Tan Cheng Bock v AG (b) [2017] SGCA 50 In relation to those who have held the office in their own right, does it extend to those who have done so for an incomplete term? 61 In relation to the first point, we doubt that Art 19B(1) can refer to those who have not held the office in their own right since the legislative expression is “hold the office of President”. Those who exercise the functions or powers temporarily would not ordinarily be said to be holding the office but rather would be discharging the relevant functions either because the one who does hold the office is under a temporary disability or because the office is vacant. Reference to Art 22N and Art 22O, which deal with these situations, confirms this and there too, the expression used to describe such a person is one who shall “exercise the functions of the office of President” – see for example Art 22N(1) and Art 22O(1) – and the words “hold the office of the President” are not used to refer to such persons in Arts 22N or 22O. On the other hand, the definition of “President” in Art 2 (see below at [76]) suggests that it would include such a person who discharged the functions of the office unless the context suggested otherwise. Any ambiguity is resolved by Art 19B(3), which makes it clear that such a person is not considered to have held the office of President. Hence, the provision contemplates only those who have held the office in their own right. 62 As to the second of the points noted at [60] above, Art 19B(1) alone does not seem to distinguish between complete or partial terms. The only condition is that the President has held the office. Hence, looking at Art 19B(1) on its own, we do not think that the phrase “5 most recent terms of office” must necessarily be terms of office that have been completed. In any event, this doubt is clarified by looking beyond Art 19B(1) to Art 19B(6) which confirms that “term of office” includes an uncompleted term of office. 34