Tan Cheng Bock v AG 35 [2017] SGCA 50 It is common ground that the Constitution should be interpreted purposively. This follows from the fact that Art 2(9) of the Constitution provides that the IA shall apply in the interpretation of the Constitution; and the IA, as we note below, mandates the purposive approach. That means it should be interpreted in a way that gives effect to the intent and will of Parliament. This intent will generally be reflected in the text of the enactment. The Constitution’s words are to be read in their grammatical and ordinary sense and in their entire context, harmoniously with the scheme of the Constitution as a whole, and the relevant objects or intentions that may be gleaned from this. Additionally, the court may consider, in certain circumstances and subject to certain limitations, relevant extraneous material. We elaborate on this below. The relevant Parliamentary intention is to be found at the time the law was enacted or, in some circumstances, when it subsequently reaffirms the particular statutory provision in question: see Constitutional Reference No 1 of 1995 [1995] 1 SLR(R) 803 at [44]. 36 Purposive interpretation becomes, at least potentially, of particular relevance and assistance where there are two or more possible interpretations of a given legislative provision. Where this is so, the interpretation that promotes the purpose or object of the written law is to be preferred to the interpretation that does not. That is the effect of s 9A(1) of the IA, which as we have noted, applies equally to questions of constitutional interpretation. Section 9A of the IA provides: Purposive interpretation of written law and use of extrinsic materials 9A.—(1) In the interpretation of a provision of a written law, an interpretation that would promote the purpose or object underlying the written law (whether that purpose or object is expressly stated in the written law or not) shall be preferred to an interpretation that would not promote that purpose or object. 17