Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 Art 19B(1). Art 164 is not concerned with how the hiatus-triggered reserved election model is to work, but only with how and when it is to be implemented. 105 At this point of the analysis, we are satisfied that the ordinary meaning of Arts 19B and 164, their context in the written law, and the purpose underlying the written law as evident from our consideration of the provisions in their context all show that Parliament could specify any of the five most recent terms of office as the first term under Art 164 for the purposes of Art 19B. There is simply nothing that could reasonably lead us to a different view. 106 As we have mentioned, at this stage, the court may consider relevant extraneous material. We think that in this case, the purpose of the provisions in question clearly supports only one textual interpretation, and thus, a court may only consider extraneous material to confirm but not to alter the ordinary meaning of the provision. Consideration of extraneous material in this case may be useful (for the reasons discussed at [49] above) but is by no means necessary to ascertain Parliament’s intent. The question is whether the extraneous material confirm that Parliament could specify any of the five most recent terms of office as the first term under Art 164 for the purposes of Art 19B. Extraneous material 107 The parties relied on the following extraneous material: (a) the Explanatory Statement accompanying the 2016 Bill; (b) statements made in the course of the Parliamentary debates on the 2016 Bill; (c) the Commission’s Report; and (d) the White Paper. 108 The range of extraneous material being relied on by the parties makes it important to analyse their relative usefulness and relevance. As we have noted 52