Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 at [52] to [53], the relevance of and weight to be given to such material depends on how clearly and unequivocally they are directed at the very point in question. The present dispute between the parties concerns a purely transitional issue that is governed by Art 164. The parties disagree on the scope of the discretion granted to Parliament under Art 164 in relation to the terms of office it may specify as the first term under Art 19B(1). No other future election would encounter this issue once Parliament exercises its discretion to specify the first term pursuant to Art 164. Hence, it is the specific purpose behind Art 164 that we should be most concerned with in this case. (1) The Commission’s Report and the White Paper 109 At the outset, we do not think we should consider the Commission’s Report or the White Paper when ascertaining the purpose of Art 164 because neither document addressed the question of when and how the hiatus-triggered model would commence. Instead, these documents pertain to the concept of the reserved election rather than to the specific question of when the count could start for the purposes of determining if an election would be reserved. This is a critical distinction which, in our judgment, the case that was mounted on behalf of the Appellant wholly failed to account for. 110 The Commission simply did not consider when and how the model that it recommended should come into effect, but instead considered the options to ensure minority representation in the Presidency. This can be seen in the Commission’s terms of reference, which included the following: (2) To consider and recommend what provisions should be made to safeguard minority representation in the Presidency, taking into account: (i) The President’s status as a unifying figure that represents multi-racial Singapore; and 53