Wong Souk Yee v AG [2019] SGCA 25 [4] and [28] above). 31 However, we also clarified in ASR that the mere fact that a particular concept did not exist at the time a provision was originally enacted did not automatically mean that the words of the provision could not refer to the new concept. This is because it would not have been possible to say that the provision was not intended to refer to the new concept, given that such an intention could not have been formed at the time of the provision’s enactment in the first place (see ASR at [80]). Thus, in the context of determining whether the concept of mental age, which emerged in 1905, could fall within the ordinary meaning of the word “age” in s 83 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed), we considered whether the ordinary meaning of this word at the time the Penal Code was adopted in 1872 could logically extend to the new concept (see ASR at [81]). 32 Focusing on whether the ordinary meaning of the words of a provision can logically be extended to a new concept is appropriate in the context of new phenomena that arise out of factors independent of the intervention of Parliament, such as the development of new technology. However, the central focus of all statutory and/or constitutional interpretation questions remains the directive contained in s 9A of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) (“the IA”) to interpret the provision concerned in a way that gives effect to the intent and will of Parliament (see Tan Cheng Bock at [35]). As such, in the special context where new concepts arise out of changes made by Parliament to a statute or the Constitution, it is not sufficient to merely show that the ordinary meaning of the words of the provision concerned can logically be extended to the new concepts. Instead, the focus should be on whether the ordinary meaning of those words, read in their context (especially in the context of the amendments made by Parliament), express an intention that the provision should encompass the 14