This article nearly slipped by me. It seemed there is an unwritten official mandate (by god knows where or who) apart from the already quota system of the NEP in business, education and civil services. Sports too over the years have had some ‘moderation’ process being carried out to be in line with the country’s policies.
What got my attention to this article was that the particular person in this case declared that he have a mandate, presumably by his own initiative from the facts of the case, altered the CLP examinations percentages of passes to adhere to a quota system of 30% for bumiputras.
I dread to think in time to come, what will be the quality of our lawyers if such a thing was not detected and curbed. The Malaysian Legal Profession Qualifying Board took the correct measures to bring the case to court for forgery and cheating even though it appears that no monetary gain is involved.
But there’s still this lingering doubt in me about other profession in the services requiring public trust, integrity and professionalism – doctors, teachers, coaches, company directors in GLC’s, architects, engineers, accountants, etc, etc. One wonders as to what extend such a practise is put in place within the professions and system in the market. It's no longer the best person wins.
Ex-CLP exam director had no right to change marks, court heard
The Star by M. Mageswari
KUALA LUMPUR: Former Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) examination director Khalid Yusoff had no lawful authority to alter the marks in July 2001 CLP examination master list, a High Court heard.
Lead prosecutor DPP Raja Rozela Raja Toran submitted that Malaysian Legal Profession Qualifying Board never gave Khalid a “blank cheque” to do whatever he wanted although “moderation” of the CLP result was an accepted practice.
“Although there are no rules on how to conduct the CLP examination, what has to be borne in his mind is that the qualifying board is the appellant’s (Khalid) employer and he is answerable to his employer.
“If there is no guideline or written law, he should have gone back to the board to seek guidance. It is a natural thing to do. He has been an academician for a long time and should know what to do,” she argued in an appeal by Khalid against his conviction and sentence.
She argued that a typist had testified that Khalid had given instructions to make alteration to the master list.
Khalid, 57, a former law school dean at UiTM, was jailed three months for forgery and cheating in the July 2001 CLP examination “master list”.
Sessions Court judge Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal who found Khalid guilty of the two charges on July 24, 2007 ordered Khalid to serve three months’ jail for each charge. The sentences are to run concurrently from date of sentence on July 31.
On the first charge, Khalid, was said to have forged the master list with the intention of using it for cheating at the board’s office on the 27th floor, Menara Tun Razak between August 2001 and Sept 13, 2001.
He allegedly cheated the board by deceiving it into believing that the July 2001 CLP examination results reflected the actual marks given by the examiners and induced it into endorsing the master list.
DPP Raja Rozela submitted that Khalid ignored a scheme of marking and grading for CLP examination papers and upgraded marks for some CLP candidates beyond the existing guideline.
“He gave a pass to certain candidates without approval of the board when they did not qualify to be legal practitioners."
“The appellant told the board in late November that he was mandated to help Bumiputra candidates and to maintain the pass percentage of CLP examination at 30%."
That is the reason that he altered the marks but that policy was not adopted by the board,” she argued.
She argued that the trial judge was not misdirected when he convicted Khalid due to established facts in the case.
However, lawyer Akbardin Abd Kadir contended that the trial judge erred in law when he called Khalid, who led a review committee, to enter defence on both charges.
Akbardin argued that it was a three-men review committee’s collective decision to do the moderation over the marks and that the two committee members had acknowleged that the committee, which met on Sept 11, 2001, had carried out its duties in good faith.
“The trial judge failed to realise that the appellant had never even had a work manual detailing his duties.
If such a document existed, and it specified that he had a duty to inform the board of the moderation process, only then is there a legal duty to inform the board of the moderation,” he argued.
Akbardin submitted that the trial judge also erred in law when he failed to direct his mind to the fact that the then chairman of the qualifying board, the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah was well aware of the moderation process.
Besides, he said that Mohtar’s witness statement tendered to court by the prosecution clearly absolved Khalid of any wrongdoing.
He argued that the investigating officer had also testified that he did not find any motive of money consideration against Khalid.
Judicial Commissioner Zainal Azman Ab. Aziz set April 20 for continuation of the hearing of the appeal.
What got my attention to this article was that the particular person in this case declared that he have a mandate, presumably by his own initiative from the facts of the case, altered the CLP examinations percentages of passes to adhere to a quota system of 30% for bumiputras.
I dread to think in time to come, what will be the quality of our lawyers if such a thing was not detected and curbed. The Malaysian Legal Profession Qualifying Board took the correct measures to bring the case to court for forgery and cheating even though it appears that no monetary gain is involved.
But there’s still this lingering doubt in me about other profession in the services requiring public trust, integrity and professionalism – doctors, teachers, coaches, company directors in GLC’s, architects, engineers, accountants, etc, etc. One wonders as to what extend such a practise is put in place within the professions and system in the market. It's no longer the best person wins.
Ex-CLP exam director had no right to change marks, court heard
The Star by M. Mageswari
KUALA LUMPUR: Former Certificate in Legal Practice (CLP) examination director Khalid Yusoff had no lawful authority to alter the marks in July 2001 CLP examination master list, a High Court heard.
Lead prosecutor DPP Raja Rozela Raja Toran submitted that Malaysian Legal Profession Qualifying Board never gave Khalid a “blank cheque” to do whatever he wanted although “moderation” of the CLP result was an accepted practice.
“Although there are no rules on how to conduct the CLP examination, what has to be borne in his mind is that the qualifying board is the appellant’s (Khalid) employer and he is answerable to his employer.
“If there is no guideline or written law, he should have gone back to the board to seek guidance. It is a natural thing to do. He has been an academician for a long time and should know what to do,” she argued in an appeal by Khalid against his conviction and sentence.
She argued that a typist had testified that Khalid had given instructions to make alteration to the master list.
Khalid, 57, a former law school dean at UiTM, was jailed three months for forgery and cheating in the July 2001 CLP examination “master list”.
Sessions Court judge Harmindar Singh Dhaliwal who found Khalid guilty of the two charges on July 24, 2007 ordered Khalid to serve three months’ jail for each charge. The sentences are to run concurrently from date of sentence on July 31.
On the first charge, Khalid, was said to have forged the master list with the intention of using it for cheating at the board’s office on the 27th floor, Menara Tun Razak between August 2001 and Sept 13, 2001.
He allegedly cheated the board by deceiving it into believing that the July 2001 CLP examination results reflected the actual marks given by the examiners and induced it into endorsing the master list.
DPP Raja Rozela submitted that Khalid ignored a scheme of marking and grading for CLP examination papers and upgraded marks for some CLP candidates beyond the existing guideline.
“He gave a pass to certain candidates without approval of the board when they did not qualify to be legal practitioners."
“The appellant told the board in late November that he was mandated to help Bumiputra candidates and to maintain the pass percentage of CLP examination at 30%."
That is the reason that he altered the marks but that policy was not adopted by the board,” she argued.
She argued that the trial judge was not misdirected when he convicted Khalid due to established facts in the case.
However, lawyer Akbardin Abd Kadir contended that the trial judge erred in law when he called Khalid, who led a review committee, to enter defence on both charges.
Akbardin argued that it was a three-men review committee’s collective decision to do the moderation over the marks and that the two committee members had acknowleged that the committee, which met on Sept 11, 2001, had carried out its duties in good faith.
“The trial judge failed to realise that the appellant had never even had a work manual detailing his duties.
If such a document existed, and it specified that he had a duty to inform the board of the moderation process, only then is there a legal duty to inform the board of the moderation,” he argued.
Akbardin submitted that the trial judge also erred in law when he failed to direct his mind to the fact that the then chairman of the qualifying board, the late Tan Sri Mohtar Abdullah was well aware of the moderation process.
Besides, he said that Mohtar’s witness statement tendered to court by the prosecution clearly absolved Khalid of any wrongdoing.
He argued that the investigating officer had also testified that he did not find any motive of money consideration against Khalid.
Judicial Commissioner Zainal Azman Ab. Aziz set April 20 for continuation of the hearing of the appeal.
No comments:
Post a Comment