Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 that a reference in Art 2 to “this Constitution” (which is an entire Act, not a “provision”) must refer to the Constitution as it existed after the 1991 Amendment. Accordingly, there seems, to us, to be no basis for applying s 15(2)(a). 87 The more relevant provision is s 8(3) of the IA. First, it should be noted that s 8(3) is only applicable unless a “contrary intention appears” having regard to the text and context of the relevant provisions being construed. 88 We proceed on the basis that when applying s 8(3), the reference to “this Constitution” in the definition of “President” in Art 2 of the Constitution can be construed as a “citation of an Act”. Therefore, Art 2’s reference to “this Constitution” would, by virtue of s 8(3), “be construed as a reference to the [Constitution] as amended from time to time by any other Act”. The “other Act” for this purpose must refer to the 2016 Amendment. 89 Therefore, if the expression “this Constitution” that is contained in the definition of “President” in Art 2 is interpreted in accordance with s 8(3) of the IA, then the consequence would be that for the purpose of Art 19B(1) of the Constitution, the expression “has held the office of President” must mean someone who has held the office under the Constitution as it stood after the 2016 Amendment. Hence, applying s 8(3) of the IA, any citation of “this Constitution” must mean the Constitution as it was so amended. At one level, this would cohere precisely with the preliminary and presumptive construction of Art 19B, taken on its own, at which we arrived at [59] above. 90 The difficulty, however, is that adopting such a construction would do intolerable violence to Art 164, which is an essential provision to be considered when construing Art 19B – see further at [65]–[69] above. We cannot see how 45