Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 Art 19B in the light of the first purpose would thus be consistent with the third purpose as well (at [92]). 28 The Judge rejected the Appellant’s arguments that the court should place little weight on Parliament’s intention (as reflected in PM Lee’s statement referred to at [27(a)] above) that President Wee’s last term be specified as the first term because it had been mistaken about the law. The Judge considered that Parliament could not have been mistaken about the law, because it was making new law, and in any event the courts were bound to give effect to Parliament’s clear intention even if it had been based on a mistake (at [94]–[95]). Whether Parliament based this intention on the AG’s advice was not relevant (at [96]). 29 Finally, the Judge found that the Commission’s Report and the White Paper did not support the Appellant’s interpretation of Arts 19B and 164 (at [97]). As for the Explanatory Statement to the 2016 Bill, this confirmed that Parliament did not intend that the power it conferred upon itself under Art 164 was to be limited to specifying as the first term, the term of office of a President who had been popularly elected (at [98]). The parties’ principal arguments on appeal 30 Because of the expedited nature of this appeal, the Judge ordered the parties’ written submissions filed for OS 495 to stand as their respective cases on appeal. The parties’ grounds of appeal were set out in the skeletal submissions which they filed on 21 July 2107. 31 The Appellant raised three principal grounds of appeal in his skeletal submissions: 14