Wong Souk Yee v AG (b) [2019] SGCA 25 the vacancy shall only be filled by a by-election if and when all the seats in the GRC have been vacated (“the Respondent’s First Interpretation”); or (c) the “seat of a Member” in Art 49(1) refers only to the seat of a Member of an SMC, and Art 49(1) does not apply to seats in a GRC at all (“the Respondent’s Second Interpretation”). 59 The Respondent urges this court to give full effect to the intent and will of Parliament, and submits that the Respondent’s First Interpretation should be adopted. The Respondent submits that this result can be achieved through the use of either of two tools of statutory interpretation: an updating construction or a rectifying construction. This was the interpretation and the approach preferred by the Judge in the decision below (see Wong Souk Yee HC at [36], [38] and [41]). In the alternative, the Respondent submits that we should adopt the Respondent’s Second Interpretation. 60 The Appellant argues, on the other hand, that the Appellant’s Interpretation should be preferred because the interpretation adopted by the Judge effectively rewrites Art 49(1) in a manner that its language cannot bear. The Appellants suggests that the proper approach would be for the Legislature to amend Art 49(1) instead. 61 The guiding principle that applies when a court must choose from among competing interpretations of any legislative enactment is that it should prefer that interpretation which furthers the purpose of the written text (see Tan Cheng Bock at [54(c)] and s 9A(1) of the IA). 62 It is evident from a consideration of the relevant extraneous material that the Respondent’s First Interpretation is most closely aligned with Parliament’s 25