Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 this respect and to make the appropriate adjustments in future, if necessary. … 123 In these speeches, President Tan, DPM Teo and the other MPs were speaking to the merits of the reserved election model as a concept. They were not directing their speeches specifically to Art 164 and the discretion granted to Parliament by that provision in designating the first term. 124 Returning to PM Lee’s speech, which was the only one touching specifically on this point, it is clear from this that Parliament intended not to have limitations, of the sort contended by the Appellant, on its power to specify the first term pursuant to Art 164. PM Lee explicitly said that the Government would later legislate pursuant to Art 164 to start the count from President Wee and that is exactly what later transpired. 125 We deal briefly with the Appellant’s final ground of appeal, which seeks to meet the force and weight of PM Lee’s speech in relation to the specific issue that is before us by contending that Parliament’s decision to choose President Wee’s term was based on the misapprehension that President Wee was an Elected President. The Appellant submitted that whether President Wee was an Elected President is a legal question and that the Government’s decision to specify President Wee’s term as the first term was evidently based on the AG’s advice. Based on what was said in PM Lee’s speech, this advice must – the Appellant argues – have erroneously suggested that President Wee was an Elected President. 126 To recapitulate, the Appellant’s reading of the provisions, as informed by their legislative purpose, is that: (a) Art 164 is qualified by the meaning of Art 19B purposively ascertained; 62