Wong Souk Yee v AG (d) [2019] SGCA 25 whether the Judge erred in ordering costs against the Appellant. The applicable legal principles 22 Many of the issues in this appeal involve questions of constitutional interpretation. In this regard, the parties are in agreement that the principles which we laid down in Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850 (“Tan Cheng Bock”) govern. There, we summarised the principles as follows (at [54]): (a) The purposive approach to statutory interpretation, which is mandated by s 9A of the [Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)], applies to the interpretation of provisions in the Constitution by virtue of Art 2(9) of the Constitution. (b) The court must start by ascertaining the possible interpretations of the provision of the Constitution, having regard not just to its text but also to its context within the Constitution as a whole. (c) The court must then ascertain the legislative purpose or object of the specific provision and the part of the Constitution in which the provision is situated. The court then compares the possible interpretations of the provision against the purpose of the relevant part of the Constitution. The interpretation which furthers the purpose of the written text should be preferred to the interpretation which does not. ... (ii) The purpose should ordinarily be gleaned from the text itself. The court must first determine the ordinary meaning of the provision in its context, which might give sufficient indication of the objects and purposes of the written law, before evaluating whether consideration of extraneous material is necessary. (iii) Consideration of extraneous material may only be had in three situations: (A) If the ordinary meaning of the provision (taking into account its context in the written law and [the] purpose or object underlying the written law) is clear, extraneous material can only be used to confirm the ordinary meaning but not to alter it. 10