i’m glad that we have finally understood each other, and that we all agree that there is NO PLACE for ‘grotesque’ lawyers, local or overseas grad.

we should all help those who come from the disadvantaged background (most of whom r bumis, but increasingly non-bumis too) like giving them an opportunity to study law in uni BUT at some point, they have to depend on themselves and prove to the world that they have studied SO HARD that they now r EQUALLY GOOD as others, especially the non-bumi overseas grads.

yes, overseas grads should study more malaysian law, no doubt. but that’s what they r doing during the 1 year when they r taking CLP courses in the ’shoplots’ in Brickfields, Petaling St or in UM. I think we should make the CBE even tougher than CLP so that u can really test the knowledge of overseas grads on malaysian law – PROVIDED, of course, that the LOCAL grads r being tested TOO.

and henceforth, once a lawyer has passed CBE, if he’s STILL ‘grotesque’, no one can blame his ‘alma mater’ anymore – only HE HIMSELF should be blamed. i think that’s fair.

thanks for a GREAT & OPEN discussion. “c u in court!”

I’m agreed with the argument made by my ‘alma mater’ Umar, Zaim and Asril regarding this issue. I still hurt by the statement made by this ‘2 orang tua yang mengomel tak tentu hala’ ni as i stated in my blog before. Simply prejudice with local law grads. But i try to take it positively to show that our grads not ‘grotesque’ as they tried to say. Even, I dared to face with ‘this 2 orang tua holier than thou’ to proof that we are not bad as what they think. ‘Biar menganga mulut mereka’ Hahaha

To Prove it:i read your comment entirely and i put my respect towards your thoughts. Well maybe you think that the same standard should be applied. Yes i agreed but to the certain extend, our local grads learned much on local law compare with oversea especially during the early stage. I’m not prejudiced against oversea grads (as I’m doing my LLM in UK) but i tried to ‘mix’ my little experience in Malaysia and UK to see how legal education can be improved.

I think that we can take Singapore examples by abolishing LLB external London (some saya majority of lawyers come from this ’shoplots’ offered LLB external) and establish legal academy to standardize the entry. But I still skeptical whether it would be implemented soon. It take lots of time and manpower. But when Dato ZAid said it would be implemented in short period, I didn’t know what mechanism they try to use. Question mark on that?

In my opinion, I believed that whether you come from overseas or local, continuous legal education is very important. I quoted what Dr Nik Nozrul Thani from ZICO said in Graduan 2008 magazine. The most important for new breed of lawyer is not which university they graduated but it’s about the attitude and confidence!Ability to articulate the ideas and good current issues is really crucial part as he said. Each of us local or oversea has own strengths and weaknesses.

To local grads – we can improve lots from increase our confident, maturity and ability. (i believed we can learn more and don’t be bothered by low mentality of certain people against you)
To overseas grads – please learn Malaysian law yea (this is not British anymore ok hehehe) and tried to understand the complexity of Malaysian legal environment

Just my 2 pence. Peace!

to Prove it: i will not condemn your comment. in fact, i respect yours as much i respect zaim’s comment.

as a law graduate from ‘local university’, i shall stand up for my uni as the best uni ever.

the point is= it’s up to anyone to take up the challenge and progress in this field.

Zaim,

first of all, i just want to say that
(a) u’ve misunderstood many of my arguments or taken them out of context.
(b) u and i actually agree on a lot of things.

1. i have NO QUARREL with, and i FULLY SUPPORT, affirmative action.

i have NO BIG PROBLEM with letting allowing less bright bumi SPM students being admitted to study law over those non-bumi SPM students who r much brighter.

i was only responding to ‘Umar’ (5-6-08) who criticized foreign grads for getting a foreign degree. i was only explaining why many of us were FORCED TO get a much more expensive foreign degree, bcos ‘Umar’ made it sound like we VOLUNTARILY CHOSE to be a traitor or something.

but i DO HAVE PROBLEM when u let them GRADUATE, A-N-D practise as a PROFESSIONAL, if they r not up to the standard. (read my response, 13-6-08)

eg. it’s ok for me that a bumi, from a less privileged background like the kampung (mind u, it should NOT be for those bumis from more affluent area, i think u would agree – they should NOT the intended beneficiary of any fair affirmative action program in the world), got accepted into study law even if he only got half of the A’s a bumi would be getting in SPM. say, Z the Bumi got 6As in SPM, P (non-Bumi) got 12, let Z go to study law but deny P, that’s ok.

bcos all u give to Z is: AN OPPORTUNITY.

but if Z, after studying 4 long years, is still not up to standard, then he should NOT be allowed to (1) graduate AND (2) practise as a professional. he must pass the SAME kind of standard as those who came in without affirmative action.

in short, it’s ok to GET IN if u r not good enough, but it’s NOT ok to GET OUT if u r not good enough.

and this is for very good reason and is in the public interests: bcos we need to protect the public from being misled or ruined by those who r not qualified. this, i don’t think any professional would disagree — in fact, that’s the reason why we need to regulate the standard of professionals in the first place.

“You think it’s easy for Asians to thrive in the US of A or even the U.K.?”

no, it’s not ‘easy’, but YES, it’s EASIER than in malaysia. for your information, top american unviersities like MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton etc have about 1/4 of their students who r of China, Taiwan, South Korea or Japan origin. so much so many of the top unis now have to impose a quota on the intake of east asian students.

it’s no secret that east asian immigrants as a group in US and UK end up having a much higher % of professionals, uni grads etc than those immigrants from non-east asian countries, especially those from arab countries, many of whom refuse to even learn english or to get a job.

(i think someone is going to ask me “then why don’t u migrate la, why stay in malaysia?” sigh…)

but i just want to point out that u should agree with me that while affirmative actions r fine, u cant honestly expect those who SUFFER AS A RESULT OF it should feel happy about it. there’ll ALWAYS be resentment (since u brought up US and UK, i’m sure u also know that many of the white americans r not happy about affirmative actions).

so, i dont think u would fault us for getting ANGRY WHEN someone like ‘Umar’ starts to condemn us for getting a foreign degree as if we liked it so much.

2. well, i was in support of the CBE, but your brothers and sisters here kept telling me they were so good that they don’t need to prove themselves.

so yeah, i dont think we disagree on this point either.

3. yeah, i also NEVER said ALL local u grads r grotesque. read what i said here (13-6-08) again:

“I have no doubt you are good — I’m sure many UITM graduates are good — but if you REALLY ARE SOOOOOOOOOOOO GOOD, what’s wrong with PROVING IT to us? The writers of these letters never specifically said that UITM graduates are shit. We all just want you to prove it, that’s all”

and i FULLY agree with this:

“The grotesqueness applies to overseas law graduates too.”

australian, uk, SO WHAT?? many of them as STUPID as many local u grads also!! what a waste of their parents’ money to go overseas. this, i fully agree.

my point is, good or bad, so long as EACH AND EVERY ONE of us (foreign, local) passes the CBE, nobody would be able to complain, right? (well, they can still complain that “u passed CBE but still shit”, but at least they cant use the ‘local vs foreign’ as a basis of complaint.) that would be a big step to safeguard quality and standards.

but Zaim, u went on to CONTRADICT yourself here:
“So, it is an irresponsible generalization made by Gopal Sri Ram towards local graduates.”

how could u say that GSR made ‘generalization’ when YOU YOURSELF HAVE JUST SAID, and i quote:

“~~~~~not all~~~~~ of them are grotesque…

read “range from good…” (with emphasis added)

and

“The standard of lawyers…most of…” (with emphasis added)”

GSR also said “RANGE FROM”, isn’t it??

aiyo, why u people just love to take a swipe at him, at every opportunity u can? hey, i kena a few times by him also, embarrassing and humiliating me (and many others) in open court like a dog BUT STILL, i have to say that he’s brilliant in law.

he’s nasty, sometimes not entirely fair, and not likeable, NO DOUBT. but he’s also the malaysian judge with best legal knowledge, NO DOUBT.

anyway, GSR is really beside the point here.

4. “What is with the rhetorics of downgrading the local graduates.”

for me, it’s bcos they did not have to pass CLP, but we had to.

your examples of Karpal Singh and Dato Shafee kind of prove our point here also, that the quality HAS DETERIORATED. most of the local u grads were OUTSTANDING, foreign u grads cant match. in fact, my dad’s generation of lawyers really respect those who hold a u malaya or u sing law degree. u malaya is still the best of the local u, but u really cant honestly say the same about ukm, uia and uitm. maybe i’m just unfortunate that most lawyers i’ve met from these 3 unis… i just felt sorry for them bcos they did not feel shameful at all for calling themselves a ‘lawyer’. (like how u felt sorry for those australian, uk grads.)

5. “lawyers do not speak the way you did.”

haha, Zaim – YOU r doing some nasty generalization here too, u know?

i have no doubt u r a good local u grad. it would be great if we meet in court one day.

dear asrilamirul,

thanks for this great discussion, but as to your naive comments below:

“Please check at the local law faculties and query on whether they have external examiners for the papers and these external examiners are law professors and prominent academician from overseas.”

SO WHAT??

a) NOT ALL the papers were marked externally, correct?

b) even if they were all marked externally, the grades could still be adjusted upward when they came back to the uni, correct?

c) you really miss the BIG POINT here: just bcos u could answer questions correctly doesnt mean u r a good, thinking lawyer. eg. u can have lecturers giving out tips before exam about what topics will be examined, correct??

d) marked ‘externally’, or even ‘overseas’ – so what?? by WHOM?? university of islamabad or kandahar?? university of thames valley?? or oxford or cambridge??

there r SO MANY WAYS that an internal exam could be manipulated. (the fact that u still want some external examiners to mark them show that u really cant trust internal exams completely.) if u dont believe that internal exams could be manipulated, then i think it’s a waste of time debating this point with u — i bet u would believe in santa claus if u were a christian.

whatever it is, all i wanted to argue is that CBE is the fairest way to go. it’s not going to be perfect, but it’s in the right direction.

Sama dalam AG. Tak kira lah local grad or overseas grad pun. Selagi ko boleh bekerja ngan baik, ok la.