Luo Ling Ling defends public disclosure of Law Society EGM after council inaction

In a LinkedIn post on 11 December 2025, lawyer Luo Ling Ling defended her decision to take the extraordinary step of publicly posting details about the Law Society’s upcoming Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM), stating that she was left with no alternative after weeks of inaction by the Council despite a valid requisition submitted by members.

During a 10 December “Tea Session” hosted by the Law Society of Singapore (LawSoc), a senior member of the Bar reportedly expressed “disgust” that the dispute over the presidency had been shared on social media. Luo identified herself as the one who had made the posts and explained her reasoning to members present.

“I posted on social media because an uninformed Bar cannot vote,” she wrote. “How do I contact 6,000 practising Singapore lawyers to inform them of a crucial vote for EGM?”

What the motion is about

The EGM, scheduled for 22 December 2025, was called to debate a motion insisting that the President of the Law Society should be elected from among Council members who themselves were elected by the general body of members.

The motion, set out in the formal 9 December notice circulated by requisitionists, states that electing Presidents from among members chosen directly by the profession is necessary to uphold good governance and confidence in the independence of the Bar. It also clarifies that the resolution does not seek to amend any laws or invalidate the current office-bearer election, but to record the meeting’s collective view.

The motion was proposed by Peter Cuthbert Low and seconded by Chandra Mohan K Nair, both former Presidents of the Law Society.

The impetus for the debate arises from the appointment of Dinesh Singh Dhillon as President-elect for 2026. Dhillon entered the Council as a statutory member, appointed by the Minister for Law under Section 48(1)(b) of the Legal Profession Act, and was not elected by the general membership.

Timeline as set out by Luo Ling Ling

In her post, Luo outlined the sequence of key events leading to her public disclosure:

• 24 November 2025: More than 25 members submitted a formal requisition for an EGM, meeting the statutory threshold under Section 68 of the Legal Profession Act.
• 5 December: LawSoc announced a “Tea Session” scheduled for 10 December without mentioning the pending EGM requisition.
• 7 December: Luo made an initial LinkedIn post on the principle of “elected Presidents” but did not disclose full EGM details, hoping the Council would issue its own notice.
• 8 December: With no formal response from the Council, the requisitionists secured a venue for the EGM, paid for upfront by Peter Low.
• 9 December (11:50pm): The requisitionists issued the formal Notice of EGM to LawSoc, setting the date and agenda for 22 December.
• 10 December (3:15pm): LawSoc circulated its official notice — more than 15 hours after Luo’s LinkedIn post.

Under Section 68, if the Council fails to call a general meeting within 14 days of receiving a valid requisition, the requisitioning members are entitled to convene the meeting themselves. Luo argued that the Council’s silence — no formal EGM notice within that timeframe — left members uninformed and necessitated her public disclosure.

Council did not act within statutory period

In a 10 December report, Channel NewsAsia (CNA) confirmed that LawSoc acknowledged receiving the EGM requisition from members on 24 November but was reviewing it under the Act. The Council did not issue a notice of the meeting by 8 December, the final day of the 14-day statutory period, prompting the requisitionists to act under their rights.

LawSoc’s official notice of the EGM, first circulated on 10 December, came after the requisitionists’ own notice on 9 December and after Luo’s public disclosure.

Meeting with Law Minister does not replace statutory process

A separate Straits Times report on 11 December revealed that on 3 December, representatives of three groups — outgoing Council members, incoming office bearers including Dhillon, and the EGM requisitionists — were brought together by Senior Counsel Jimmy Yim to meet with Minister for Law Edwin Tong.

According to the report, the parties discussed a form of “compromise”: Dhillon would serve as President in 2026 and, if he wished to continue beyond that, stand for election in the general elections of October 2026.

However, this meeting — and the reported compromise — did not replace or fulfil the statutory requirement to issue a notice of EGM following the lawful requisition on 24 November. The EGM on 22 December remains on the statutory calendar.

Broader questions of governance and representation

Luo’s LinkedIn post also underscored concerns about communication and representation within the Law Society.

According to LawSoc’s website, as of 31 August 2025, there are 6,434 practising members, all automatic members of the Society.

Given this membership base, some have questioned why an internal, closed‑door meeting involving a small number of individuals — even if facilitated by a Senior Counsel and the Minister for Law — would be characterised as a “resolution” of the dispute, especially when the statutory process for general membership engagement was not observed.

The Straits Times’ headline “Law Society members strike compromise over election of new president” was interpreted by some observers as suggesting a broad consensus, even though no general membership vote had taken place.

EGM will proceed as scheduled

The 22 December 2025 EGM will take place at 5:00pm at the Wyndham Singapore Hotel Ballroom, where members will vote on two motions:

• One concerning the independence of the Bar, in light of the election of a ministerial appointee as President; and
• Another addressing the Council’s failure to convene the EGM after receiving a valid requisition.

(Post first published on The Online Citizen)