Wong Souk Yee v AG 27 [2019] SGCA 25 In our judgment, the meaning of Art 49(1) is ambiguous, specifically in relation to whether and how it applies to GRCs. Article 49(1) is ambiguous in relation to whether and how it applies to GRCs 28 The words of Art 49(1) comfortably apply in the context of SMCs. This is unsurprising since, as we have already noted, at the time Art 49(1) was enacted, SMCs were the only type of parliamentary constituencies that existed. Article 49(1) was thus obviously drafted with SMCs in mind. Further, as highlighted at [4] above, the wording of Art 49(1) has remained largely unchanged since its original enactment in 1965. In Vellama at [82], we held that on a plain reading of Art 49(1), the Prime Minister is required to call a byelection to fill casual vacancies of elected Members in SMCs within a reasonable time. The two key issues in that case revolved around the proper interpretation of the word “shall” in the phrase “shall be filled by election” in Art 49(1) (see Vellama at [76]) and the time frame within which the Prime Minister should be required to call a by-election (see Vellama at [83]). There was (and is) no serious dispute that Art 49(1) applied to SMCs. 29 However, the implementation of the GRC scheme in 1988, which required a number of changes to the law, including the insertion of Art 39A into the Constitution, gives rise to the question of whether the directive contained in Art 49(1) applies to a GRC as it does to an SMC, and if so, how it should apply. 30 In Public Prosecutor v ASR [2019] SGCA 16 (“ASR”), we reiterated that in determining the ordinary meaning of the words of a provision, the court must begin by considering what those words were understood to mean at the time the provision was enacted (see ASR at [77]–[79]). As a starting point, therefore, the words “seat of a Member” in Art 49(1) would only refer to seats in SMCs (see 13