The decision of the Legal Profession Qualifying Board to nullify the CLP's July 2001 result is most unbecoming, shocking and irresponsible, taking into consideration the injustice done to all the candidates involved.

The decision was made purportedly for re-establishing the "accountability" and "integrity" of the Qualifying Board while the decision itself has ironically placed the reputation of the board in jeopardy.

How could a result that had been announced in the newspapers on Sept 17, 2001 later be declared null after the lapse of 56 days, almost two months after the announcement? This decision was made just three days before the convocation scheduled on Nov 16, 2001.

By making this decision, the board has become the laughing stock of the world. By saying so, I am not opposing the authority concerned to "clean up" but not to the extent of punishing those innocent candidates. The decision of the board had made a mockery of the integrity and accountability which it claimed to re-establish.

The board claimed that after going through the answer scripts of the candidates, it came to the conclusion that there was "suspected" leakage in the examination and therefore a re-sit of the examination is the "best" solution in this case.

Firstly, how can such an important decision be made merely based on suspicion? Secondly, what does it mean by saying "after going through the answer scripts, it came to the conclusion that the re-sitting of the examination is the best solution"?

Is it because the board found that the answers of some candidates were extremely and impossibly excellent that the only conclusion reached was that there must have been foul play in it? Or that the answers of some candidates were extremely lousy that it unavoidably triggered the reasonable mind of the parties concerned to think that there must have been something amiss?

In fact I don't know how a conclusion could be reached by just going through the answer scripts. Let us not to forget that the passing rate for the CLP's July 2001 examination was relatively low compared to the previous years.

I agree that the board should be shaken up in view of this scandal but not to the extent of shaking the morale and confidence of the candidate involved as well as the future students who will take the examination in the "integrity" and "accountability" of the board.

It seems that this radical action of ordering a re-sit of the examinations was taken for purportedly reestablishing the "accountability" and "integrity" of the board, but does it not deal another blow to the "accountability" and "integrity" of the board when the results were nullified 80 days after the examination took place and just a few days before the convocation to be graced by Sultan Azlan Shah of Perak.

According to the report in the newspaper, I understand that "one or two insiders" have been identified. If this is the case, the investigation should be focused on them and the candidates who could have been involved should be narrowed down instead of punishing all the candidates. I strongly suggest that the authorities concerned take stern actions against the people involved including the candidates who have been proved involved.

Not just disciplinary action but criminal charges should be brought against them to deter others from ever trying this hanky-panky again in the future. Based on the results announced, I believe that the number of candidates involved was small. In other words, when this punishing measure was announced, the majority of innocent candidates have been punished together with a handful of black sheep. There is a tinge of irony when we believe that the law is to uphold justice. So why are we unfairly treated?

How can the board be insensitive to the feelings of the candidates especially to the many part-time students who have undergone many ordeals in preparing for the examinations? Bear in mind that the CLP has a reputation for being extremely difficult to pass. The passing rates for CLP's July examinations are often below 30 percent while it was even lower this year at only 25 percent!

Although the board said that candidates involved can retake this examination without making any further payment but how about the other cost incurred, especially for those part-time students and those who come from other parts of the country?

As reported, this is not the first alleged leakage. Hence we would like to know the position of the previous batches of candidates who have passed and very likely are now part of the legal profession? What action is the board going to take on them? Would the same kind of action be taken against them?

This nullification has triggered a crisis of confidence in the board. After this fiasco, each time the results are announced, candidates cannot be relieved even if their names appeared on the passing list which is later confirmed in temporary certificates. How long should be the lapse and under what circumstances could the results be regarded as "confirmed" after the announcement? One month? Three months? Before convocation or after convocation?

Would the board prepare to go to such extent to say that, even after convocation has taken place, or to make it even more ridiculous, even after the candidates have become legal practitioners, the results could still be announced as null and void leading to the ridiculous scenario that a qualified person may suddenly become unqualified? As long as this alleged "discretion" is not made clear, nobody would be exempt from the risk of being called to re-sit the examination.

I feel that the "accountability" and "integrity" of the board could be reestablished by severely punishing the black sheep involved, not by punishing the innocent majority. I hope that the Qualifying Board would review this decision.

I also hope that all the candidates involved would stand together to defend our rights. We appeal to all the concerned parties and organisations to come forward to help us, so that this injustice, especially to those who had taken the examination for the third or fourth time and had finally passed, could be undone.

When they re-sit, they may not necessarily pass again. They could be robbed of the chance of ever becoming a legal practitioner as a candidate will be permanently barred from taking the examination after four attempts. This factor should have been carefully considered before the decision was made.