Wong Souk Yee v AG [2019] SGCA 25 would best accord with the underlying purpose of Art 49(1). The second is that the Respondent’s Second Interpretation accurately reflects the reality that when Art 49(1) was enacted in its present form in 1965, Members of SMCs were the only type of Members that the drafters of the provision would have had in mind since the GRC scheme had yet to come into existence. The third is that the mere fact that an express provision in the Constitution does not exist for the filling of vacancies in a GRC does not necessarily mean that all the seats in a GRC can be left vacant without an obligation on the part of the Government to call a byelection in that GRC. Without expressing a definitive opinion on the matter, it appears to us at least arguable that an implied right to representation might be invoked to fill this lacuna in the Constitution (see Vellama at [79]). It would, we add, obviously be more desirable for this lacuna to be addressed by an amendment to the Constitution to expressly deal with vacancies in the seats of GRC Members. 73 For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that the proper interpretation of Art 49(1) is that the words “seat of a Member” therein refer only to the seat of an SMC Member. In the circumstances, there is no requirement pursuant to Art 49(1) for a by-election to be called in MYT GRC. We turn now to address the remaining issues raised in the appeal. Article 39A of the Constitution and minority Members of GRCs 74 The Appellant argues that since the stated purpose of the GRC scheme is to ensure the representation in Parliament of minority Members, it would undermine the purpose of Art 39A to give effect to either of the Respondent’s proposed interpretations. This is because in the event that a minority Member of a GRC vacates his or her seat, minority representation in Parliament would be diminished and the force of Art 39A would be reduced if the vacancy is not 31