Former leaders of the Law Society of Singapore are calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to protest the recent election of Mr Dinesh Singh Dhillon as president.
Less than a month after Mr Dhillon’s appointment was announced on Nov 17, disquiet has surfaced among members who are concerned about how the election was carried out. The group leading the call—headed by veteran lawyers and former Law Society presidents Mr Peter Cuthbert Low and Mr Chandra Mohan Nair—submitted a formal request on Dec 9 for an EGM to be held on Dec 22.
In their letter, the lawyers said they wished to discuss how Mr Dhillon’s appointment could affect the independence of the Bar. Their concern stems from the fact that Mr Dhillon was a non-elected council member, appointed to the council by the Law Minister under the Legal Profession Act. While members elect the council each year, the president is chosen internally by the 21-member council. This year, the council selected a government-appointed member to helm the Society.
The proposed resolution argues that, as a matter of past practice and convention, only an elected member chosen by the profession should be eligible to serve as Law Society president, to preserve independence and public confidence. The group clarified that their resolution does not seek to overturn or invalidate the council’s election; instead, it seeks to formally record concerns and propose standards for future governance.
According to lawyers who spoke anonymously, unease spread quickly following the announcement of Mr Dhillon’s presidency. A document circulated among members to gather signatures demanding an EGM. Although 25 members are sufficient to requisition such a meeting, the Law Society did not call one by Dec 8, prompting the group to notify the Society that they would proceed to hold their own EGM on Dec 22.
Meanwhile, the Law Society council organised a tea session on Dec 10 to address members’ questions about council transition and any concerns arising from the election.
Mr Low declined to comment, while The Straits Times has sought responses from the Law Society and Mr Dhillon.
Commentary — Implications of This Motion
The move to call an EGM is significant and has deeper implications for self-governance, independence, and public confidence in the legal profession.
1. Raises questions about independence from executive influence
The Law Minister’s power to appoint up to three council members has always been part of the Legal Profession Act. However, appointing one of them as the president—in effect the voice of the entire profession—raises difficult questions.
Even if legal and procedural rules were followed, the optics matter. A president who was not elected by peers may be perceived—fairly or unfairly—as less independent from the government. The Bar’s independence is a cornerstone of public trust, especially when lawyers defend clients against state action.
2. Sets a precedent affecting future governance
If a non-elected member can be chosen as president once, it could happen again. The EGM motion seeks to address this before it becomes entrenched. The legal profession relies heavily on conventions—norms built over decades—and when these shift, the long-term consequences can be profound.
3. Reveals internal divisions within the profession
The fact that former presidents are publicly involved shows how serious the concern is. Rarely do senior figures take such direct action. The circulation of petitions and the need for an EGM suggest that a segment of the profession feels excluded or unheard.
This may indicate:
- dissatisfaction with how the election was communicated
- a perceived lack of transparency
- a symbolic clash between democratic and appointed leadership
Such fissures, if not addressed constructively, can weaken the unity of the Bar.
4. Potential impact on public perception
The Law Society is expected to embody professionalism, independence, and stability. Disputes over leadership selection may lead to public confusion or concerns about internal conflict. Conversely, a transparent discussion at the EGM may ultimately strengthen confidence by showing that the profession takes governance seriously.
5. Signals the need to revisit conventions and clarify boundaries
This episode highlights the tension between legal rules and professional convention. While the Act permits appointed members to serve on council, past practice has limited the presidency to elected representatives.
The profession must now decide:
- Should this remain an unwritten convention?
- Should it be formalised into the Law Society’s constitution?
- Or should the council retain flexibility?
The outcome of the EGM may shape the Bar’s governance for decades.
Conclusion
The call for an EGM is more than a procedural challenge; it is a debate over the identity and independence of the legal profession in Singapore. While the motion does not seek to invalidate Mr Dhillon’s election, it demands a principled discussion on norms of leadership and the boundaries between government-appointed roles and self-regulation.
How the Law Society responds will shape not only internal trust within the profession, but also how the public views the independence of Singapore’s lawyers.
