Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 accordingly maintains that President Ong’s term of office is the earliest one that Parliament could lawfully have specified as the first term pursuant to Art 164. It follows, on this interpretation, that the next presidential election should not be reserved for candidates from the Malay community. 5 As against this, the Respondent, who is the Attorney-General (“AG”), argues that there is no such restriction on Parliament’s power under Art 164. Indeed, he contends that at the time Parliament passed the 2016 Amendment, Parliament had been apprised of the Government’s intention to specify President Wee’s last term of office as the first term. This the Respondent says is clear from the record of the Parliamentary debates. He maintains that in the circumstances, there can be no basis for concluding that Parliament then acted outside its constitutional limits when it subsequently specified President Wee’s last term of office as the first term – just as it had said it would at the time the relevant constitutional provisions were passed. 6 Properly framed, the issue we are asked to determine is what, if any, are the limitations on the “term of office” of the President that Parliament could lawfully choose to specify as the first term under Art 164. More specifically, the question is whether Parliament was restricted to choosing from the terms of office of the Presidents elected directly by the citizens of Singapore, as the Appellant contends. This has to be answered by interpreting the relevant constitutional provisions purposively, as mandated by s 9A of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) (“IA”). Background 7 On 5 May 2017, the Appellant filed Originating Summons No 495 of 2017 (“OS 495”) in the High Court seeking a declaration that: 3