Law Society’s “compromise” still leaves the mandate question open

Over the past few weeks, the Law Society of Singapore has been drawn into an unusually public dispute over its leadership—triggered by a fundamental question of legitimacy: whether a ministerial nominee, who did not stand for election by the Bar, should be able to hold the Society’s top executive offices. After weeks of contestation over whether Dinesh Singh Dhillon’s elevation was proper given that he entered Council as a ministerial nominee, the Council has now seemingly backed away from that position by having him step aside as president-elect and by allowing Professor Tan Cheng Han to take the presidency instead. Under the consent resolution circulated to members, Mr Dhillon is expected to become Vice-President for 2026, while Prof Tan is proposed as President, with the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) still proceeding on 22 December 2025. I want to state my thesis upfront. This is not merely an internal quarrel about who holds which title. The Law Society is a statutory body with responsibilities that affect the administration of justice and public confidence in the legal system. When questions arise about the independence and legitimacy of its leadership, the implications do not stop at the profession’s doorstep. It may not be “proper”, in the traditional sense, for a non-practitioner to comment on the Law Society’s internal governance. But Singapore is not operating in ideal conditions. In the climate we have, many lawyers will calculate—quite rationally—that speaking candidly on certain matters carries risk. When a professional community feels constrained from speaking openly on a question that goes to its institutional independence, the public has every reason to pay attention.

The “step aside” move doesn’t answer the core question

Even with a consent resolution now on the table, the core issue remains: ministerial nominees should not occupy executive office-bearer roles. If that is the principle the profession is being asked to consider—and potentially to entrench at the upcoming Annual General Meeting (AGM)—then structuring the “compromise” so that Dinesh, still a ministerial appointee on Council, becomes Vice-President appears to cut directly across the very issue the EGM was convened to address. The third notice of motion for the EGM states that the motion may be amended to read: “That only elected members of the Council shall be eligible for election to the offices of President, Vice-President and Treasurer.” In other words, even if the presidency is no longer held by a ministerial appointee, placing a ministerial nominee in the vice-presidency risks putting the Law Society in a position where the EGM’s central principle is neither affirmed nor rejected, but effectively bypassed. It is hard to reconcile that with the spirit of the motion that requisitionists sought to put to members. If the Council’s answer is that this is about continuity or internal convenience, then it still does not address the legitimacy problem. A small concession is made now—removing the most visible flashpoint of a ministerial appointee as President—while the harder question is pushed down the road. And this is not conjecture. The Straits Times reported that at a 3 December meeting convened with the Minister for Law, the solution proposed was to recognise that Mr Dhillon was properly elected under the law, while “respecting the expectations” of members. It was also reported that those involved agreed Mr Dhillon should serve as President in 2026, and that if he wished to continue beyond that, he would have to stand for election among the general membership in October 2026. Read plainly, that approach does two things at once: it defuses the immediate confrontation, while relocating the decisive “principle” question to a later forum. That is precisely why the EGM mattered. It was not about re-litigating whether the election was technically valid. It was about allowing the profession to state—clearly and collectively—what the rule should be for its top executive offices. If that direction remains the operating premise, then what we are watching is not an outright defeat of the EGM, but a dilution of its force—just enough to prevent the profession from settling the matter decisively at the moment it demanded to.

The deeper discomfort: legitimacy, representation, and the EGM itself

Even after the presidency is reshuffled, the deeper discomfort remains: the Bar has been asked to accept governance outcomes that many lawyers plainly do not trust—not only because of who was selected, but because of how the Council responded when members demanded a say. It is difficult to ignore the procedural trail. Members requisitioned an EGM. The Council did not issue notice within the statutory timeline required. Requisitionists then moved to convene it themselves. More troubling still is what this suggests about principle. If the Council was content to sit on the EGM requisition provided for under section 68 of the Legal Profession Act, even after meeting the Minister for Law on 3 December, it raises an unavoidable question about the Council’s commitment to representation. After engaging the political executive, why did it still appear prepared to delay the profession’s own extraordinary general meeting? That is why one of the motions initially filed went further: it sought censure of those who voted in a manner that resulted in the EGM not being held in the ordinary course. Whether one agrees with censure as a remedy is not the point. The point is what it signalled—that members saw the refusal or delay not merely as poor administration, but as a failure of representative duty.

The investigation leak and MinLaw’s interest change the temperature

Running parallel to this governance dispute is another story—one that changes the entire temperature of the moment. The outgoing Law Society president has publicly raised concerns about how details of an internal, purportedly confidential investigation reached the media before she herself was provided written particulars of the allegations, despite her requests. Separately, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) has stated publicly that it looks forward to a full and thorough investigation, to be completed as expeditiously as possible, and that it has asked to be kept informed of the findings. Let me be careful here: none of this proves the allegations are true, and it proves nothing about anyone’s motives. But once MinLaw speaks publicly on the matter, the issue stops being merely “workplace culture” or “internal governance”. If this internal probe is pursued to the maximum, the endgame may not be limited to “findings” or “recommendations”. It could involve accountability measures against specific office-holders: public rebuke, removal from roles, or pressure to resign. In that context, MinLaw’s public remarks—made in response to The Straits Times’ queries—carry weight. The ministry stressed a full and expeditious investigation, but did not address how details of a purportedly confidential process reached the media. If process and fairness are genuine concerns, the leak should be part of the concern too. A process framed as a workplace review can, depending on how it is handled and what is emphasised, end up reconstituting the Council itself. That is what troubles me about the timing. If the investigation escalates, any accountability would most likely fall on those who served during the period under review — which may end up reshaping the Council’s balance through a separate track, rather than through a clear vote on the EGM principle. Put these threads together, and a hard question arises: could the Law Society end up with the same substantive outcome—not through an open vote on the EGM principle, but through a separate process that reshapes who remains in leadership? That is why the question of executive legitimacy—who may hold it, and on what mandate—cannot be treated as a procedural irritant. It goes to whether the Law Society is seen, by lawyers and the public alike, as speaking with an independent voice.

---

Addendum: On precedents for appointed members serving as office-bearers

Some readers have pointed out that there have been precedents for appointed (statutory) members of the Law Society Council serving as office-bearers, even if not as President. That may be so. But it does not address why this episode triggered such an unusually strong reaction, including an EGM requisition. The flashpoint here was not merely that an appointed member could hold an executive title. It was the Council’s readiness to elevate a ministerial nominee to the top leadership position—an outcome that crossed a threshold for many lawyers in terms of mandate, convention, and public confidence in an independent Bar. It is also precisely why the proposed EGM motions mattered. The third notice of motion contemplated entrenching a clearer rule: that only elected Council members should be eligible for the offices of President, Vice-President and Treasurer. In other words, the profession was not simply revisiting a narrow “presidency convention”; it was attempting to draw a principled boundary around who should exercise executive authority in the Society. Past instances did not produce this kind of mobilisation. This time did. That difference in reaction is itself part of the story.