Tan Cheng Bock v AG 23 [2017] SGCA 50 Instead, he adopted a purposive approach to interpreting the text of these provisions. The Judge first determined the ordinary meaning of Art 164, then that of Art 19B, before turning to extraneous material to see whether it could assist in determining their meaning. In his view, the following conclusions could be drawn from a plain reading of Art 164: (a) Art 164 expressly imposes a duty on Parliament to choose the first term and implicitly gives it the power to do so (at [50] of the Judgment). (b) Since on its terms Art 164 empowers Parliament to choose the first term, it follows that Art 19B does not determine what the first term should be. Nor does Art 164 state what the first term should be. Instead, Parliament is empowered to choose the first term, which explicitly could be one that commenced before the appointed date (1 April 2017) and in respect of which there was no express limitation as to how far back before the appointed date Parliament could go (at [51]). (c) Parliament’s power under Art 164 must nonetheless be exercised in accordance with Art 19B. Both articles must be read consistently and in the event of any inconsistency, Art 19B should prevail. That is because, on a plain reading, the purpose of Art 164 is to implement the reserved election model under Art 19B (at [52]). 24 The question then was whether Art 19B constrains Parliament’s power to act under Art 164. The Judge held that Art 19B does not limit Parliament’s power in any material way. In particular, it does not restrict Parliament to choosing only the terms of office of Presidents elected under the framework for the Elected Presidency when specifying the first term under Art 164 (at [67]). The Judge’s reasons were as follows: 10