Wong Souk Yee v AG (c) [2019] SGCA 25 third, voters have the right to be represented by an elected Member of their choice until the dissolution of Parliament pursuant to an “implied right to representation” contained in the Constitution. 13 The Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that s 24(2A) of the PEA specifically prohibited a by-election from being called when any seat in a GRC became vacant unless all the other seats in that GRC had also been vacated. Hence, the Respondent submitted, the issue should correctly be framed in terms of whether s 24(2A) of the PEA was unconstitutional in the light of Art 49(1) of the Constitution. The Respondent argued that on a proper interpretation of Art 49(1), it did not conflict with s 24(2A). The Respondent highlighted that Parliament, in debating the constitutional and legislative amendments that brought the GRC scheme into force, had expressly considered the issue of what would occur in the event that a Member vacated a GRC seat, and had arrived at the conclusion that was expressed in s 24(2A). In the Respondent’s submission, Art 49(1) ought to be given an updating or rectifying construction to take into account the later introduction of GRCs; alternatively, Art 49(1) should be construed as being applicable only to SMCs and not to GRCs. The Judge’s decision 14 In Wong Souk Yee v Attorney-General [2018] SGHC 80 (“Wong Souk Yee HC”), the Judge held as follows: (a) It was implicit in the Appellant’s case that a by-election could not be held to fill just one seat in a GRC, and that any by-election in a GRC would have to be for the whole team of Members representing that GRC (at [15]). 6