I read with regret the "final decisions" made by the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) which is chaired by the Attorney-General Ainum Mohd Saaid as reported in your article, 'CLP - no review of decision, Khalid suspended' (Dec 5).

The final decisions were apparently made after the LPQB sat over the appeals sent in by CLP candidates at the former's request.

After a series of public relation blunders, one would have thought that the LPQB would have learnt its lesson but apparently this does not appear so.

Its earlier decision to annul the July and October CLP examination results, and the subsequent reinstatement of the July results albeit 'restored and untampered' had met with stiff criticisms from various parties. In a move attempting to soften the criticisms and alleviate this fiasco, the LPQB resorted to inviting appeals from the affected candidates apparently for their consideration.

From the latest press release, it appears that the LPQB has its interest only at heart with nary an apology owed to the candidates nor thought that perhaps some of the affected appellants would prefer not to sit through more examinations. For what assurance or guarantee is there that the LPQB, already setting a precedent of reversals, would not resort to the same actions again, like a dog returning to its vomit?

Not to mention, the LPQB has apparently not taken into account the difficulties of passing through the exams and the tremendous emotional and mental stress and anguish the candidates had already endured.

Granted, those who had originally failed the July examinations are getting another shot but what about those who had earlier passed the July examinations only to fail after the not-so-latest decision by the board?

How about the October candidates who gave their very best and now to have to sit it again in January 2002? These examinations are stressful considering that only 30 percent, now less, succeed in passing each year. Bear in mind that some of these candidates are those who have achieved second-class law degrees and upper.

Does the LPQB believe that by excluding the July 2001 CLP examination from the four attempts allowed to a candidate would help placate and ease the tortured minds of the latter? The same candidate would have to go through the same ordeal again!

Does the LPQB seriously think that by offering sums of money would help appease the candidates? What and how about compensating for emotional and mental stress to those who had originally passed only to fail after the readjustment, or those with July conditional passes who have already sat for the October supplementary test? Does the LPQB also consider that?

Does the LPQB also think it is fair to throw the baby out with the bathwater by demanding that the October Evidence candidates resit in January 2002 for certainly not all the candidates are cheats who resorted to illegal means?

The vacillating positions made by the LPQB via its statements to the media brings to mind a statement once made by a leading politician of our country, "Twenty-two sticks broke the camel's back."

And now the latest "final decisions" invokes nostalgic recollection of a statement attributed to Al-Ghazali: "The predispositions for receiving forms varies through causes hidden from us, and it is not within the powers of flesh to know them."

In other words, if a god or a prophet can make it rain, why can't he do something even bigger?

If the LPQB, the final authority on these matters, is capable of such simple indecisions, what more greater indecisions will there be in future?