I would like to comment and add to JSB's remarks that "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 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 and who have graduated from there will be "substandard" in terms of academic excellence.

Many of the senior partners of law firms here and legal eagles like Karpal Singh were graduates from the University of Singapore (then). The present intake by 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 or 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 on 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.

As lawyers' work centres around solving others' problems, it is of paramount importance that there is honed an approach that solves problems practically, and not academically. This means that experience is important as gathered in a practice environment that provides good exposure and technical knowledge.

From these perspectives, the CLP examinations are an unnecessary and arbitrary gauge that bar from the onset candidates from qualifying to practise and obtain such requisite experience and exposure that ultimately count.

This means that the fact that one passes the CLP examinations does not necessarily mean that he or she will be a better lawyer than the ones who fail. To avert this arbitrary obstacle, I can imagine many, or 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, has something to do with the quota system as well.

If as the writer said, non-Malays have slim chances to secure places in Malaysian 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 perceived that there is no level playing field in securing admission to the profession because of a tacit and unofficial application of such quota through the CLP examinations, why should those who have to clear this first hurdle put integrity and fair play or merits 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 the twinning programmes absolutely depends on their reputation of getting their students to pass all examinations including the CLP.

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

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

Because of the play of various undercurrents above highlighted, the outcome is that the legal profession is flooded by a stream of local graduates aided by the quota system rivalled by a competing stream of foreign graduates aided by an 'unofficial' assistance of their colleges and tuition systems.

The Bar Council is at quite a quandary as regards how to address this over-flooding 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.

Law business is not based on broad consumer demand as say McDonald's. How many times can one divorce, sue a debt or 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 and purchase 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 admission door to the profession with (1) official assistance of quota policy as imposed in local tertiary institutions and (2) 'unofficial' assistance of those involved in the education industry bent on mitigating effects of (1) because their profitability depends on getting their students to get past 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 to 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 setting standards for the legal profession, so the rules set by the Bar Council for the same objective, 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).