Tan Cheng Bock v AG 68 [2017] SGCA 50 In our judgment, it remains clear, for the reasons set out at [58(a)] above that the only election that can possibly be reserved is one that is to be held after the appointed date; and therefore, the first reference to that expression, “office of President” in Art 19B(1) is to that office as it exists after the appointed date. 69 However, it is now also clear, in the light of Art 164 and what we have said at [65], that the second and third references to “office of President” and “office of the President” in Art 19B(1) cannot bear the same meaning without rendering the whole of Art 164(1)(b) and Art 164(2) otiose and meaningless. This is a conclusion to be avoided, since, as we have noted, Parliament should not be taken to have legislated in vain. Nor are the three separate references to “office of (the) President” irreconcilable. They can coexist perfectly well by construing the second and third uses of the expression “office of President” to mean the office as it was prior to the appointed date, under previous iterations of the Constitution. 70 However, this construction of Art 19B(1) read with Art 164 revives an issue that we did not previously have to deal with although we alluded to it fleetingly at [58(c)(ii)]: is the critical expression “has held the office of President” in Art 19B(1) and the corresponding variant in Art 164(1)(b) to be construed as excluding those who have held the office in their own right by being elected to that office by Parliament rather than by the citizens? In the final analysis, this was the nub of the issue between the parties. “Terms of office” not restricted to terms of Presidents who were elected by citizens 71 Before we turn to examine this in detail, it would be helpful if we made some observations: 37