Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 before the introduction of Art 19B had been reserved and it would make no sense for Parliament to enact legislation that purports to reserve an already completed election. By the same token, any such election would necessarily be an election for the office of President under the Constitution as it stands after the coming into force of the 2016 Amendment (in other words, after the appointed date). Thus, it would seem that the words “office of President” refer to the office as it exists after the appointed date, and not as it existed previously. (b) “is reserved for a community”: This introduces the concept of the reserved election. (c) “if no person belonging to that community has held the office of President”: This is of interest to us for two main reasons. First, it identifies a part of the condition on which the election is to be reserved. That condition (in part) is that no person from the community for which the election is to be reserved has been the President for a time. But the second and significant point is that the condition is defined by reference to no such person having “held the office of President”. As to this, two points may be noted: (i) This part of Art 19B(1) uses the same expression “office of President” as does the first part referred to at (a) above. Where the identical expression is used in a statute, and all the more so, where it is used in the same sub-clause of a section in a statute, it should presumptively have the same meaning. This is a rule of interpretation rooted in simple logic. However, this is not an inflexible rule and the court may, on construing the provision in context, conclude that the identical expressions means different things: see Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd v Boardland 31