Society: LawSoc dissent

In 1986, Lee Kuan Yew’s government tabled a bill to restrict the sale or distribution of foreign publications that weren’t singing his tune. “Existing laws adequate, says Law Society [LawSoc]”, rang the rebuttal headline in The Straits Times (ST). LawSoc’s statement called the proposed amendments “ambiguous” and “superfluous”. Incensed, Lee organised a televised Select Committee Hearing, during which he grilled Francis Seow, LawSoc president, and junior lawyers Tang Fong Har and Teo Soh Lung. The media amendments passed, and so did a new bill neutering LawSoc, prohibiting it from commenting on existing or proposed legislations unless the government specifically called for its views. (In subsequent years all three, and many others, would be detained without trial, effectively quelling that 80s Spring.)

Since then, the role and independence of LawSoc has always been a little unclear, as events of the past week have shown. This episode’s genesis was in LawSoc’s council elections in October. Most of the 21-member council is elected by its 6,400 odd members. But the law minister, and the council itself, can each appoint up to three people to it. Edwin Tong’s chosen man, Dinesh Singh Dhillon, entered the council, stood for election to president, and apparently won by a single vote against Samuel Chacko, incumbent vice-president. He then became the first president-elect to be a statutory member appointed by the law minister.

Over 25 disgruntled lawyers submitted a formal requisition for an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), meeting the statutory threshold under Section 68 of the Legal Profession Act—which also stipulates that the council has 14 days to call a general meeting, failing which the requisitioners can convene one themselves. Which is precisely what happened. Boomer time followed: a senior lawyer apparently expressed “disgust” that the young and brave Luo Ling Ling took to social media to publicise the EGM. ST bizarrely reframed its narrative about the incident. It then published “What do we really expect from the Law Society?”, an editorial by Ben Chester Cheong, a young lawyer, which was roundly ridiculed by more experienced ones, including Michael Chia, outgoing treasurer. Ho Ching, the electrical-engineer-turned-general-know-it-all, took to social media to clarify LawSoc’s role. Her views, too, faced criticism from actual lawyers, including Chia.

With a potentially fractious EGM slated for December 22nd—one lawyer had suggested that council members against convening the EGM should be censured and asked to resign—there’s been furious mediation between the different factions over the past week. Dhillon first proposed to serve for just one of a two-year term, after which he’d stand for election to the council first, if he intended to run for president again. Presumably it wasn’t enough. On Wednesday he stepped aside all together. The council will nominate and elect Tan Cheng Han as the new president for 2026, and Dhillon as vice-president. A conciliatory statement affirmed, among other things, Dhillon’s competence and independence. Proposed new eligibility criteria include a minimum service period requirement on the council for office-bearers. The EGM on Monday has been transformed into a perfunctory damp squib—the consent resolution regarding Tan’s and Dhillon’s new roles is the only agenda item. Any perception of political interference has presumably been negated. No surprise, perhaps. This is the age of Lawrence, not Lee.