Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 President of a particular community, then Parliament could lawfully only specify the term of office of a President elected by the citizens as the first term. As we pointed out to Mr Rajah, if we agreed with that interpretation, Parliament’s choice would have been unconstitutional. It would not have mattered what the AG’s advice was in such circumstances, given that President Wee was not (on this assumption) in fact elected to the office by the citizens. 132 However, because we have disagreed with the Appellant’s interpretation of Art 19B(1), the issue of the AG’s advice is moot. Whatever that advice might have said, it has no bearing on our decision, which is that Art 164 empowers Parliament to specify the last term of President Wee as the first term. 133 In any event, it is appropriate for us to return to what we have said at [120] above and state explicitly that there is nothing to suggest that there was any misapprehension on the part either of PM Lee or the MPs that President Wee was an Elected President in the sense of his having been elected by the citizens. He was not. However, President Wee was the first President to hold the office with the enhanced powers of an Elected President. And it was in that explicit context that PM Lee referred to President Wee’s term, perhaps as a matter of convenience, but in no way erroneously, as one of the five terms of the Elected Presidency. And if there is no reason to think that PM Lee or the MPs were mistaken, the predicate for the Appellant’s argument – that a mistake was made – falls away. 134 In our judgment, consideration of the extraneous material in this case confirms the purposively-ascertained ordinary meaning of Arts 19B(1) and 164. It follows that Parliament could, under Art 164, lawfully specify President Wee’s last term as the first term. 65