, not, any protestation from the Bar Council regarding a central tenet of their members' admission lest I am required to remind it of section 42(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act 1976:

'The purpose of the Malaysian Bar shall be [...] to maintain and improve the standards of conduct and learning of the legal profession in Malaysia.'

It is with all this in mind that past CLP graduates, be you in practice currently or not, should not forget to reflect upon your past tribulation, and stand up in recognition of what may appear to be a barrier to the enrolment of judicious and professional advocates and solicitors.

As the first premier of China, Zhou Enlai, once espoused, "We should not just smoothen the way for those who come after us but also widen it'. Perhaps I may, with great humility, also add that those who come after us belong next to us too.