Wong Souk Yee v AG (a) [2019] SGCA 25 first, it must be possible to determine from a consideration of the provisions of the Act concerned, read as a whole, what the mischief was that Parliament sought to remedy with that Act; (b) second, it must be apparent that the draftsman and Parliament had inadvertently overlooked, and so omitted to deal with, the eventuality that was required to be dealt with so that the purpose of the Act could be achieved; and (c) third, it must be possible to state with sufficient certainty what the additional words would be that the draftsman would have inserted but for the inadvertence, and that Parliament would have approved those words had its attention been drawn to the omission. 67 In our judgment, the third requirement of sufficient certainty poses an insurmountable barrier to the adoption of a rectifying construction in the present case. As we highlighted earlier (at [54]–[56] above), while the result which Parliament intended to achieve is clear (namely, that a vacancy in the seat of a GRC Member would not give rise to an obligation on the part of the Government to call a by-election), it is far from clear how Parliament thought it would effect this result. In the circumstances, it is impossible to state with certainty the words which the draftsman would have inserted and whether Parliament would have approved of the insertion because it is unclear whether Parliament wanted to amend the language of the Constitution at all. To add to this, the entrenched and fundamental nature of the Constitution compounds our hesitancy to act in the face of this uncertainty. 28