Comments Posted in eLawyer Website

Loke Yuen Hong September 17th, 2008 12:56 pm :

I have a few takes on this;

First of all, the Bar did not mention anything as to why UUM is not recognised. Meaning - not reasoned decision, at least to the most affected parties i.e. the UUM students. Now, is that transparent? Is that to be expected of the Bar Council?

CLP notoriously alledgely having a low passing rate, rightly or wrongly. Then at least tell the world why it is so. Saying ‘we strive to ensure the quality of the Bar’ or something like that is inadequate.

CBE and CBC? Learn the mistakes from CLP before screwing up again.

It is the reasonably expected level of a propecting chambering student but not other factors that matters. If UUM or those who failed CLP cannot attain the reasonably expected standard of a propecting chambering student, say it so and tell us all why.

Come on, you are the torch bearer, show some higher standard.

And i am not even saying this as a part of legal fraternity.

This is my say as a citizen and a stake holder of this country

And i stand to be corrected.

______________________________________________

Lee Shih September 19th, 2008 8:46 am :

Hi Yuen Hong

Just to correct something. It is not the Bar Council that decides on the recognition of qualifications for the purposes of admission. It is a completely different entity, the Legal Profession Qualifying Board, that decides on this by virtue of the Legal Profession Act (LPA). More information of the Board is found in Part II of the LPA and the Board is essentially made up of:

a. the Attorney General who is the Chairman;b. two judges nominated by the Chief Justice;c. the Chairman of the Bar Council; andd. a Dean of the Faculty of Law nominated by the Minister of Education.

The CLP is also conducted by the Board by virtue of s.5(e) of the LPA.

I do agree that the Board should be more transparent in providing reasons for their decisions.

______________________________________________

Chong Sai Oe September 30th, 2008 10:30 pm :

Hi , young man . Please don’t make the common mistake of allowing oneself to be crowded by emotion that would obscure your objectivity if you don’t mind me saying .

Try to gather more correct facts before you commence any allegation of the unsubstantiated sorts . Apply one’s legal training 7 education into daily practical life as you may chose .

It’s entirely your own choice .

No offence is meant , to any body .

In bone fide .

Comments responded to the Article of "The Bar joins Qualifying Board's evaluation team to UUM and MMU"

Back door to LQB?

written by Richard Wee Thiam Seng, Thursday, September 11 2008 12:50 pm

I find it odd that these Universities went on to offer a Law Degree not recognised by LQB, and then now are asking it to be recognised. Isn't this a back door way to get recognition? It forces the high powered delegate from Bar Council to take into account humanitarian reasons like the welfare of the students, when by right one should look at the quality of the education before approving it's degree. Only in Malaysia we get this lah.

Richard Wee Thiam Seng

_____________________________________________

Back door to LQB?

written by Fatima Bt Tahir Ali, Thursday, September 11 2008 01:16 pm

Dear Richard How does one assess the quality of education without actually running the course programme?? Chicken and egg situation , me thinks. Dear all What I am interested in knowing is whether the degree offered by these universities is in itself recognised by the CLP Board. Do their law graduates qualify to sit for the CLP? Should not that be the first step before they seek exemption from sitting the CLP exam? Just my 2 sens.

Fatima Bt Tahir Ali

_____________________________________________

ARROGANCE MULTIPLIED BY CONTEMPT?

written by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng, Thursday, September 11 2008 03:12 pm

Firstly, let me congratulate the Bar Council for sending such a high-powered team for the evaluation exercise, an effort mounted probably at short notice. Secondly, I would have thought that before offering the law course, both Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) and the Multi-media University (MMU) would have gone through the preliminary paces of obtaining prior approval from the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB). In the result, those who have been conferred the degrees end up being placed in the twilight zone, surely a psychologically agonizing experience at best.

Facing the CLP examination is not a joke, neither is it a walk in the park. I am sure that the Vice Chancellors and those Education Department officers responsible owe all Malaysians an explanation for this monumental oversight which, for all we know, could have been born out of arrogance and even contempt for the very system of which they are a part. Given that these degrees are only conferred after three or four years of study, this may well show just how much the authorities in these two universities think of our legal system! Even had the approval been sought while the degree was being read by the students, it would still be wrong. Did the university authorities do even that? If the reply is in the negative, it compounds this monumental oversight into a calculated one. It means that they are confident that in the end, the interest of the students would be held paramount and LPQB approval would have been a fiat accompli (an accomplished fact).

To be fair to both UUM and the MMU, law degrees from the University of Malaya, the International Islamic University University Technology Mara and University Kebangsaan Malaysia law degrees must be subjected to a LPQB evaluation since the last four universities never went through such a stringent exercise.

By the way, who were our learned presidents at that time? Did they not speak out about such a basic thing? I hope that whoever they are, they do not belong to that category of ex-presidents who walked out of our AGM some years ago! In my days at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, the law course was a limited one. We had an annual intake of 680 students culled from thousands of applicants. Into the second year, only 180 students were left, leaving a casualty rate of more than 70 per cent. Into the final year, only 120 students graduated.

As an advancing student, I was on record as having lambasted this “killing field” that the law course represented. That I never faced any punitive action showed New Zealand’s democratic spirit to allow the alternative view. Now I know why numbers must be kept down. I guess to be pragmatic, a similar rationale exists for us to keep the numbers down in Malaysia.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/the_bar_joins_qualifying_board_s_evaluation_team_to_uum_and_mmu.html

Comment from Blogger

KESIAN DIA

September 14th, 2008 by sangpenchenta

Rasanya aku penah sebut dulu pasal dilema law graduates Universiti Utara Malaysia (kini lebih dikenali sebagai Universiti Ulu Malaysia dek kerana perangai tak semenggah Naib Canselornya yang tak reti beza istilah ekonomi). Lama dah bunyiknya, tapi baru-baru ni timbul lagi isu ni.

Isunya simple je. LLB UUM tak diiktiraf oleh Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) untuk dapat exemption daripada amik exam CLP (Certificate of Legal Practice). Maknanya tak macam law grads dari UIA, UiTM, UM & UKM yang boleh chambering terus lepas grad, UUM tak boleh chambering. Kalo nak amik chambering, kena amik exam CLP (fee mahal beb, RM4000 lebih, kalo kena repeat lagi naya). Bukan saja LLB UUM tak diiktiraf LPQB, malah Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) pun nampaknya masih tak mengiktiraf LLB UUM.

Dalam hal ni aku tak salahkan pelajar & aku jugak tak salahkan LPQB. Pelajar as usual la, dapat offer masuk U pun kira cukup syukur, diorang dengan innocentnya ingat mestilah LLB UUM ni diiktiraf. Kalau tak diiktiraf, kenapa offer degree ni ye tak?

Dalam hal ni aku salahkan administration UUM (indirectly kerajaan la). Apa punya perangai offer degree dulu baru nak terkocoh-kocoh carik recognition dari JPA & LPQB? Jangan salahkan student, diorang manela tau LLB diornag diiktiraf ke tak, in fact diorang tak tau pun prosedur sebenar untuk chambering macam mana masa first year masuk U tu. Logik ke nak blame student pulak?

Ada jugak komen-komen bangang dari law practitioners yang grad oversea. Senang je dia cakap, kitorang pun amik CLP jugak, bayar mahal jugak, tak mampu jugak, tak bising-bising pun macam korang. Amik jelah CLP, apa susah. Cettt, oversea grad ni lagi tak tau pape. Compare silibes LLB kat UUM tu, 10 kali lagi relevan daripada apa yang korang belajar kat oversea tu. Apa yang perasan hebat sangat entah? Bukan aku tak tau ramai je grad LLB oversea yang bangang law, harap English jela fluent. Korang bukan belajar pun Criminal Procedure, Civil Procedure, Professional Practice, Land Law kat Malaysia, pastu nak expect student local yang belajar benda tu kat local universities untuk amik CLP macam korang? Poooodaahhh!!

Although aku tak berkenan dengan implementation LLB kat UUM yang tergesa-gesa (dari segi kegagalan UUM untuk dapat pengiktirafan daripada pihak-pihak berkenaan), tapi bagi aku silibes LLB kat UUM lebih kurang sama je dengan UIA, entah-entah UUM tiru UIA, sama je silibesnya. Mungkinla dari segi facilities ataupun experience lecturer law UUM tak sehebat UIA, tapi kalo ikutkan sebenarnya mengajar law ni taklah susah mana (cewah, macam biasa mengajar lak). Lecturer bagi guideline, explain pape yang patut je. So, amatlah karut jugak kalo LLB UUM tak diiktiraf oleh LPQB & JPA.

So, salah kembali kepada UUM jugaklah. Bukan je LLB UUM tak diiktiraf JPA, berlambak lagi rupanya degree UUM yang belum diiktiraf Lembaga Akreditasi Negara (LAN) & JPA.

Apa penyakit UUM ni sebenarnya? Takde pasal nak carik pasal? Takde glemer nak carik glemer? U lain ada LLB ko pun nak buat LLB? Penyakit ni lagi teruk daripada ‘universiti maya’ yang provide degree, Master & doctorate ‘beli’ macam Menteri Besar dari sebuah negeri tu. Tak pasal-pasal dapat ‘Dr.’, lawak tul.

Ataupun sebenarnya LLB UUM memang tak layak dapat pengiktirafan sebab silibesnye ‘cukup makan’ je? Atau takde ‘mover’ dari UUM yang boleh ‘cucuk’ orang atas supaya iktiraf LLB UUM. Well, masa time UM dulu ada Tan Sri Ahmad Ibrahim, UIA dulu pun macam tu.

Entahla…

http://sangpenchenta.blog.friendster.com/page/2/

As the very beginning, what is the purpose of having CLP for those who wish to practice as a lawyer (advocate and solicitor in Malaysia)? The intention is to ensure the quality of the law student itself? If yes, then why the local university grad law student (UM, UIAM, UKM, UiTM) had been exempted? There should be no exemption at all! If CLP is created to control the quality of the lawyer, then all law grad law student shall have to sit for the exam and no exemption at all no matter whether you are from local university or overseas university!
However, I don't see any information showing that CLP is creating to control the quality of the lawyer but is to ensure all the practicing lawyers are able to tackle the law issues within the MALAYSIA LAW!! Sorry for saying that to all other overseas grad law student, actually for me all of us have the quality to practice as a lawyer in Malaysia after we finish our law degree, but the situation is different between local and oversea grad student because all local law grad student were been taught with MALAYSIA LAW. However, for those who are from overseas, i do believe that you all are not studying MALAYSIA LAW but the law of the country which you were studying. On the other hand, the local grad law student had been taught and trained all the time with the MALAYSIA LAW!! As such, for me, having CLP is to ensure that the overseas law grad student able to tackle the law issue and applying within the MALAYSIA LAW but not the other country's law which they learned previously. However, for those grad from overseas, if you think that you can apply all the MALAYSIA LAW into the law issue without study the MALAYSIA LAW then you should voice up and get exemption! Otherwise, you have no excuse.
Since the previous local grad law student (from UM, UKM, UIAM, UiTM) were exempted from sitting for the CLP exam, therefore I can't see why other local university law grad student are not giving such exemption! If CLP is needed for UUM law student, it means that all the local grad law student also should not be exempted and need to sit for the CLP exam with UUM law grad student. By the way, otherwise, it is unfair and prejudice against the UUM law student if UUM law grad student is the only local university have to sit for the CLP exam. Although the UUM law student are not the best law student in Malaysia but they also not the worst student in Malaysia! If the UUM law student disqualify the standard set, I do believe that there are still a lot of other local grad law student (from UM, UKM, UIAM, UiTM) are also disqualify!
Again, for those who are grad from UK, London, overseas law student, it is your decision to study at oversea. From the comment board, some of them saying that "they are from the lower middle family and need to work as part time to pay their tuition fees". What i want to mention here is that, how good your family treat you are! At least your family still have the financial power to support you and sent you to oversea! I do believe that most of the local students' family cant even pay a flight ticket for their son/daughter! How much the oversea student need to pay for their flight ticket, university/college fees, accommodation, food, other expenses...? Is it still comparable? NO! It just a stupid excuse!

No Quota Imposed on CLP Exam ?

No Quota Imposed on CLP Exam

From eLawyer website

Following the hot issue of complaint by UUM law graduates recently, the result of Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) exam this year is released yesterday.

The CLP exam’s director, K. Muniandy told the local newspaper, The Star that CLP exam candidates “are judged solely on their knowledge and merit and not on any quota system”, he further said that the “paper setters and markers did not know the candidates’ names as only their index numbers appeared on the answer scripts.”

He emphasised that there is no racial quota imposed on the exam system. Most students failed were because they did not answer the question in a practical manner, sometimes they just regurgitated the information that they memorised or were giving answer which were totally not related to the legal issues.

Muniandy also said that he has reduced the risk of leakage of exam questions by minimising the staffs involved in preparing the exam papers.

CLP exam is notorious for its ridiculously low passing rate (usually 10 - 20%), based on an open letter entitled “Purpose of CLP Exam- you tell me” publishes in Malaysiakini, the passing rate for 2006 exam was about 10% i.e. over 1,000 candidates only 107 of them passed.

Many romours were spread about the lack of transparency in handling the exam. Such emotion is even drastic when in 2001, the ex-director, Khalid Yusof was charged to has tempered with the mark of CLP exam result.

In fact, the Legal Qualifying Board was also sued by 5 candidates few years ago who allegedly involved in purchasing the exam papers before the actual exam date from an employee of the Board.

We hope the proposed Common Bar Examination will create a new chapter in the legal profession and the main thing is to eliminate the lack of transperant image hounted by the CLP exam.

What say you?

http://www.elawyer.com.my/blog/no-quota-imposed-on-clp-exam/

CLP exam candidates ‘judged on their knowledge and merit’

©The Star (Used by permission)

PETALING JAYA: Certificate of Legal Practice (CLP) examination candidates are judged solely on their knowledge and merit and not on any quota system, the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) said.Its CLP examinations director K. Muniandy said the paper setters and markers did not know the candidates’ names as only their index numbers appeared on the answer scripts.

“This negates any notion that there is a quota system practised by the LPQB. We reiterate that the system put in place does not allow for it at all,” he said. Results for the CLP exam in July were released yesterday.

Muniandy said there was a misconception for years that candidates were failed on purpose, that a racial quota existed to be met by the board and that the examination only tested candidates’ memory function.

“It is the candidates who resort to regurgitation of information memorised by them.”Muniandy stressed that the LPQB did not seek to fail any candidate and the answer scripts were marked purely on the candidate’s knowledge and merit.

“Candidates must be able to identify legal issues raised in the examination questions and advise on an appropriate legal recourse without going into an academic exercise or a discourse on the law.”

“My duty is also to ensure that the questions set are not susceptible to any form of leakage,” he said, adding that security and safekeeping of the questions were paramount from inception to after the exam.

According to Muniandy, the examination papers are seen only by himself, the paper setters, the typing clerk, translator, moderator and the printer.

“The number of personnel involved in the process is kept to a minimum.” “The prime concern of the office of the director of the CLP examination is the integrity of the examination,” he said.

The CLP exam papers are set by retired and serving judges of the superior courts, senior lawyers from the Malaysian Bar and officers from the Judicial and Legal Service.

“I can assure everyone that the questions set are not to trick candidates,” Muniandy said, adding that they were intended to be unambiguous, comprehensible and precise.

He said some candidates often diverted into giving answers which were totally unrelated to legal practice.

http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/bar_news/berita_badan_peguam/clp_exam_candidates_judged_on_their_knowledge_and_merit.html

__________________________________________________

COMMENT

BOON OF A BRIDGE, NOT BANE OF A WALL

Written by Stephen Tan Ban Cheng, Wednesday, September 24 2008 06:51 pm

My dear Mr Muniandy

One swallow,

my grandmother told me repeatedly before she died 45 years ago, does not a summer make. The history of the CLP has been a long one. It began, as I said in a previous posting, as a BRIDGE to HELP law graduates who were unable to do their professionals in the United Kingdom.

Over the years, before you took over as director, it became a WALL to HINDER the same group. For more years than I care to remember, the CLP has become a BANE for law graduates instead of the BOON that it was promised to be. It has been the subject of so many curses. Just look at the fate of your predecessor. Very sad.

For those who are visibly challenged, a BRIDGE is a HORIZONTAL construct while a WALL is a VERTICLE one.

Mr Muniandy, my prayer is that during your tenure, the Legal Profession Qualifying Board will keep faith with the law graduates it is charged to serve and will not be visited by the scandals that marred what would otherwise have remained a solid institution.

Stephen Tan Ban Cheng

Free Teresa, Abolish ISA! Petition

Free Teresa, Abolish ISA! Petition

Comments Posted in eLawyer Website

Loke Yuen Hong September 17th, 2008 12:56 pm :

I have a few takes on this;

First of all, the Bar did not mention anything as to why UUM is not recognised. Meaning - not reasoned decision, at least to the most affected parties i.e. the UUM students. Now, is that transparent? Is that to be expected of the Bar Council?

CLP notoriously alledgely having a low passing rate, rightly or wrongly. Then at least tell the world why it is so. Saying ‘we strive to ensure the quality of the Bar’ or something like that is inadequate.

CBE and CBC? Learn the mistakes from CLP before screwing up again.

It is the reasonably expected level of a propecting chambering student but not other factors that matters. If UUM or those who failed CLP cannot attain the reasonably expected standard of a propecting chambering student, say it so and tell us all why.

Come on, you are the torch bearer, show some higher standard.

And i am not even saying this as a part of legal fraternity.

This is my say as a citizen and a stake holder of this country

And i stand to be corrected.

_______________________________________________

Avatar September 11th, 2008 11:17 pm :

IMHO, most of these students probably thought by the time they finish the law degree, the CLP Board would have approved the university’s course. Too bad it’s taking so long.

On another side note, isn’t the CLP up for a review? Thought they were going to abolish it and replace it with the CBE? Maybe it’s on the back burner for the moment with the current political situation.

__________________________________________________

a September 12th, 2008 9:42 am :

Checked out with the students and people will be shocked that actually MMU did advertised their law course in the papers at the initial stage emphasizing that students will be exempted from CLP, in which this can no longer be seen now. What does it indicate? I wonder how will the students be thinking about this. I personally think that this is an irresponsible act

A number of students who were doing their LLB twinning program actually transfered to the university due to the said above reason. What should they do? Heard that UUM students have been waiting for about a year for the CLP exemption issue to be settled. Meaning that MMU students will need to wait for the same time period? Is this how the education system work?People are already fed up with the politics of the nation, now here comes such problem in the education system. If a degree from a local univiversity is not recognised, why should we recognise a degree from foreign universities then?!This is just so ridiculous

_____________________________________________

undergrad September 12th, 2008 10:17 am :

it is not what they think - it is that they have been promised by the university.we recognise oral promises in law, dont we?

_____________________________________________

Distressed student September 12th, 2008 1:31 pm :

As a student of UUM law course, I was continually assured by the university authorities that we would be exempted from CLP upon graduation. However, looking at the situation where our seniors are left in limbo after graduating, I couldn’t help but feel anxious about our future. The question now is when will the degree be recognized and exempted from CLP? And if it does not, what is the purpose of studying this degree for an extended time of 4 years as compared to 3 years in a private institution? The sooner we know of the LPQB’s decision, the easier it is for us to determine our next course of action.

_________________________________________

undergrad September 12th, 2008 6:58 pm :

worst out of the worst, people will lose hope in public university. dont ever complain abt brain-drain then!

_________________________________________

Jenny September 12th, 2008 9:33 pm :

I’m one of the law graduates from UUM. So sad to say that we have been waiting from end of May until now. Not including my senior who had left in limbo for almost one year! The Professional Bodies tried to call us for interview for almost three times. Finally, we successfully to meet them between 24-26 August.

Can anyone give us any explanation? NO!!!!! Why I can’t see any big effort made by our university to push Bar Council to give us a final decision? LIVE or DIE? At least an answer!!!

My suggestion is that there shouldn’t be any CLP or CBE. We are local university students graduated from UUM. We are four years students and not three years jurisprudence students!!! But what so different between us? I can feel totally unfairness!!!

There is a high percentage that we won’t get any exemption from this examination even we had graduated. Do you ever think that there may be a quota to limit the number of candidates pass in the exam? How about the fees and time will spend for it? What if we fail the exam? I can’t imagine that i waste my four years in UUM but cannot practice as an Advocate and Solicitor!

i really feel disappointed with our legal education in Malaysia. They seem like won’t sympathize with our condition. Only if this happens to their children then they will feel the pain and shame…..

Click Here To Sign Petition To Free Teresa !!!!

To: All Malaysians & Friends

The Barisan Nasional Government has on the 12 September detained Member of Parliament for Seputeh, state assemblywoman for Kinrara as well the senior state executive councillor for Selangor, without trial under the draconian Internal Security Act (ISA). She has been accused of stirring up racial sentiments by instigating residents to petition against mosques in Kinrara and Kota Damansara to lower the volume of their speakers. Teresa has denied these allegations and both mosques have already come out to deny these accusations. She has already threatened to sue Dr Mohd Khir Toyo, the former Selangor Menteri Besar and Utusan Malaysia for making and publishing these unfounded allegations. The arrest of Sdri Teresa Kok, Raja Petra Kamaruddin, the Hindraf 5 as well as others is hence arbitrary, high-handed and a mockery of democracy.

By labelling Teresa and others as threats to national security without any shred of evidence is a travesty of justice and a gross violation of human rights. The petitioners hence resolves that the BN government should not use draconian powers under the ISA to cling on to power and demands the immediate and unconditional release of Teresa, Raja Petra, the Hindraf 5 and other detainees. In addition, we the petitioners demand the immediate repeal of the ISA to prevent abuses that oppresses the fundamental liberties of each and every Malaysian.

Sincerely,
The Undersigned

http://www.petitiononline.com/freetkok/petition.html

Comments Posted in Malaysian Bar Website

We need to be fair to all

written by Tan Peek Guat, September 12, 2008

If London University graduates and all other graduates from all other universities in the world over are sitting for the CLP examination as a prerequisite for practice of law in Malaysia, then why should UUM graduates be exempted from the CLP examinations? If the undergraduates were unaware of the need to sit for the CLP examination after their completion of the law course - at the time of enrolment, or thereafter, then the fault lies with the UUM or the undergraduates themselves. We need to be fair to all in order to be right.

Tan Peek Guat

_________________________________________________________

Be Fair To All Law Students

written by Clement Ong Tun Heang, September 12, 2008

“Most of us are from the lower middle-income group and our parents have other children to care for. So I hope the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) will consider this and grant us exemption,” she said.Majority of the graduates from London University also from lower middle-income group. Some, included myself, need to work full time to earn the money, as to pay our own tuition fees. Be fair, and be respect.

Clement Ong Tun Heang

__________________________________________________________

CLP or Common Bar Exam should apply to all Law Graduates from Malaysia Local Universities

written by Tong Kuan Ling, September 11, 2008

I believe that to be fair to all the Law Graduates notwithstanding those from Malaysia Local Universities who wish to practice law in Malaysia should sit for the CLP or Common Bar Exam prior to the Admission to Malaysian Bar to ensure the quality of a person before he/she starts his/her legal practice.

Tong Kuan Ling

Please View This Website

There is a forum on this issue... you may view and comment....
http://www.elawyer.com.my/blog/uum-law-students-need-to-do-clp/

PLEASE COMMENT...

The Star Online > Nation Sunday September 14, 2008

UUM CONFIDENT OF DEGREE RECOGNITION

ALOR STAR: Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) is confident that the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) will soon give due recognition to its law programme and degree.

UUM deputy vice-chancellor (academic and international) Prof Dr Abdul Razak Chik said the board had scrutinised and assessed the programmes.

“A delegation from the board comprising representatives from the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the Bar Council and the Judiciary visited us from Aug 23 to 25 to conduct a professional assessment,” he said.

He was responding to a letter published in The Star on Sept 10 claiming that UUM law graduates were left in a limbo because the degree was not recognised by the qualifying board.

“UUM has taken all the necessary due process to ensure its law programme and degree are recognised by the relevant professional bodies,” said Prof Dr Abdul Razak.
Stressing that the university understood the predicament faced by the graduates and their parents, he called on all parties to be patient as it was only a matter of time before the board gave the law programmes and degree due recognition.

He said the Malaysian Qualifications Agency had awarded the accreditation certificate for the university’s LLB programme on March 27.

© 1995-2008 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)

UUM GRADS CRY FOUL OVER CLP RULING


Friday, 12 September 2008 08:29am

©The Star (Used by permission)

PETALING JAYA: Several Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) law students and graduates are disappointed that they were not informed earlier that they have yet to be exempted from the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) examination.Law graduate Khairunnisa Khazali said she wasn’t told about it by UUM until her second year. She had assumed that she would not need to sit for the CLP.

“I’m very disappointed because I have studied so hard, yet I feel my degree is not as equally recognised as that offered by the other public universities,” she said.Another UUM law student, who is graduating next month, said she and most of her peers would not be able to afford to take the CLP because it costs RM4,000 for a first-timer.“Most of us are from the lower middle-income group and our parents have other children to care for. So I hope the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) will consider this and grant us exemption,” she said.LPQB will decide in a few months’ time if UUM’s law degree students should be exempted from taking the CLP exam. Another graduating student, who declined to be named, said his lecturers had advised students to wait for LPQB’s decision.He said that some of his friends who graduated last year are still unemployed or are giving tuition while waiting for news on the exemption, following assurances by UUM that its law degree would be recognised.

In a press statement yesterday, UUM deputy vice-chancellor (academic and international) Prof Dr Abdul Razak bin Chik said the university had taken all the necessary steps to ensure that its law degree was recognised by the relevant professional bodies.“We are confident that it is only a matter of time that the LPQB official recognition is obtained, and the Public Service Department (PSD) can be advised accordingly.”

The Bar joins Qualifying Board's evaluation team to UUM and MMU

Contributed by Web Reporter

Thursday, 11 September 2008 11:31am

KUALA LUMPUR: The Malaysian Bar joined the evaluation team which visited Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) at Sintok, Kedah and Multimedia University (MMU) in Malacca recently to determine if UUM and MMU law graduates should be exempted from the Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) examination, said Bar Councillor Roger Tan who led the team from the Bar.

Referring to the news report in The Star today, CLP needed for UUM law grads, says Bar Council, Tan clarified that the decision on exemption is to be made by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) and not by the Bar Council pursuant to the Legal Profession Act, 1976.

The evaluation committee headed by the Chief Registrar of the Federal Court, Datuk Halijah Abbas and set up by the LPQB also comprised the Treasury Solicitor, Puan Khadijah Idris, Professor Zita Mohd Fahmi of the Malaysian Qualifications Agency, the CLP Director, Muniandy Kannyappan and Tan, on behalf of the Malaysian Bar.

The Committee was assisted by two legal teams in their visits to UUM on August 24-25 and MMU on September 3-4.

The Committee and team members were tasked to determine whether, by comparing the law syllabus taught by the two universities and the 10 areas of law covered by the CLP course, namely Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Tort (General Paper), Contract (General Paper), Advocacy and Duties of Counsel (Professional Practice), Ethics of the Legal Profession (Professional Practice), Land Law and Land Dealings (Professional Practice), Bankruptcy & Winding Up (Professional Practice), Probate & Administration of Estates (Professional Practice) and Civil Procedure, the law graduates of these two universities should be exempted from the CLP exam.

During their visits, the teams attended lectures, tutorials and moots; and examined and interviewed graduated students, existing students and their lecturers and tutors. Copies of the syllabus, examination questions, students' assignments and examination answers (categorised from poor to good), marking schemes, external examiners' comments, teaching materials and other relevant materials had also been extended to the teams during and prior to their visits.

The team members are currently in the process of filing their respective reports to the Evaluation Committee which will make the necessary recommendations to the LPQB.

At the visit to UUM, the following were responsible for the respective areas of law:

Criminal Procedure: Muniandy and Hisyam Teh Poh Teik who is a Bar Councillor and Chairman of Bar Council's Criminal Law Committee.

Evidence: Prof. Zita and Tuan Roslan bin Hanid who is the Butterworth Sessions Court Judge.

Tort: Puan Khadijah and Yeo Yang Poh who is a former Malaysian Bar President and now a Bar Councillor.

Contract: Prof. Zita and lawyer Megat Adbul Munir.

Advocacy and Duties of Counsel, Ethics: Roger Tan and Puan Hendon Mohamed, a former Malaysian Bar President and now a Bar Councillor.

Land Law and Land Dealings: Roger Tan and Andrew Wong Fook Hin, a former Bar Councillor and now the Chairman of Bar Council's Conveyancing Practice Committee.

Bankruptcy: Datuk Halijah and Teh Yoke Hooi who is a member of the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.

Winding Up: Datuk Halijah and Puan Balqisaini bte Mohd Ali who is the Petaling Jaya Sessions Court Judge.

Probate & Administration of Estates: Puan Khadijah, Tuan Meor Sulaiman bin Ahmad Tarmizi who is the Taiping Sessions Court Judge and lawyer Lee Chooi Peng.

Civil Procedure: Muniandy and Nahendran Navaratnam who is a member of the Advocates & Solicitors Disciplinary Board.

At the visit to MMU, the following were responsible for the respective areas of law:

Criminal Procedure: Muniandy and Hisyam Teh Poh Teik.

Evidence: Prof. Zita and Tuan Roslan bin Mat Nor who is the Head of General & Sexual Crimes, Prosecution Division of the Attorney General's Chambers.

Tort: Puan Khadijah and Tuan Amarjeet Singh a/l Serjit Singh, who is the Head of Tort and Statutory Duties Unit of the Attorney General's Chambers.

Contract: Prof. Zita and Datuk Kuthubul Zaman b Bukhari, a former Malaysian Bar President and now a Bar Councillor.

Advocacy and Duties of Counsel, Ethics: Roger Tan and Puan Hendon Mohamed.

Land Law and Land Dealings: Roger Tan and Andrew Wong Fook Hin.

Bankruptcy: Datuk Halijah and Teh Yoke Hooi.

Winding Up: Datuk Halijah and Puan Balqisaini bte Mohd Ali.

Probate & Administration of Estates: Puan Khadijah, Tuan Ahmad Kamar bin Jamaludin who is the Senior Sessions Court Judge in Malacca and lawyer Lee Chooi Peng.

Civil Procedure: Muniandy and Nahendran Navaratnam.

PLEASE COMMENT TO THIS ARTICLE

Thursday September 11, 2008

CLP needed for UUM law grads, says Bar Council
By SARAH CHEW and TAN EE LOO

PETALING JAYA: Universiti Utara Malaysia (UUM) law graduates can still practise if they pass their Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) exam.

According to CLP examinations director Muniandy Kannyappan, the procedure for graduates to enter legal practice is to complete the CLP, unless exempted, then apply for chambering and be admitted to the Malaysian Bar.

“The question of degree ‘recognition’ doesn’t arise because the law programme was accredited by MQA (Malaysian Qualifications Agency) in March. However, the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) views that evaluation has to be done in order to determine if UUM graduates can be exempted from the CLP exam for purposes of legal practice,” Muniandy told The Star.

He was responding to a letter titled “UUM law grads left in limbo”, that appeared in The Star yesterday.

The writer of the letter, whose daughter is pursuing her law degree at UUM, said he checked with the Malaysian Bar Council and was told that the Bachelor of Laws degree awarded by UUM had yet to be “recognised” for admission to the Malaysian Bar.

UUM’s law programme, offered since 2003, is undergoing evaluation by the LPQB.
LPQB’s evaluation committee visited UUM last month and will determine within the next few months if its graduates can be exempted from taking the CLP exam.
Currently, graduates from Universiti Malaya, Universiti Teknologi Mara, International Islamic University Malaysia, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia and National University of Singapore as well as barristers-at-law of England are exempted.

“UUM feels that its degree is of the same standard as that of the other universities. But the LPQB still has to declare if its law students should be exempted,” Muniandy said.

He added that upon evaluation, should UUM students be exempted from the CLP, its first batch of graduates from 2007 could apply to enter chambering without having to sit for the examination.

A UUM official said the university would issue a statement today, to clarify the matter.

WMY CLP IS NOT NEEDED FOR UUM LAW GRADS?

The Star Online > Focus Wednesday September 10, 2008

UUM law grads left in limbo

UNIVERSITI Utara Malaysia (UUM), a local government university, has been offering law courses for the last five years. A good number have graduated and many others still pursue the course.

Students take four years to complete the course which matches the design and syllabus of law courses offered by other local universities.

Students are also exposed to practical training as part of their course.

However, a check with the Malaysian Bar Council shows that the Bachelor of Laws degree awarded by UUM has yet to be recognised for admission to the Malaysian Bar.
Thus, the graduates are unable to practise and have to seek other employment while hoping for some positive development.

Pursuing a course which is not recognised by the related professional body is a waste of time, effort and money.

The Government has always defended the system and quality of public education. But in this case, a degree from the very system fails to satisfy the relevant professional body.

A situation like this is distressing to the graduates who have placed their faith in public institutions of higher education.

After having spent their productive years pursuing a degree, the graduates are sadly left in a void.

Most students who enrol in public universities are from families which cannot afford private institutions.

I understand that the university is working hard towards obtaining recognition.

I hope that all agencies, ministries and professional bodies would take the trouble to expedite this matter so that the graduates could make meaningful contributions and not live in anxiety and uncertainty for an indefinite period of time.

Otherwise, the course should be discontinued to save everyone (graduates, students, parents and the Government) further embarrassment and anxiety.

W.K.L.,
Penang.

© 1995-2008 Star Publications (Malaysia) Bhd (Co No 10894-D)

_________________________________________

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Dear Sir/Madam,

CONCERNING BACHELOR OF LAW DEGREE [LLB (HONS)] IN UUM

1. We would much appreciate if all Agencies, Ministries and Professional Bodies would pay fully attention to the pending recognition of Bachelor of Law Degree in UUM.

2. The facts are:

(a) The design and syllabus of law courses offered match other local universities;

(b) Adequate and international standard facilities provided, namely library, moot court, lecture room and so on;

(c) Two times internship training in Superior court and Subordinate court in each states, law firms or other Professional Bodies;

(d) Compulsory to attend two interviews and motivation talks called by the Professional Bodies for recognition purpose;

(e) Participation in Jess Up Moot Competition, National Client Counseling Competition and Law Conference held by other recognized universities;

3. The problems are:

(a) Delay in Law Degree recognition by relevant Professional Bodies which takes almost 5 years (starting from year of 2003);

(b) High percentage to sit for CLP examination which requires non-affordable examination fees and courses taken fees;
(Estimate RM3,000 for exam fees + RM9,000 for courses taken in nine months = RM12,000)

(c) Waste of time, effort and money for four years (not including during the period of waiting for recognition for one year or a few months);

(d) Difficulty to seek other employment;

(e) Faced embarrassment, ridicule, disparage and prejudice as unable to do chambering after graduated; and

(f) Unreasonable as law courses offered by local government university itself unrecognized.

4. We request for recognition without CLP.

5. We really hope all parties would give full co-operation and provide any solutions to help UUM law students to expedite this matter.

Thank you so much.


Yours faithfully,
UUM LAW GRADUATES