Need we further alienate the immigrants?

The UMNO General Assembly of 2006 ended last week; unlike any other conventional political party of our time, it sparked images of nationalist organizations of old. It was also televised for the much-needed benefit of the Malaysian people, and for once we could observe fully the proceedings which involved racial diatribes and divisive overtones.

CLP woes

The results of this year’s CLP examinations which took place in July 2006 had the lowest passing rate in its history. Apparently, only an estimated 10% passed the exam in totality, out of around 1000 entrants. Furthermore, the 10% includes an unknown number of entrants who had failed it initially.

There have been numerous letters written in by concerned entrants and their parents to the mainstream press as well as Malaysiakini recently with regard to this numerical discrepancy. In reply, this author has caught at least two letters which defend the examinations. The crux of these letters mention that the failure rate is high due to the mental parity of students who are taught in a rote education system; to remember answers rather than to devise them on their own. According to these letters, this method has no place in the CLP, and for a legal system such as ours we should not allow law students who do not have the appropriate legal mind to become members of the Bar. Though this argument has its own merit, it is nevertheless still unlikely that it is the main reason for 90% of CLP entrants to fail. This author doubts what it infers: that only 10% of entrants embody a proper legal mentality.

We Should Need No Review

This year and the last have been marked heavily by constant calls for a review of the 1988 fiasco where the Lord President was sacked along with two of his fellow brothers in a series of events which highlighted a struggle of power between the executive and the judiciary. The 1988 judicial crisis ended with the consolidation of the then Prime Minister Dr. Mahathir Mohammad’s power over all three branches of the Malaysian Government. The judiciary, consequently, was never the same as allegations of corruption, favouritism and inefficiency plagued it consistently.

Tun Salleh Abas LP, as one of the players, spoke out this year of the challenges he faced and revealed new facts as to his sacking to the media, both mainstream and non-mainstream. The Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department, Mohamed Nazri Aziz, himself has played down calls for a judicial review and has arbitrarily shot down any chance of such a review.

It is, however, dubious to this author of what consequence such a review can have if it is indeed allowed and established. Two of the sacked judges including the then-Lord President himself are in a poor physical state while the third has since passed on. There can obviously be no real or actual compensation to the victims, owing to the current status quo of the judiciary. Nor is any reprimand to the instigator of the 1988 proceedings, be it Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohammad or any other party or person, be of any real value considering how Dr. Mahathir, assuming that the esteemed ex-premier is truly the sine qua non of the whole affair, is no longer Prime Minister and has reaped the benefits, if any, of 1988 to its fullest. Moreover, the man who replaced Tun Salleh Abas as Lord President, who presided over the Tribunal which led to the latter’s sacking, has since retreated into the background.