SINGAPORE: Newly Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc) president Tan Cheng Han believes unity has been restored to the legal fraternity after a resolution on how the presidency should be filled was passed with an overwhelming majority.
In his first comments after taking office on Jan 1, 2026, Professor Tan said he did not think the saga that unfolded late last year had damaged the image of the profession.
Speaking to CNA via email, the 61-year-old drew a line under the weeks-long dispute,
For one, the senior counsel said the
This effectivelyover the appointment of a non-elected council member as the society's president.
On the whole, Prof Tan felt the matter was settled amicably, without any loss of confidence in the profession.
"What I saw was an engaged profession and that the matter was settled gracefully," said Prof Tan.
After all, lawyers are custodians of the legal system and the rule of law in Singapore.
"We can have different perspectives and views but ultimately, we believe that disagreements must be resolved in a fair and principled manner." he said. "And, when it is resolved, we accept the outcome regardless of whether we personally agree or not."
A senior consultant at Wong Partnership as well as the chief strategy officer of National University of Singapore's Faculty of Law, Prof Tan initially did not want the top job.
In fact, he had said no before – when the incoming president he succeeded, Mr Dinesh Singh Dhillon, sounded him out to take up the mantle of leading the LawSoc early on before Mr Dhillon sought the presidency for himself.
Ultimately, Prof Tan eventually agreed to take over the presidency at Mr Dhillon's request, albeit much later as events unfolded.
The dispute that broke out late last year was set in motion by the appointment of former president-elect Dinesh Singh Dhillon, who had been picked by the LawSoc's 21-member council to lead the society in 2026.
Mr Dhillon, the co-head of international arbitration practice at Allen and Gledhill, was elected president by a majority of the council.
The council holds an internal election to decide on the president, two vice presidents and the treasurer.
This internal election comes after a broader, annual election in October, where all LawSoc members vote for the council for the coming year.
While a number of members were elected, three council members were appointed by the Law Minister and another three by the incumbent council, as allowed under the Legal Profession Act.
Mr Dhillon was a statutory member appointed by the Law Minister, with his appointment taking effect from Sep 1, 2025 for a two-year term.
While Mr Dhillon won the internal election for presidency fair and square, the fact that he was the first non-elected, statutory member of the council to be picked as incoming LawSoc president sparked discontent among some lawyers.
A group of lawyers
They proposed a resolution that the council should elect a president who had been voted in by LawSoc members.
An EGM was not convened at that time, with LawSoc instead arranging a tea session on Dec 10. At the session, attendees were told that Mr Dhillon undertook not to run for the presidency of the 2027 council unless he participated in the council elections around October 2026.
In a surprise turn of events, Mr Dhillon agreed to step aside for Prof Tan to be incoming president following a meeting with a handful of members on Dec 17.
A consent resolution document to this effect was circulated after the meeting.
An EGM was eventually held on Dec 22, attended by more than 500 lawyers. A majority voted in favour of the consent resolution, including an amendment stating that the LawSoc president shall be an elected member of the council.
Prof Tan was formally confirmed as LawSoc's 2026 president, and Mr Dhillon as a vice president, on Dec 24.
Collapse Expand
04:10 Min
Members of the Law Society of Singapore have voted for all future presidents to be elected council members. Mr Dinesh Singh Dhillon will also step aside as its incoming president, with Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han set to assume the role instead. The decisions were made at an extraordinary general meeting earlier this evening, after weeks of debate within the legal community over governance issues. Sherlyn Seah reports.
Asked why he agreed to take up presidency only at a later stage, Prof Tan said he initially declined to run because of the number of roles he was already holding, which would have affected his ability to carry out his responsibilities.
"I will now make adjustments and am confident I can devote enough time to the presidency," he said.
Since the start of the new year, Prof Tan has stepped down as chairman of Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo) after almost nine years on the board, according to a press release from the group.
Prof Tan recalled how Mr Dhillon had called him the day before the consent agreement was signed, asking if he was prepared to take on the role.
"I thought this was a very selfless act on his part to try to resolve the matter. In the circumstances, I felt I should agree if he and others thought this was the best way forward for the profession," he said.
The consent agreement was worked out without Prof Tan's knowledge and he was asked only to witness it being signed.
Since members have made it clear their preference for the president to be an elected member, Prof Tan said he does not foresee a repeat of a similarly contentious leadership transition in the foreseeable future.
"If there was any ambiguity whether such a convention or common understanding existed, it will be very clear moving forward that this is what members desire and I have no doubt this expression of the members' preference will be respected in future."
In the first requisition notice, senior lawyers Peter Cuthbert Low and Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair - both former LawSoc presidents - proposed that members consider and debate concerns over the implications for the independence of the Bar arising from the election of a ministerial appointee as president.
Their proposal ignited extensive online discussions, some of which debated the role of LawSoc.
In a commentary published in The Straits Times on Dec 13, Singapore University of Social Sciences law lecturer and RHTLaw Asia lawyer Ben Chester Cheong described the LawSoc as less of a representative body and more of a statutory professional body "charged with regulating conduct, administering discipline, supporting professional standards, and promoting access to justice".
LawSoc is not a trade union, a political lobby, or a parliament of lawyers, Mr Cheong argued.
Prof Tan agreed with Mr Cheong's characterisation of LawSoc's functions as a professional body, but disagreed on the importance of the president being an elected member.
"Where I disagree with him, if I understand him correctly, is his view that it is not important for the president to be an elected member because the president is not a representative spokesperson for the profession in political matters.
"In other words, it is not important for the president to be an elected member of council because the Law Society is not a counterweight to government. I disagree with this view of his because it is a straw man argument."
Prof Tan said the issue was about mandate rather than politics.
LawSoc does not see itself as a counterweight to the government, he said.
"That is not the basis for the society’s independence or why many members feel that the president should be an elected member," he said.
"The president is the most prominent representative face of the legal profession and the person expected to guide council in its governance of the society.
"She or he will often have to take positions on professional and regulatory matters. It is important that members have sufficient confidence in the individual to have elected such person to council."
He added that the president regularly engages parties in and outside Singapore, and it helps if those parties know the president has the mandate to speak on behalf of the profession.
"While not everyone in the profession may agree with everything the president says or does, they know that she or he has been duly elected and must be allowed a healthy degree of discretion when acting for the Society. Being elected to the council gives the president legitimacy as the profession’s representative," he said.
Prof Tan also described the institution as a “custodian of the legal system”.
Under the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society is required to help the government and courts administer and practise law, while also protecting and assisting the public, he said.
Another issue that arose during the dispute was LawSoc's failure to convene an EGM after the first requisition notice was submitted on Nov 24.
Under the Legal Profession Act, the council must convene the meeting within 14 days and the meeting must be held within 30 days of receiving the notice.
By the 14th-day mark, the EGM had not been convened.
Some members raised their dissatisfaction during the Dec 10 tea session. Another lawyer subsequently moved a second motion calling for council members who opposed convening an EGM to be censured.
On this issue, Prof Tan said the legal position was clear that a valid requisition notice required LawSoc to convene an EGM.
"This was an unusual situation as the requisition was called to pass a resolution that may have been inconsistent with the Legal Profession Act.
"This was because council understood the resolution as stating that the president must be an elected member and therefore Mr Dhillon's election was illegitimate as a matter of law."
The resolution was later amended to clarify that members were not challenging the validity of Mr Dhillon’s appointment, but to express the view that the council “ought to” elect an elected member as president, Prof Tan said.
"This is clearly a resolution that is within the power of the EGM to pass.
"Moving forward, it will be good practice for council to discuss the scope of the resolution with members if council is of the view that there may be issues with the resolution to be passed," he said, adding that such situations "should be rare".
Looking back, Prof Tan said one thing that could have been handled differently was for the council to contact Mr Low and Mr Chandra Mohan earlier to consider amending the original resolution, which they eventually did.
Asked about whether other office bearers should also be elected members, which some lawyers also believe should be the case, Prof Tan said that non-elected members have been vice president and treasurer on numerous occasions without concern.
"Thus, while I understand why some members may feel that such positions should also be open only to elected members of council, I do not think there is much support for such a view."
With his presidency now under way, Prof Tan's immediate priorities include helping lawyers use AI effectively, enhancing their skills to "better weather" the impact of technology, and ensuring the sustainability of legal practice - particularly for younger lawyers and smaller firms.
He also hopes to expand the legal profession's overseas reach.
"I intend to ask members to help council to think through how best these challenges can be addressed. I believe there is much wisdom within the profession and we can come up with good ideas if we think about the issues collectively.
"The solutions will also require us to act collectively as a profession so I would like members to co-curate them and have a sense of ownership of the direction forward."
On the matter of the independent workplace harassment probe into LawSoc, which was reportedly conducted by TSMP Law Corporation, Prof Tan declined comment, citing confidentiality.
Continue reading...
In his first comments after taking office on Jan 1, 2026, Professor Tan said he did not think the saga that unfolded late last year had damaged the image of the profession.
Speaking to CNA via email, the 61-year-old drew a line under the weeks-long dispute,
For one, the senior counsel said the
This effectivelyover the appointment of a non-elected council member as the society's president.
On the whole, Prof Tan felt the matter was settled amicably, without any loss of confidence in the profession.
"What I saw was an engaged profession and that the matter was settled gracefully," said Prof Tan.
After all, lawyers are custodians of the legal system and the rule of law in Singapore.
"We can have different perspectives and views but ultimately, we believe that disagreements must be resolved in a fair and principled manner." he said. "And, when it is resolved, we accept the outcome regardless of whether we personally agree or not."
WHY HE STEPPED UP
A senior consultant at Wong Partnership as well as the chief strategy officer of National University of Singapore's Faculty of Law, Prof Tan initially did not want the top job.
In fact, he had said no before – when the incoming president he succeeded, Mr Dinesh Singh Dhillon, sounded him out to take up the mantle of leading the LawSoc early on before Mr Dhillon sought the presidency for himself.
Ultimately, Prof Tan eventually agreed to take over the presidency at Mr Dhillon's request, albeit much later as events unfolded.
Related:
Looking back at how the saga unfolded
The dispute that broke out late last year was set in motion by the appointment of former president-elect Dinesh Singh Dhillon, who had been picked by the LawSoc's 21-member council to lead the society in 2026.
Mr Dhillon, the co-head of international arbitration practice at Allen and Gledhill, was elected president by a majority of the council.
The council holds an internal election to decide on the president, two vice presidents and the treasurer.
This internal election comes after a broader, annual election in October, where all LawSoc members vote for the council for the coming year.
While a number of members were elected, three council members were appointed by the Law Minister and another three by the incumbent council, as allowed under the Legal Profession Act.
Mr Dhillon was a statutory member appointed by the Law Minister, with his appointment taking effect from Sep 1, 2025 for a two-year term.
While Mr Dhillon won the internal election for presidency fair and square, the fact that he was the first non-elected, statutory member of the council to be picked as incoming LawSoc president sparked discontent among some lawyers.
A group of lawyers
They proposed a resolution that the council should elect a president who had been voted in by LawSoc members.
An EGM was not convened at that time, with LawSoc instead arranging a tea session on Dec 10. At the session, attendees were told that Mr Dhillon undertook not to run for the presidency of the 2027 council unless he participated in the council elections around October 2026.
In a surprise turn of events, Mr Dhillon agreed to step aside for Prof Tan to be incoming president following a meeting with a handful of members on Dec 17.
A consent resolution document to this effect was circulated after the meeting.
An EGM was eventually held on Dec 22, attended by more than 500 lawyers. A majority voted in favour of the consent resolution, including an amendment stating that the LawSoc president shall be an elected member of the council.
Prof Tan was formally confirmed as LawSoc's 2026 president, and Mr Dhillon as a vice president, on Dec 24.
Collapse Expand
04:10 Min
Members of the Law Society of Singapore have voted for all future presidents to be elected council members. Mr Dinesh Singh Dhillon will also step aside as its incoming president, with Senior Counsel Tan Cheng Han set to assume the role instead. The decisions were made at an extraordinary general meeting earlier this evening, after weeks of debate within the legal community over governance issues. Sherlyn Seah reports.
Asked why he agreed to take up presidency only at a later stage, Prof Tan said he initially declined to run because of the number of roles he was already holding, which would have affected his ability to carry out his responsibilities.
"I will now make adjustments and am confident I can devote enough time to the presidency," he said.
Since the start of the new year, Prof Tan has stepped down as chairman of Singapore Exchange Regulation (SGX RegCo) after almost nine years on the board, according to a press release from the group.
Prof Tan recalled how Mr Dhillon had called him the day before the consent agreement was signed, asking if he was prepared to take on the role.
"I thought this was a very selfless act on his part to try to resolve the matter. In the circumstances, I felt I should agree if he and others thought this was the best way forward for the profession," he said.
The consent agreement was worked out without Prof Tan's knowledge and he was asked only to witness it being signed.
Since members have made it clear their preference for the president to be an elected member, Prof Tan said he does not foresee a repeat of a similarly contentious leadership transition in the foreseeable future.
"If there was any ambiguity whether such a convention or common understanding existed, it will be very clear moving forward that this is what members desire and I have no doubt this expression of the members' preference will be respected in future."
Related:
THE ROLE OF LAWSOC
In the first requisition notice, senior lawyers Peter Cuthbert Low and Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair - both former LawSoc presidents - proposed that members consider and debate concerns over the implications for the independence of the Bar arising from the election of a ministerial appointee as president.
Their proposal ignited extensive online discussions, some of which debated the role of LawSoc.
In a commentary published in The Straits Times on Dec 13, Singapore University of Social Sciences law lecturer and RHTLaw Asia lawyer Ben Chester Cheong described the LawSoc as less of a representative body and more of a statutory professional body "charged with regulating conduct, administering discipline, supporting professional standards, and promoting access to justice".
LawSoc is not a trade union, a political lobby, or a parliament of lawyers, Mr Cheong argued.
Prof Tan agreed with Mr Cheong's characterisation of LawSoc's functions as a professional body, but disagreed on the importance of the president being an elected member.
"Where I disagree with him, if I understand him correctly, is his view that it is not important for the president to be an elected member because the president is not a representative spokesperson for the profession in political matters.
"In other words, it is not important for the president to be an elected member of council because the Law Society is not a counterweight to government. I disagree with this view of his because it is a straw man argument."
Prof Tan said the issue was about mandate rather than politics.
LawSoc does not see itself as a counterweight to the government, he said.
"That is not the basis for the society’s independence or why many members feel that the president should be an elected member," he said.
"The president is the most prominent representative face of the legal profession and the person expected to guide council in its governance of the society.
"She or he will often have to take positions on professional and regulatory matters. It is important that members have sufficient confidence in the individual to have elected such person to council."
He added that the president regularly engages parties in and outside Singapore, and it helps if those parties know the president has the mandate to speak on behalf of the profession.
"While not everyone in the profession may agree with everything the president says or does, they know that she or he has been duly elected and must be allowed a healthy degree of discretion when acting for the Society. Being elected to the council gives the president legitimacy as the profession’s representative," he said.
Prof Tan also described the institution as a “custodian of the legal system”.
Under the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society is required to help the government and courts administer and practise law, while also protecting and assisting the public, he said.
COULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED DIFFERENTLY
Another issue that arose during the dispute was LawSoc's failure to convene an EGM after the first requisition notice was submitted on Nov 24.
Under the Legal Profession Act, the council must convene the meeting within 14 days and the meeting must be held within 30 days of receiving the notice.
By the 14th-day mark, the EGM had not been convened.
Some members raised their dissatisfaction during the Dec 10 tea session. Another lawyer subsequently moved a second motion calling for council members who opposed convening an EGM to be censured.
On this issue, Prof Tan said the legal position was clear that a valid requisition notice required LawSoc to convene an EGM.
"This was an unusual situation as the requisition was called to pass a resolution that may have been inconsistent with the Legal Profession Act.
"This was because council understood the resolution as stating that the president must be an elected member and therefore Mr Dhillon's election was illegitimate as a matter of law."
The resolution was later amended to clarify that members were not challenging the validity of Mr Dhillon’s appointment, but to express the view that the council “ought to” elect an elected member as president, Prof Tan said.
"This is clearly a resolution that is within the power of the EGM to pass.
"Moving forward, it will be good practice for council to discuss the scope of the resolution with members if council is of the view that there may be issues with the resolution to be passed," he said, adding that such situations "should be rare".
Looking back, Prof Tan said one thing that could have been handled differently was for the council to contact Mr Low and Mr Chandra Mohan earlier to consider amending the original resolution, which they eventually did.
Asked about whether other office bearers should also be elected members, which some lawyers also believe should be the case, Prof Tan said that non-elected members have been vice president and treasurer on numerous occasions without concern.
"Thus, while I understand why some members may feel that such positions should also be open only to elected members of council, I do not think there is much support for such a view."
GOALS AS PRESIDENT
With his presidency now under way, Prof Tan's immediate priorities include helping lawyers use AI effectively, enhancing their skills to "better weather" the impact of technology, and ensuring the sustainability of legal practice - particularly for younger lawyers and smaller firms.
He also hopes to expand the legal profession's overseas reach.
"I intend to ask members to help council to think through how best these challenges can be addressed. I believe there is much wisdom within the profession and we can come up with good ideas if we think about the issues collectively.
"The solutions will also require us to act collectively as a profession so I would like members to co-curate them and have a sense of ownership of the direction forward."
On the matter of the independent workplace harassment probe into LawSoc, which was reportedly conducted by TSMP Law Corporation, Prof Tan declined comment, citing confidentiality.
Continue reading...