The Dinesh Singh Dhillon Law Presidency Controversy - Maxthon

Law Society of Singapore, December 2025

Executive Summary

Less than a month after Dinesh Singh Dhillon was elected president of the Law Society of Singapore, a group led by former presidents Peter Cuthbert Low and Chandra Mohan Nair has called for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to protest his appointment. The controversy centers on the fact that Dhillon was not elected by the society’s membership but was instead appointed to the council by the Law Minister before being elected president by his fellow council members. This case study examines the stated concerns, possible hidden motives, underlying systemic issues, and potential resolutions.

Mr Dhillon, a non-elected council member appointed by the Law Minister (rather than voted in by lawyers), was chosen as president by the council on Nov 17, 2024
A group of members, led by two former Law Society presidents (Peter Cuthbert Low and Chandra Mohan Nair), is calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) on Dec 22 to protest this election

The concern:

The protesters argue that only someone elected by the society’s members should serve as president, citing “past practice and existing convention, good governance and to uphold confidence in the independence of the Bar”
The concern appears to center on the independence of the legal profession when a government-appointed member leads the organization

Context:

Singapore’s Legal Profession Act allows the Law Minister to appoint up to three members to the 21-member Law Society council
The council then votes among themselves to select office-bearers including the president
About 6,400 lawyers belong to the Law Society

Important caveat: The proposed resolution explicitly states it “does not alter or invalidate any office-bearer election” – meaning it’s a statement of principle rather than an attempt to remove Mr Dhillon from office.

The situation highlights tensions around governance and independence within Singapore’s legal profession.

Background & Timeline

The Institutional Framework:

The Law Society of Singapore represents approximately 6,400 lawyers
Every October, members elect the Law Society council (the governing body)
Under the Legal Profession Act, the Law Minister can appoint up to three non-elected members to the council
The council then votes internally to select the president, vice-presidents, and treasurer

Key Events:

October 2024: Annual council elections held
Date unknown: Law Minister appoints Dinesh Singh Dhillon and two others to the council
November 17, 2024: Council announces Dhillon as the new president
November 24, 2024: Members requisition an EGM
December 8, 2024: Deadline passes without Law Society calling the EGM
December 9, 2024: Members notify Law Society they will convene their own EGM
December 10, 2024: Law Society council organizes tea session to address concerns
December 22, 2024: Scheduled date for member-convened EGM

Stated Concerns

The requisition letter articulates several explicit concerns:

1. Breach of Convention

The protesters argue that “as a matter of past practice and existing convention,” only elected members should serve as president. This suggests a historical norm has been violated.

2. Good Governance

The concern implies that having a ministerially-appointed person lead the organization creates governance complications, potentially including:

Conflicts of interest
Reduced accountability to membership
Deviation from democratic principles within professional associations

3. Independence of the Bar

The primary stated concern focuses on the “impact of his appointment on the independence of the Bar.” This suggests worries that:

A government-appointed president might be perceived as less willing to challenge government positions
The Bar’s role as a check on executive and legislative power could be compromised
Public confidence in lawyers’ independence could erode

Possible Hidden Motives

While the stated concerns focus on institutional principles, several other factors may be driving the protest:

1. Professional Rivalry and Succession Politics

Displaced expectations: Other elected council members may have expected to become president through traditional pathways
Generational tensions: Dhillon’s appointment might represent a bypassing of senior figures who have “waited their turn”
Firm dynamics: Singapore’s legal community is relatively small; inter-firm rivalries or competitive tensions could be playing out institutionally

2. Specific Policy Disagreements

Protesters may anticipate that Dhillon will push particular policy directions they oppose
Previous statements or positions taken by Dhillon might have raised concerns
Anticipated stances on upcoming controversial legal or regulatory issues

3. Resistance to Government Influence

The protest may reflect broader anxieties about government oversight of the legal profession
Recent regulatory changes or proposals might have heightened sensitivities
Concerns about erosion of professional autonomy beyond just this appointment

4. Personality and Style Concerns

Questions about Dhillon’s leadership style, temperament, or approach
Concerns about his specific background, experience, or qualifications for the role
Personal relationships or past conflicts within the legal community

5. Signaling and Precedent-Setting

The protest may be primarily about establishing a principle for the future rather than opposing Dhillon specifically
Preventing the normalization of ministerial appointees as presidents
Warning to future councils and ministers about membership expectations

6. Strategic Positioning by Former Leaders

Low and Nair may be reasserting influence or relevance in the society
Positioning themselves as defenders of institutional integrity
Maintaining networks and alliances within the profession

Underlying Systemic Issues

The controversy reveals several deeper structural tensions:

1. The Hybrid Governance Model

Singapore’s system creates an inherent tension by combining:

Democratic election of most council members
Ministerial appointment of some council members
Internal council election of leadership positions

This hybrid model attempts to balance professional self-governance with government oversight, but inevitably creates questions about legitimacy and authority.

2. The Bar’s Dual Role

Professional bar associations must simultaneously:

Represent and serve their members
Regulate the profession in the public interest
Sometimes critique or challenge government policies
Maintain constructive relationships with the government

A government-appointed president complicates navigation of these multiple, sometimes conflicting, responsibilities.

3. Unwritten Constitutional Norms

The controversy highlights reliance on “convention” and “past practice” rather than explicit rules. This creates:

Ambiguity about what is permissible
Vulnerability to norm erosion
Difficulty resolving disputes when conventions are contested
Potential for both sides to claim legitimacy

4. Transparency and Member Engagement

The fact that “disquiet began brewing” and documents circulated anonymously suggests:

Limited formal channels for member input on leadership selection
Insufficient transparency in the council election process
Gaps in communication between council and membership
Possible disconnection between leadership and grassroots members

5. The Independence Paradox

Legal professions globally face a paradox:

They require government recognition and regulatory framework to function
They must remain independent enough to hold government accountable
In Singapore’s context, this tension may be particularly acute given the governance model

6. Generational and Cultural Shifts

The controversy may reflect:

Changing expectations about professional governance among younger lawyers
Evolving attitudes toward government-profession relationships
Increasing emphasis on transparency and democratic accountability
Different conceptions of what “independence” means in practice

Stakeholder Analysis

The Protesters (Low, Nair, and supporters)

Interests: Preserve Bar independence, uphold conventions, maintain member control
Leverage: Can force public discussion, mobilize membership, create reputational pressure
Risks: May appear obstructionist, could deepen divisions, might fail to achieve goals

Dinesh Singh Dhillon

Interests: Establish legitimacy, lead effectively, demonstrate independence
Leverage: Formal authority as president, support from appointing minister presumably
Risks: Tainted mandate, constant scrutiny, difficulty leading a divided organization

The Law Society Council

Interests: Maintain institutional stability, bridge divisions, continue normal operations
Constraints: Caught between protesters and president, limited formal powers to resolve
Approach: Tea session suggests dialogue-oriented response

The Law Minister / Government

Interests: Maintain influence over Bar, ensure regulatory compliance, avoid public controversy
Leverage: Appointment power, regulatory authority, legislative capability
Risks: Appearing heavy-handed, undermining Bar independence, creating backlash

General Membership (6,400 lawyers)

Interests: Effective representation, stable institution, clear governance
Position: Likely divided, many possibly apathetic or uninformed
Power: Can determine outcome through EGM attendance and voting

Public and Clients

Interests: Confidence in legal profession’s integrity and independence
Concerns: May view controversy as evidence of government control or professional infighting
Impact: Indirect but significant through reputational effects

Potential Solutions and Pathways Forward

Immediate/Short-term Solutions

Option 1: Principled Statement Without Removal

Hold the EGM and pass the proposed resolution as drafted
Affirm the convention that future presidents should be elected members
Explicitly state Dhillon’s position is not invalidated
Create a clear norm for the future without immediate disruption

Advantages: Preserves principle, avoids crisis, allows Dhillon to serve Disadvantages: May be seen as insufficient, doesn’t address immediate concerns

Option 2: Voluntary Presidential Transition

Dhillon voluntarily steps aside in favor of an elected council member
Assumes another role (vice-president, special advisor, etc.)
Frames decision as respecting membership concerns

Advantages: Resolves immediate issue, demonstrates responsiveness, preserves relationships Disadvantages: Sets precedent of yielding to pressure, may embolden future challenges

Option 3: Enhanced Transparency and Dialogue

Council provides detailed explanation of why Dhillon was elected president
Public commitments to specific independence safeguards
Regular member consultations and reporting
Dhillon directly addresses concerns at the EGM

Advantages: Builds trust, addresses communication gaps, may satisfy moderates Disadvantages: May not satisfy those opposed in principle, requires sustained effort

Option 4: Mediated Compromise

Senior legal figures mediate between protesters and council
Negotiate specific commitments or structural changes
Possibly include term limits, advisory committees, or oversight mechanisms

Advantages: Potentially durable resolution, brings in neutral parties, creative solutions Disadvantages: Time-consuming, may appear weak, compromise could satisfy no one

Medium-term Structural Reforms

Reform 1: Formalize Leadership Selection Criteria

Amend Law Society constitution to specify:

Eligibility requirements for president (e.g., must be elected member with X years service)
Process for council leadership elections with stated principles
Role and limitations of ministerial appointees
Transparency requirements for leadership selection

Impact: Eliminates ambiguity, prevents future controversies, strengthens democratic accountability

Reform 2: Enhanced Member Input Mechanisms

Advisory vote by full membership on president before council finalizes
Regular member surveys on priorities and concerns
Open forums for presidential candidates to present vision
Clearer pathways for member initiatives and referenda

Impact: Increases member engagement, legitimizes leadership, reduces disconnection

Reform 3: Clearer Role Definition for Ministerial Appointees

Through dialogue with the Law Minister:

Specify intended role and purpose of appointed members
Establish convention that appointees serve in advisory/technical capacities
Create transparency about appointment criteria and process
Define appropriate scope for appointed members’ participation

Impact: Reduces ambiguity, preserves government input while respecting conventions

Reform 4: Independence Safeguards

Implement specific structural protections:

Ethics guidelines for handling government interactions
Public reporting on positions taken regarding government policies
Independent committees on sensitive issues
Clear protocols for potential conflicts of interest

Impact: Demonstrates commitment to independence, builds public confidence

Long-term Systemic Changes

Option A: Renegotiate the Governance Framework

Engage with government to reconsider the Legal Profession Act provisions:

Modify or eliminate ministerial appointment power
Create alternative mechanisms for government input (liaison roles, consultation requirements)
Strengthen formal Bar independence protections
International benchmarking against other jurisdictions

Feasibility: Low in short term, requires political will and legislative change Impact: Could fundamentally resolve tensions

Option B: Two-Tier Council Structure

Create separate elected governing council and advisory board:

Ministerial appointees serve on advisory board with consultative role
Elected council retains all decision-making authority including leadership selection
Clear functional separation prevents role confusion

Feasibility: Moderate, requires constitutional amendment Impact: Preserves government input while protecting democratic control

Option C: Enhanced Professional Self-Regulation

Strengthen Bar self-governance to reduce perceived need for ministerial oversight:

Robust internal regulatory mechanisms
Transparent disciplinary processes
Proactive engagement on legal profession issues
Demonstrate capability for responsible self-management

Feasibility: Moderate to high, within Bar’s control Impact: Gradual, builds case for greater autonomy over time

Impact Analysis

If Protest Succeeds (Resolution Passes with Strong Support)

Positive Impacts:

Reinforces principle of membership control over leadership
Strengthens perception of Bar independence
Establishes clear precedent for future appointments
Demonstrates active member engagement in governance
May inspire similar accountability measures in other professional bodies

Negative Impacts:

Dhillon’s presidency permanently undermined despite formal retention of position
Potential strain in Law Society-government relations
Creates uncertainty about role of ministerial appointees
May discourage talented individuals from accepting ministerial appointments
Could be perceived as rejecting Dhillon personally despite claims otherwise
International reputation concerns about internal divisions

If Protest Fails (Resolution Rejected or Poorly Attended)

Positive Impacts:

Avoids immediate institutional crisis
Allows Dhillon to govern without constant legitimacy questions
Preserves flexibility in governance arrangements
Maintains working relationship with government

Negative Impacts:

Normalizes ministerial appointees as potential presidents
May demoralize members concerned about independence
Could encourage future appointments without consultation
Perception of membership apathy or disengagement
Unresolved tensions likely to resurface
Missed opportunity for constructive institutional dialogue

Impacts on Key Stakeholders

Dinesh Singh Dhillon:

Regardless of outcome, faces challenging presidency with need to constantly prove independence
Every decision will be scrutinized for government influence
Must work harder to build trust and legitimacy
Opportunity to demonstrate leadership by addressing concerns head-on

Law Society as Institution:

Short-term: Distraction from normal activities, internal division, resource drain
Medium-term: Opportunity for governance reform and strengthened member engagement
Long-term: Could emerge stronger with clearer norms or remain divided

Singapore Legal Profession:

Enhanced public discussion of Bar independence and role
Possible reputational impacts depending on how controversy unfolds
Opportunity to demonstrate commitment to professional values
Risk of appearing divided or politically influenced

Government-Profession Relations:

May prompt reconsideration of appointment mechanisms
Could strain relationships or open productive dialogue
Test of whether collaborative governance model can accommodate dissent
Precedent for how similar issues in other professions might be handled

Future Ministerial Appointees:

Likely more cautious about seeking leadership roles
Clearer expectations about appropriate scope of involvement
May focus more on technical/advisory contributions

Recommendations

For the Protesters:

Maintain principle-focused messaging – Avoid personalizing the dispute; emphasize institutional concerns
Propose concrete solutions – Don’t just oppose; offer specific governance reforms
Build broad coalition – Engage younger lawyers and diverse practice areas
Be prepared to compromise – Consider what minimum acceptable outcomes would be

For Dinesh Singh Dhillon:

Proactively address concerns – Don’t wait to be defensive; acknowledge the issues directly
Make specific independence commitments – Outline concrete steps to demonstrate autonomous leadership
Engage with critics respectfully – Treat this as an opportunity to build bridges
Focus on unifying agenda – Identify issues with broad member support

For the Law Society Council:

Facilitate constructive dialogue – Create safe spaces for honest discussion
Commission governance review – Use this as impetus for broader examination of structures
Improve communication – Provide fuller transparency about decision-making
Document conventions – Formalize previously unwritten norms

For the Law Minister/Government:

Respect professional self-governance – Avoid intervening unless absolutely necessary
Review appointment policy – Consider whether current approach serves intended purposes
Clarify expectations – Be explicit about what government seeks from ministerial appointees
Support constructive reform – Signal openness to governance improvements

For the General Membership:

Inform yourselves – Understand the issues beyond headlines before EGM
Participate actively – Attend the EGM and vote based on principles
Demand accountability – Expect transparency from all sides
Think long-term – Consider precedents being set, not just immediate personalities

Conclusion

The controversy over Dinesh Singh Dhillon’s election as Law Society president represents more than a dispute about one individual or one appointment. It reflects fundamental tensions in how professional self-governance operates within Singapore’s regulatory framework, the meaning of Bar independence, and the balance between democratic accountability and effective leadership.

Several factors make this case particularly significant:

It tests unwritten constitutional norms about professional governance at a time when such conventions are increasingly questioned globally
It occurs at the intersection of professional autonomy and state oversight, a perennial tension in regulated professions but particularly acute in the legal profession given lawyers’ role in checking government power
It demonstrates the power of procedural legitimacy – even when rules technically permit something, violations of convention can provoke strong reactions
It highlights governance gaps in how professional associations balance member democracy with effective leadership selection

The outcome of the December 22 EGM will shape the Law Society’s direction for years to come. However, the more important question is whether this controversy catalyzes genuine dialogue about governance reform or simply hardens existing positions.

The ideal resolution would accomplish several things:

Affirm clear principles about Bar independence and member control
Allow Dhillon to serve while implementing safeguards and accountability measures
Prompt concrete governance reforms that address underlying structural issues
Strengthen rather than damage the relationship between the profession and government
Demonstrate that professional associations can address internal disputes constructively

Whether such an outcome is achievable depends on the willingness of all stakeholders to prioritize institutional health over short-term victories, engage in good-faith dialogue, and embrace reforms that serve the profession’s long-term integrity.

Ultimately, this case reminds us that the strongest institutions are those that can adapt their governance structures to reflect evolving expectations while preserving core values. The Law Society of Singapore has an opportunity to emerge from this controversy with clearer norms, stronger member engagement, and enhanced legitimacy – but only if the focus remains on institutional improvement rather than individual vindication.