I would like to comment and add to JSB's remarks "unchecked influx of substandard local law graduates into the local legal profession annually has been the largest contributory factor to its sharp decline in standards." (Illogical comments from CLP candidate, Dec 7).

Firstly, Singapore law graduates also automatically "amble straight into legal practice after graduation" without having to go through the rigorous CLP examinations because like local tertiary institutions' law graduates, they are presumed to be familiar with local laws.

I am sure nobody, even the writer, who knows about Singapore's demanding academic standards will suggest Malaysians who must be ' crme de la crme ' in terms of academic qualifications to secure a place in Singapore tertiary institutions, are "substandard" in terms of academic excellence.

Many of the senior partners of law firms here and legal eagles were graduates from the University of Singapore (then). The present intake by the National University of Singapore of Malaysians is so negligible that this sector of law graduates does not count in the present continuing debate on the CLP fiasco.

Secondly, whatever may be said by the writer of the academic standards of law graduates from Malaysian universities, it cannot be suggested as a corollary that those who are trained by local colleges for external degrees, or even those who are trained directly by overseas universities, necessarily receive vigorous academic training and are by reason of such training, higher in standards.

I have no proof, but I speculate, rightly or wrongly, that as far as external degrees are concerned, setting too high a standard will defeat the commercial purpose of maximising enrollment and profits.

By the way, foreign graduates' knowledge of common Latin terms and phrases and local graduates' lack of knowledge thereof by itself is not a benchmark for standards!

Thirdly, the rigours of academic discipline are only but one of the many things required of a good lawyer. Sound analytical and language skills as measured by academic standards go a distance but it is not enough.

This means that experience is important as gathered in a practical environment that provides good exposure and technical knowledge.

From these perspectives, the CLP examinations are unnecessary and an arbitrary gauge that bars candidates from qualifying to practice and obtaining such requisite experience and exposure that will ultimately count.

This means that although one passes the CLP examinations, it does not necessarily mean that he/she will be a better lawyer than the one who fails.

To avert this arbitrary obstacle, I can imagine many and even perhaps their colleges, will have to find a way (including bribes?) to clear this first hurdle to legal practice.

Fourthly, the regrading of marks up or down, whilst may be influenced by such irregular shenanigans must, it is suspected, have something to do with the 'quota system' as well.

If as the writer said, non-Malays have slim chances of securing places in local tertiary institutions because of such a quota system, it would defeat the purpose of the quota system to have too many non-Malay graduates with foreign degrees proliferate in numbers within the profession.

This leads to the conclusion that if there is a perception that there is no level playing field in securing admission to the profession because of the tacit and unofficial application of such a quota via the CLP examinations, why should those who have to clear this first hurdle put integrity and fair play or merit above bribes or other influence-peddling as a means to overcome this obstacle, which is an arbitrary bar anyway?

It must be realised that the profitability of foreign universities and local colleges and tutorial centres acting in conjunction through their twinning programmes absolutely depend on their reputation for getting their students to pass all examinations including the CLP.

If there is indeed a tacit quota system to restrict the number of those passing the CLP examinations for entry into the profession, the circumstances are ripe for favours to be solicited by private colleges or tutorial centers and thus, corruption to set in.

How else can the tampering of marks up or down be explained?

Because of the play of various undercurrents, the outcome is that the legal profession is flooded by a stream of local graduates aided by the quota system rivaled by a competing stream of foreign graduates aided by an 'unofficial' assistance.

The Bar Council is at quite a quandary as to how to address this problem over which it has no control.

It sets rules that its member lawyers should not give discounts or engage in ambulance-chasing or giving 'kickbacks' by way of sharing profits with parties not within the profession - all under the banner of maintaining the image of the profession being above commerce and business. It is an exercise in futility.

The legal business is not based on broad consumer demand as say McDonalds. How many times can one divorce, sue for a debt, buy a house or make a will?

Recurrent business is based on patronage. From the ranks of the police as well as organised crime is derived sources of criminal cases; from hospital orderlies working in concert with ambulance chasers, the accident cases; from corporations and banks, the debts and loan documentation cases; from housing developers, the sale agreement cases.

When a profession is so structured that demand for legal services is only centered on these few points, what happens if there is an oversupply of people who got through the admission door of the profession with (1) official assistance of a quota policy as imposed in local tertiary institutions and (2) 'unofficial' assistance of those involved in the education industry bent on mitigating the effects of (1) because their profitability depends on getting their students to get pass the CLP examinations by whatever means. In either case, the issue of standards is of least relevance and concern.

Professional standards will decline anyway as legal aspirants get through admission into the profession via the system alluded to in the preceding paragraph and, like hungry locusts, swamp the few points of sources of business, and for the sake of eking out a living, are prepared to do anything.

Just as the passing and failing of the CLP examinations prove nothing as regards to setting standards for the legal profession, the rules set by the Bar Council to distinguish the profession from commercial practices are farcical and unrealistic in the face of this oversupply problem (created by a blend of official quota policy and the ingenious circumvention policy of the private sector).