Talk:Certificate in Legal Practice (Malaysia)

Looking at the annual passing rate of the Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) examination, it is obvious that there is a quota to limit the number of passes.

Every candidate works hard to pass this examination, knowing very well it is the final hurdle to enter the legal profession after having put in so much effort and spending so much money to pass the foreign LL.B examination.

Every year thousands of local law graduates, almost all who are malays, automatically enter the legal profession.

If the purpose of having the CLP examination is to maintain a high standard, then even the local law graduates should also pass this examination.

Otherwise, upon completion of the foreign LL.B, let us join the local universities for the final year and take the examination together.

Why the double standard?

After numerous attempts at the CLP examination, many candidates are turning to English or Irish Bar examinations, which are conducted fairly and with transparency.

Surprisingly, they would pass these examinations in one sitting. And today, they are excellent practitioners.

Further, the rules for re-sitting the CLP examination are also outrageous. Candidates have to re-sit for all the papers even though they may have failed in only two papers and the examination is conducted only once a year.

Even the rules for professional examinations for doctors, who deal with human lives everyday, are reasonable. If they (doctors) fail, for instance in two papers, they will have to re-sit only for those papers after six months.

Unlike doctors, lawyers always have ample time to conduct research and prepare for their cases.

So, why make the rules for re-sitting the CLP examination so harsh and difficult?

Most candidates have actually passed all the subjects in several sittings.

Therefore, it is baseless to say that those who fail the CLP examination just do not deserve to pass and are just not good enough.

It is also baseless to say that candidates’ answers were sometimes illegible or “totally off the mark”.

If this is true, then prove it by being transparent. Why is there no examiner’s report? Why can’t the papers be re-marked or checked?

Why are the answer scripts reflecting the allocated marks not given? As candidates, we have the right to seek transparency in the marking system.

The indians and chinese, are being marginalised in the legal profession.

[from main article by anon kawaputra^tok2me 15:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)]

The Certificate of Legal Practice is a relic and need to be replaced. Its origin was meant to be a knee jerk solution for local graduates from UK with second class lower who were deemed unqualified to join the Inns of Court following a change in regulation. Shahrulazwad 14:43, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Certificate in Legal Practice (Malaysia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111005200937/http://www.law.uitm.edu.my/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74%3Alw213-b-hons-of-legal-studies&catid=50%3Adegree&Itemid=63 to http://www.law.uitm.edu.my/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74%3Alw213-b-hons-of-legal-studies&catid=50%3Adegree&Itemid=63

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:00, 2 August 2017 (UTC)