Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 “has held the office of President” in Art 19B(1) and “the persons who held those terms of office [of the President]” in Art 164(1)(b) must be qualified or limited by construing the reference to “President” (explicit in the former and implicit in the latter) as referring to one who not only held the office with the accompanying enhanced powers inherent in the Elected Presidency, but who was also elected to that office under the framework that was introduced by the 1991 Amendment. 74 The Appellant faces several (and considerable) difficulties, of which we note these at the outset: (a) The focus of Arts 19B and 164 is on those who have held the office of President, not those who have been elected to that office in a particular way; (b) Both before and after the introduction of the Elected Presidency framework, the President was elected, albeit initially by Parliament and only later by the citizens. Nothing in the text or context of Arts 19B and 164 suggests any concern over or preoccupation with the method by which they were elected; (c) Although President Wee was elected by Parliament, by virtue of Art 163, it was indisputable that he did, in fact and in law, hold the office under the framework of the Elected Presidency. 75 These are the hurdles that the Appellant will have to clear to succeed in the appeal. In that light, we briefly set out the rest of the statutory context before turning to the Appellant’s principal arguments. 41