I think twice about entering the fray that has developed in the wake of the letter by R Razif ('CLP is for non-Malays' benefit, Dec 5), but alas there are occasions when one ought to speak out, even if it cuts against fundamentally truthful underlying arguments.

Razif has been painted out to be racist, ignorant and illogical. He may be all of these, but I shy away from the proposition that he is so by reason of his letter. Ultimately he is quite right when he ends his letter with the words: "The fact is, the CLP is there to cater for non-Malays to enter the legal profession."

Razif is not responsible for the fact that local university law schools are almost exclusively for mediocre Malay students, in contrast to their much superior non-Malay counterparts who are kept out only because of their race. He is also not to blame for the fact that local university law degrees and graduates are superlatively inferior (with the limited exception of the University Malaya law degree and graduate, or has this changed as well?) in contrast to UK law graduates, for instance.

So why lambaste him with that guilt? That guilt is solely the guilt of those who have governed Malaysia since May 13, 1969.

Much has been said and made out about the fact that a local university law graduate can sail into practice, whilst his hapless UK counterpart (I exclude Australian graduates) must be put through the CLP.

Now this is true, but the real question is whether a UK law graduate can sail into practice anywhere in the world, including the UK. The answer is, no! Even in the UK he must study another year to become a barrister or solicitor. This is because UK graduates do three years of study (as opposed to local university law graduates who do four). Another year of study is called for. It can be done via (what was once) the Bar or Law Society Finals.

Prior to the introduction of the CLP, all UK law graduates would have had either to go to London or remain there for another year in order to be called to the English Bar at (as someone pointed out) prohibitive costs. That need is now obviated with the introduction of the CLP.

Those who introduced the CLP knew this; as they did the fact that the vast majority of CLP students would be non-Malays. They need not have introduced the CLP to help these people: most of whom were studying for the London external degree.

Moreover, the CLP was prepared to take in those who did not attain a minimum of a second class lower honours degree (and indeed that was the very raison d'etre of the CLP), as was required to study for the English Bar. As a result of all this (leaving aside the issue of places at local universities, which is a virtual given, whatever happened) more non-Malays lawyers have been admitted to the profession over the last 15 years.

Was this not for the benefit of non-Malays? I dare say it is! It is the singular failure to appreciate why the CLP was begun (initially only as an interim measure, which was then extended indefinitely) which has led to the massive and ungenerous misunderstand of what Razif sought to say.

The whole question of the quality of local university legal education arises in the context of the de-recognition of the external London law degree as being not up to the mark to even do the CLP. It is especially in respect of the prejudice that will be caused to many non-Malay potential law graduates because of this de-recognition, that the woeful state of legal education in local universities should be explored to provide the much needed contrast between quality legal education and the lack of it!