|
|
|
  |
| Sunday, 15 May 2005 |
 |
|
 |
Features |  |
| News Business Features Editorial
|
Limiting legal admission by C. Hapugala There are numerous letters published in the papers regarding the Legal Education Council's decision to limit the admission age to Law College to 35 years. If, our system of governing and administering legal education undergoes drastic 'changes' let us hope that there will first be adequate discussions and that in shaping the reform the improvement of legal education will be the main objective. Most will agree that in the absence of such transparency and open discussion it is quite clear today what this concealment has led to. Is this really nothing to worry about? I would not say so. We all know that the measures introduced by the Legal Education Council for Law College admission has come in for harsh criticism as it clashes with the national education realities of the country. Under these proposed rules even if a person possesses a Law Degree (LLB) but is beyond the age of 35, he/she will not be eligible for admission to the Law College. As it says the minimum qualification for admission to the Law College is either the GCE (Ad.Lev.) local exam or the GCE London (Ad. Lev.) exam. But here there is a discrimination against the local GCE (Ad. Level) candidates as the rule insists on three 'B' passes; whereas London GCE (Ad. Level) candidates are deemed eligible for Law College admission with three 'S' passes. For some obscure reason, these rules have been formulated without any consultation of the National Education authorities. These measures have now stirred up a hornet's nest demanding its withdrawal. For they are measures aimed at closing the doors of the Law College to the common man. Surely, this may be an attempt to tarnish the good image of President Chandrika Bandaranaike's present alliance government. This is a very serious matter which should not go unheeded. People as social beings cannot remain apathetic for long about their educational and social destiny, their past, present and the future. All this should be clarified not only for the sake of historical truth but also to have a better understanding of events today. What we are talking about now are the effects, rather than the cause. And the cause is that we do not want the kind of Law College we have today. For Law College authorities are trying surreptiously to re-animate what is becoming a thing of the past. That epoch is receding further and further into the past. The majority of law learners in this country watch developments in this sphere with greater anxiety. The present outcry aroused seem to emanate mostly from the law learners in rural areas. For they are convinced that their prospects in life have been jeopardised unfairly by a system that seem to them flagrantly unjust. Clearly these issues are by no means just within our competence and our possibilities, and dealing with them require purposeful work, both on the part of the National Education Commission and the Legal Education Council. In Education, formidable powers are vested in the President, as she wields all the Ministerial powers on Education. Hence, we most respectfully appeal to the President to consider this matter on broader principles of National Education. The main thing is to restore the status quo and prevent further injustices from taking place. The way to defeat these anti-democratic elements is not by shouting slogans or wielding a fist in the name of 'majority rights' but with ideas, logical analysis and the power of persuasion. It is the duty of the National Education Commission to advise the President upon such matters connected with educational theory and practice, as they think fit, and upon any question referred to them by the President. If the National Education Commission continues to consider the problems of the legal education sector as something separate from the national education function it will only perpetuate the present messy state of affairs. The question of the spirit in which legal education matters are dealt with is all important. We know very well, that social class in the legal sector is still a big force in determining the affairs of the Law College - at times even the affairs of the Faculty of Law of the University. They have at their disposal ready-made answers, enabling them to claim justification for any violation of the citizen's rights. These selfish elements seek somehow, to keep these seats of higher professional learning, the exclusive preserve of a coterie of people. For the past several years we have heard many unpleasant things about the affairs of the country's two major institutions of legal education: the Law College and the Faculty of Law of the University of Colombo. This is no joke. From inception, these two institutions have been persuing more or less on a similar line of policy for curbing the number entering for legal studies. Everytime they wanted to do it, they changed either the syllabus or the exam rules or both, with retrospective effect, as if to meet the country's legal education needs. Thus in the late 80s the Faculty of Law of the University of Colombo changed both the syllabus and the exam rules for no apparent reason. Accordingly the three year LLB was made a four year course. The new LLB exam was supplemented with two more exams called Part 1 and Part 11 leaving the original First in Law Examination intact. Under the old syllabus Criminal Law and Administrative Law were considered First in Law Subjects. Those who had got through their first in law exams with these subjects had to sit for the second time at the newly introduced Par 1 and 11 exams. Thus, they were made to get through the same subjects twice for no apparent reason. Is there any bigger joke? Thus the exam system operative in these two institutions have come in for severe criticism in public circles for very cogent reasons. Much is being said by our legal top shots in society about restoring historical justice. But this unfortunately, often leads to manifestation of injustice with respect to the law-learners themselves, to the people who are admiring law. We need an education against the psychology and habbit which says "I seek my profit and don't care a rap for anything". Legal education is not simply a question of raising people's professional skills, but systematically improving the level of education and culture and forming scientific world outlook which will provide the basis for the constant replenishment of their knowledge. Herein lies the need for affiliating the Law College to the University Law Faculty. During the colonial rule the Law College was established for giving our lawyers a professional training. It could not be made a University. Anyway, it was decided that those who passed out ought to have the opportunity of gaining, if not a degree, some equivalent award. So was the status of the Medical College at one stage. Although the Medical College was affiliated to the Medical Faculty no step was taken to affiliate the Law College to the Law Faculty. For some obscure reason the Law College was kept intact, to function as a separate entity. The present generation has to pay a high price for that lapse on the part of the then policy planners. When we look at the Medical Faculty's exam system, law exam system seems very old fashioned. The only way to remedy this situation is to affiliate the Law College to the University Law Faculty. All this shows that our way of governing legal education matters is out of date and in need of radical reform. As a prelude to correct this present messy state of our legal education a whole reappraisal of the entire system is highly needed. |
|
| News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
| Produced by Lake House |
