opinion

Though the Legal Profession Qualifying Board has decided to maintain the July Certificate of Legal Practice examination results with conditions, it will take some time before the dust settles on the controversy.

The board should be commended for finally making a decision and a more acceptable decision at that. Of the 922 candidates, 232 passed the examination but following the release of the re-graded results yesterday, only about half of them made the cut.

It is understandably natural for the other half to be disappointed and upset with the new results. But these would-be lawyers will have to swallow their bitterness and start recalling what constituted the basis for their fight when the board nullified the CLP results two weeks ago.

To refresh their memory, these students claimed to be victims of an unjust decision. They appealed to the board to make sure that the effort of those who have worked hard and deserved to pass will not go in vain.

And that was exactly what the board did yesterday - a positive discrimination to single out those who should not have passed from those who should.

Yet, some students reacted to the decision by saying they would prefer to have their initial results retained. Some even blamed the board as it started the controversy by annulling the CLP results after it confirmed leaks in the papers.

They cited the much-rumoured leaks in the previous CLP examinations and questioned why the board was only taking actions now and not then - obviously a typical realist thinking of 'everyone was doing it, why only target us?'

However, by pursuing their cause in this manner, it will give the impression to the public that the students will do anything to pass the examination at the expense of the law profession's integrity.

Incompetent lawyers

Everyone knows CLP is a difficult examination. It is precisely for this reason why those who passed the examination on their merits and diligence, win high regards of society. There should not be any compromise on the standard of legal practitioners.

One journalist who was covering the CLP controversy gave an interesting analogy: what would the public response be if they were told there was a leak in a qualifying examination for medical students after the results were announced?

Knowing that only a handful of them had possessed the papers (but may have spread the questions around), would the public then take the risk by letting all the students to graduate and treat them - even if it could be only a handful of incompetent ones walking among the capable majority?

Chances are we would not because it concerns professionalism and public interest, albeit law or medicine.

Similarly, with some unidentified black sheep walking among the competent ones, the public perception about law professionals - particularly this year's CLP candidates - will be tainted if nothing is done to clean up the mess.

Having said that, the six-member Qualifying Board should also be taken to task for not being transparent enough with the public. When they decided to nullify the CLP results, they did not explain the issue well to clear the air and thus confusion slowly turned into fury.

Only as days went by, we were told the CLP marks had been tampered with. It was even reported that some candidates passed without examination scripts. The leaks, apparently, were not the sole reason for nullifying the results.

Marks were marked up or down in the master sheet presented to the board, leading to a difference from 20 to 30 points between the final marks and those originally given by the examiner.

These are serious issues and we hope they will not be swept under the carpet.

Suspicion raised

On Nov 14, after a board meeting to discuss the appeals of CLP candidates then, board chairperson Ainum Mohd Saaid named CLP examination director Khalid Yusuf as the person responsible for the preparation of the papers from its drafting to final printing.

The outgoing attorney general, however, did not elaborate on the reason for saying that.

On Monday, the Bar Council issued a statement calling for the suspension of Khalid with no reasons given, again.

Yesterday, Ainum ( photo, left ) went on to point out that Khalid was believed to have recorded the marks into the master sheet by reading aloud to his typist.

While board member and High Court judge Abdul Wahab Patail said the board has yet to decide on Khalid's position until the police concludes its investigation into the leaks.

This raised suspicion as to how powerful the CLP examination director was in conducting the examination and the way his office was managed.

We hope the board and other authorities will not stop at the entrance of a rabbit hole but go deep into it. This is to ensure that, in Ainum's words, "The integrity of the legal profession would not be compromised."

In layman terms, the public needs to be assured that they are paying money to the right people when seeking legal advice and assistance.

Also, the board must incorporate the different views by various quarters, including those from the law circle, to re-assess the relevance of the CLP in present days.

This is not to say that the examination should be abolished altogether. Contrary to that, it is to call for tighter security measures and better administration of future examinations, as well as a possible revamp to make it more relevant to suit today's needs.