- Joined
- Dec 14, 2009
- Messages
- 514
- Points
- 43
Petition filed against Law Society leaders
President, governing council could face vote of no confidence in EGM
By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
THE Law Society leadership is facing a vote of no confidence as disgruntled members yesterday filed a petition against it after talks hit an impasse.
They are calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to vote against the society's president Wong Meng Meng and its governing council.
Lawyer Subhas Anandan, who leads the group, said the petition carries 88 signatures, double the original number when the row first broke out.
Both sides had been arguing over business-class travel for the society's top leaders for approved overseas events. The decision to allow such travel was made during the tenure of the previous president, Mr Michael Hwang. Mr Wong, who suggested it, was then deputy president.
But Mr Anandan questioned the move, noting the society had raised its fees just several months before that. He and several others then filed a petition with 44 signatories, asking for an EGM to revoke the right to business-class travel.
But the Law Society rejected this bid. Acting on legal advice, it said members did not have the power to pass a resolution to revoke the council's travel protocol - that power lay only with the council.
Mr Anandan and his group then asked for a freeze on the entitlement, arguing that the issue was no longer about business-class travel but accountability to members.
On Tuesday, he and Mr Wong held a meeting brokered by 'a Senior Counsel who is very well respected by both Mr Wong and myself', said Mr Anandan yesterday. But the talks hit a deadlock. 'We did not reach any agreement because our positions were too far apart,' he said.
The Law Society spokesman declined to comment on the meeting, but expressed the council's disappointment with the latest petition. He noted that the group had chosen this route even though the governing council had already said it would call a townhall meeting to discuss the business-class travel issue.
The meeting, to be held on Feb 14, was being convened 'in all good faith' to address any concerns and grievances, said the spokesman.
'There are many challenges facing the legal profession. The council looks forward to resolving this issue expeditiously so that all can work together to meet those challenges,' he added.
If passed, a no-confidence motion does not compel affected parties to step down, but they do so as a matter of tradition.
The Law Society spokesman said the council will look into the petition.
While there have been several EGMs over the past decade, this is the first time since 2003 that a no-confidence motion on the president and the governing council is being tabled.
In 2003, over a similar motion, more than 300 members turned up at the EGM and voted to adjourn the meeting with no resolution.
Former Law Society president Peter Low recalled that most of the past EGMs dealt with issues rather than no-confidence motions.
In 1994, he faced an EGM but it was for a motion to reject a set of recommendations on small firms. The move was withdrawn after he held talks with the movers and a meeting was held to thrash out the recommendations.
'I think there is a need for more sensitivity from all parties in the present dispute and to push for more talks,' he said.
[email protected]
President, governing council could face vote of no confidence in EGM
By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
THE Law Society leadership is facing a vote of no confidence as disgruntled members yesterday filed a petition against it after talks hit an impasse.
They are calling for an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to vote against the society's president Wong Meng Meng and its governing council.
Lawyer Subhas Anandan, who leads the group, said the petition carries 88 signatures, double the original number when the row first broke out.
Both sides had been arguing over business-class travel for the society's top leaders for approved overseas events. The decision to allow such travel was made during the tenure of the previous president, Mr Michael Hwang. Mr Wong, who suggested it, was then deputy president.
But Mr Anandan questioned the move, noting the society had raised its fees just several months before that. He and several others then filed a petition with 44 signatories, asking for an EGM to revoke the right to business-class travel.
But the Law Society rejected this bid. Acting on legal advice, it said members did not have the power to pass a resolution to revoke the council's travel protocol - that power lay only with the council.
Mr Anandan and his group then asked for a freeze on the entitlement, arguing that the issue was no longer about business-class travel but accountability to members.
On Tuesday, he and Mr Wong held a meeting brokered by 'a Senior Counsel who is very well respected by both Mr Wong and myself', said Mr Anandan yesterday. But the talks hit a deadlock. 'We did not reach any agreement because our positions were too far apart,' he said.
The Law Society spokesman declined to comment on the meeting, but expressed the council's disappointment with the latest petition. He noted that the group had chosen this route even though the governing council had already said it would call a townhall meeting to discuss the business-class travel issue.
The meeting, to be held on Feb 14, was being convened 'in all good faith' to address any concerns and grievances, said the spokesman.
'There are many challenges facing the legal profession. The council looks forward to resolving this issue expeditiously so that all can work together to meet those challenges,' he added.
If passed, a no-confidence motion does not compel affected parties to step down, but they do so as a matter of tradition.
The Law Society spokesman said the council will look into the petition.
While there have been several EGMs over the past decade, this is the first time since 2003 that a no-confidence motion on the president and the governing council is being tabled.
In 2003, over a similar motion, more than 300 members turned up at the EGM and voted to adjourn the meeting with no resolution.
Former Law Society president Peter Low recalled that most of the past EGMs dealt with issues rather than no-confidence motions.
In 1994, he faced an EGM but it was for a motion to reject a set of recommendations on small firms. The move was withdrawn after he held talks with the movers and a meeting was held to thrash out the recommendations.
'I think there is a need for more sensitivity from all parties in the present dispute and to push for more talks,' he said.
[email protected]
