Wong Souk Yee v AG 15 [2019] SGCA 25 The Judge awarded costs against the Appellant as the primary focus of her application was the mandatory order to compel the remaining Members of MYT GRC to vacate their seats and there was no basis at all for such an order (at [65]). The parties’ respective cases on appeal 16 The Appellant’s and the Respondent’s respective cases on appeal are broadly consistent with their cases in the court below. In the interest of brevity, we will only highlight certain key points of their arguments. We will elaborate on their respective arguments as necessary when dealing with the discrete issues. 17 The Appellant contends that an updating or rectifying construction of Art 49(1) as adopted by the Judge would entail the court overstepping its constitutional role. The Appellant also contests the Judge’s decision to award costs against her on the basis that her application in OS 1034 raised “a legal question of genuine public concern” that needs to be answered by the court. 18 It is useful here to reiterate that the Appellant is not arguing that a by- election in a GRC: (a) can be held for a single seat in a GRC; or (b) can be held without first having the remaining Members of the GRC vacate their seats. Hence, she does not contend that it is even possible to hold such a by-election without first requiring the remaining Members of the incumbent team to vacate their seats. 19 Thus, the manner in which the Appellant has run her case requires that we must first find a legal basis to compel the remaining Members of MYT GRC 8