Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 those who have in fact been President of Singapore and not on the method by which they came to hold that office. (b) Second, this textual analysis is supported by the relevant extraneous material evidencing Parliament’s intention. The specific intention of Parliament was to specify President Wee’s last term as the first term, which is evident from PM Lee’s statement to this effect (this is the statement we have referred to at [27(a)]). (c) Third, the Appellant’s argument that Parliament’s choice was based on a misapprehension of law was in fact circular. The Appellant (and for that matter the court) does not know the contents of the AG’s advice and he has seemingly concluded that the AG’s advice must have been wrong because it differed from the Appellant’s own interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution. 33 We will examine the parties’ arguments in greater detail at the appropriate points below. Our decision The purposive approach to constitutional interpretation 34 As we noted at the outset of this judgment, the question before us is one of constitutional interpretation. Hence, it is logical to begin our analysis of the issue before us by identifying the relevant principles of constitutional interpretation. In this connection, we were assisted by the fact that both counsel for the parties, Mr Chelva Retnam Rajah SC (“Mr Rajah”) for the Appellant and the learned Deputy Attorney-General Mr Hri Kumar Nair SC (“Mr Nair”) for the Respondent, were essentially in agreement on what these were. Nonetheless, it is useful for us to take this opportunity to emphasise the relevant principles. 16