I answered a question in Parliament this morning from the Member of Parliament for Sungai Siput regarding the steps being taken by the Government to reform the Legal Profession Qualifying Board (LPQB) following its failure to perform its statutory duties under the Legal Profession Act 1976 since 1985.

The MADANI Government remains fully committed to advancing its law and institutional reform agenda, which includes strengthening and modernising the LPQB. Since last year, the Legal Affairs Division of the Prime Minister’s Department (BHEUU) has conducted a detailed review of the LPQB’s structure and governance, recognising the need for reform after several decades since its establishment. This review involved extensive consultations with all key stakeholders in the legal profession, including the LPQB itself, the Malaysian Bar, academics from public and private law faculties, and law students.

Following this exercise, I was pleased to inform Parliament that on 1 August 2025, the Government agreed in principle to several policy measures aimed at improving the LPQB. Among these are:

(a) Transforming the LPQB into a body corporate. This will clarify its legal status and ensure greater accountability to Parliament, as the LPQB would be required to submit an annual report of its activities.

(b) Making the LPQB more inclusive by expanding its membership to include a broader range of stakeholders from the legal profession, such as an additional representative from the Malaysian Bar, a legal academic from a private university, and legal practitioners from Sabah and Sarawak.

(c) Creating the position of Deputy Chairman and introducing a statutory requirement for the LPQB to meet at least six times a year.

These proposed reforms, together with others that will be introduced when the amending legislation is tabled in Parliament, are expected to enhance the LPQB’s efficiency and effectiveness in carrying out its statutory functions related to qualifications for admission to the legal profession.

With regard to the LPQB’s failure to perform its statutory duties, I believe the Member of Parliament for Sungai Siput was referring to its refusal to register applicants under the articled clerkship route and to conduct the corresponding examination. The decisions of the Court of Appeal last year and the Federal Court this week have made it clear that the LPQB has no authority to make such a significant decision on its own. Only Parliament, through legislative amendment, can abolish the articled clerkship route.

In this context, the LPQB submitted a proposal in March this year to the Government seeking the abolition of the articled clerkship route under the Legal Profession Act 1976. This proposal is currently under review by BHEUU.

As I emphasised in Parliament this morning, and I wish to reiterate here, the Government will only make a decision on the LPQB’s proposal after all stakeholders in the legal profession have been consulted and all perspectives, both in support and against, have been considered. A comparative study with other Commonwealth jurisdictions will also be undertaken to ensure that any decision made is well-founded and in the best interest of the legal profession and the public.