Wong Souk Yee v AG [2019] SGCA 25 An updating construction is also not appropriate in the present case 68 The application of an updating construction is similarly problematic. The applicable test was stated in CIT at [46]–[47] as follows in the context of two related statutes, only one of which is later amended by Parliament: (a) At the first stage, the court ascertains the nature of the amendment effected in the amended statute (“the first statute”). (b) At the second stage, the court’s inquiry is directed at whether the amendment to the first statute gives rise to any ambiguity or uncertainty in the interpretation and application of the related statute (“the second statute”) as it stands, by reason of which, or for some other reason, there is potentially a need to apply an updating construction to the second statute. (c) If the inquiry at the second stage is answered in the affirmative, then at the third stage, it becomes necessary to consider whether, in the circumstances, an updating construction ought to be applied, and if so, how it should be applied. It will be relevant to have regard to the objects of the second statute, how it has hitherto been applied, how the draftsman has chosen to frame the linkage between the two statutes, and whether an updating construction would entail such a substantive change to the operation of the second statute that it would be best left to the Legislature to effect the change or whether the change is such as may appropriately be imported into the second statute by way of an updating construction. 69 The difficulty in the application of this test lies again with the third stage of the analysis. To import the proposed amendments to Art 49(1) would 29