Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 candidates from the Malay community. Parliament passed the 2016 Amendment knowing that the Government intended to do this (at [89]– [90]). Therefore, Parliament intended to be able to specify President’s Wee’s last term of office as the first term, and Art 19B had to be interpreted in the light of that specific intention (at [90]–[91]). (b) The second purpose was the most favourable to the Appellant’s case because it suggested that only the terms of popularly-elected Presidents should be counted for the purpose of Art 19B (at [86]). However, although some speakers in Parliament referred to popularlyelected presidents and six-year terms during the reading of the 2016 Bill, no member specifically suggested that the count under Art 19B had to start from the first popularly-elected President; it was only by implication that one could surmise that the speakers’ intention was for only popularly-elected Presidents to be counted. Furthermore, even if one were to accept that Parliament’s primary purpose in enacting Arts 19B and 164 was to ensure that Presidents of minority races were elected by the citizens from time to time, Parliament did not only intend to ensure that the electoral process returned Presidents of minority races from time to time; it also considered other matters, such as the fact that Singapore had not had a Malay President for 46 years and that a Malay President might not be elected to the Presidency in the immediate future. Thus, any interpretation of Arts 19B and 164 had also to account for the more specific as well as the more abstract intentions of Parliament, that is, the first and third purposes. Purposive interpretation had to be true to Parliament’s purpose as a whole (at [87]). (c) The third purpose would be fulfilled regardless of whether the President was elected by the citizens or by Parliament. Interpreting 13