What do we really expect from the Law Society? - Opinion

The recent debate over the appointment of the Law Society’s incoming president has sparked unusually strong reactions within the legal profession. Some senior lawyers have expressed concern that the president was not elected by the general body of members, framing the issue as one of “independence of the bar”.

It is understandable why this language resonates. Lawyers are trained to value independence, and the idea of a professional body free from influence carries an intuitive appeal. But before this concern hardens into a conclusion, it may be worth stepping back to ask a more basic question: What is the Law Society actually for, and what kind of independence does it meaningfully require?

A representative body? Or professional?

Much of the criticism rests on an implicit assumption that the Law Society president ought to function as a representative spokesperson for the collective will of Singapore lawyers, and therefore should be elected directly by the general membership.

But this has never been how the institution was designed to operate.

Under the Legal Profession Act, the president is elected by the Law Society council, not by a profession-wide vote. The council itself has always comprised a mix of elected and statutory-appointed council members, all of whom participate equally in its deliberations. Any council member – however appointed – is eligible to be elected president.

This structure is neither novel nor exceptional; it has been part of the statutory design for decades.

Some are taking exception to the fact that the current president was appointed to the council by the Law Minister, and not voted in by Law Society members. It was the council that then picked him to lead the Law Society.

To question his appointment is to question the very design of the Law Society council. But that design reflects a deliberate choice. The Law Society is not a trade union, a political lobby, or a parliament of lawyers. It is a statutory professional body charged with regulating conduct, administering discipline, supporting professional standards, and promoting access to justice. Historically, it also ran major legal aid and pro bono schemes, functions that have since been institutionally separated and are now carried out by Pro Bono SG, a dedicated charity that evolved from the Law Society Pro Bono Services.

The society’s legitimacy, in other words, has never depended on claiming to speak politically on behalf of the profession. It depends on performing its professional functions competently and impartially.

Who is being represented?

Singapore’s legal profession today is extraordinarily diverse. Criminal defence lawyers, corporate transactional lawyers, litigators, in-house counsel, sole practitioners, junior lawyers, senior counsel and legal academics often hold very different views about law, policy, and professional priorities.

In such a landscape, the idea that a single president – however elected – can meaningfully “represent” the profession’s collective voice on contested issues is questionable. Direct elections do not eliminate disagreement; they often amplify it. In other jurisdictions, bar associations that attempt to act as political representatives frequently find themselves pulled in incompatible directions, criticised for speaking too loudly by some members and not loudly enough by others.

Singapore has largely avoided this trap by keeping the Law Society focused on professional rather than political functions.

Let’s discuss independence

Much of the current debate turns on the phrase “independence of the bar”, but that phrase can mean different things.

Functional independence – the ability of lawyers to act fearlessly for their clients, to challenge the state in court, and to advance arguments without reprisal – is essential to the rule of law. This kind of independence is robustly protected in Singapore through judicial oversight, professional ethics, and a strong legal culture. Nothing about the present appointment process affects it.

Political or institutional independence, by contrast, implies that the Law Society should operate as a counterweight to government, taking public positions on matters of policy or governance. Singapore has never fully embraced this model, and its history explains why.

In the mid-1980s, the Law Society briefly ventured into overt political advocacy. The episode proved deeply polarising within the profession and ultimately destabilising for the institution itself. Legislative reforms followed, clarifying that the society’s role was to remain professional rather than political. Whatever one’s view of that episode, it shaped the institutional settlement that has governed the profession for nearly four decades.

Reframing the debate

Seen in this light, the current controversy is less about legality or democratic deficit than about expectations. Some lawyers appear to want the Law Society to evolve into a more assertive political representative. Others are comfortable with its existing role as a professional regulator operating within a statutory framework.

Reasonable people can disagree on which model is preferable. But it is important to recognise that the present structure is not an accident, nor a quiet erosion of independence. It reflects a longstanding judgment about how best to preserve stability, professionalism and public trust in Singapore’s legal system.

The Law Society president’s role is demanding but specific: to lead a professional body, steward regulatory responsibilities, and uphold standards. It does not require, and was never intended to be conferred, a political mandate from the general membership.

The intensity of the current debate shows that lawyers care deeply about the identity of their profession. That is a strength. But the debate may be more productive if it is reframed away from personalities and towards institutional clarity.

Instead of asking whether the Law Society president is sufficiently “independent”, we might ask whether we want the society to become something it was never designed to be. Singapore’s legal system has earned its reputation not through the politicisation of professional bodies, but through strong courts, competent lawyers, and institutions that understand both their responsibilities and their limits.

Clarity about those limits is not a weakness. It is part of what has allowed the profession to function effectively – often quietly, sometimes imperfectly, but with a degree of stability that many other jurisdictions would envy.

The author is a law lecturer and MOE-Start scholar at the Singapore University of Social Sciences and a lawyer at RHTLaw Asia.

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Jail for man linked to crime syndicate that controlled 70 bank accounts; over $837k involved Pritam Singh, Mediacorp apologise after comments on CNA show which AGC said are in contempt of court