I am a law student, pursuing a local law degree in Malaysia. I write in reference to the article entitled ‘Common Bar Examination - a unified system for all’. The gist of the referred article is essentially this - that the current Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) ought be abolished, and replaced with a Common Bar Exam (CBE).

What is the CLP and who is made subject to it, alongside its vast criticisms; has been elucidated in the article above referred. Hence, I will not pursue further discussion on such. I will, however, dwell further into the CBE.

It is pertinent to note, that the CBE, at this point of time - remains a proposal. In essence, the CBE is - as reflective in its name - an exam that is common to all. If enforced, law graduates, both local and foreign alike, will have to first pass this exam, to qualify to practice law in Malaysia.

Currently, only foreign law graduates have to first pass the CLP, to qualify for practice. Whereas local law graduates, are exempted from the CLP. This difference has irked many foreign law graduates. It has resulted, time and again, in bashing accusations against local law graduates of being subpar.

Thus why, the proposal for the CBE has been backed with force - to right the wrong, and address such manifest “injustice”.

In view of the above, I take issue against the CBE, and will rightly explain why so below.

Before proceeding further, I find it apposite at this juncture, Before proceeding further, I find it apposite at this juncture, to briefly state the underlying purpose of this letter, for purposes of clarity. I write not to discuss nor compare the quality of local law graduates against those of foreign law graduates. I firmly believe that quality is dependent upon the graduate himself or herself.

I believe that enthusiasm to learn coupled with an inherent love for the law, is what matters and thus - the determinant factor. I instead, write in relation to, and against, the CBE solely.

Proceeding on. Now to answer the question - why should local law graduates be made exempt from professional practice exams, such as the CLP and CBE? To attain a wholesome understanding of the issue at hand, we must first examine the structure of the Bachelor of Laws degree in local universities.

Four-year-long journey

Pursuing a local law degree in Malaysia - be it in a local public university or local private university - is a four-year-long journey. The first three years involve a study of substantive laws. And the last year - the fourth year - is the year of professional practice exams. In the fourth year, local law students sit for an array of procedural law papers and professional practice papers.

Now, these papers sat for by local law students in their fourth year, comprises of the exact syllabus of the CLP exams that foreign law graduates sit for. This thus begs forth the question: what is the purpose of having the CBE, when local law graduates already have their professional practice papers incorporated into their fourth year syllabus?

To this, some have lashed out relentless criticisms that, among others: (i) The CLP papers are tougher than the local fourth year papers and; (ii) The fourth year papers are internal exams, thus marked with leniency.

In relation to (i), it would only be natural that foreign law graduates appraise the CLP exams tough. Local law students read Malaysian law for three long years, and eventually sit for their fourth year papers - that too, over a course of 12 months. In comparison, foreign law graduates read foreign law for three years and are then expected to learn the fundamentals of Malaysian law in a mere nine months.

Nevertheless, that is absolutely no reason to justify the CLP exams as tough by drawing comparison to the fourth year papers as being “easy”.

In relation to (ii), it is submitted that such criticism holds no substantive value.

All local universities - be it private or public, have what are called ‘External Examiners’. Their role being to re-check exam papers and ensure of their quality. By large, these External Examiners are practicing lawyers. Thus, there exists no loophole for leniency to breathe.

In addition, some contend that local law graduates with astonishing grades on paper, do not reflect similar qualities and knowledge, in practice. Flowing from such, they lash out accusations against lecturers at local universities providing ‘exam tips’ to students, so they perform better. I once again submit, that this is not the case.

Reading the law and sitting for law exams, requires excessive memorising and subsequent regurgitation. This being where the fault lies. A law student who can memorise and regurgitate better is obvious to outperform one who may instead be better at applying and understanding the law. Henceforth why, when in practice, those who may have attained a lower grade outshine and outperform those with a higher grade.

In view of the above, the solution lies simple and clear. There exists no need for local law students to be made subject to the CBE. To do as such, would be idle. Their fourth year is by far sufficient to arm them for the world of legal practice.

To serve justice to the foreign law graduates, what instead ought to be the subject of reform is the CLP - its structure and relevancy today.