Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 agree with the Judge who noted (at [37(a)] of the Judgment) that if a provision is well-drafted, its purpose will emanate from its words. Third, other legislative provisions within the statute may be referred to, so far as they are relevant to ascertaining what Parliament was seeking to achieve and how. In particular, the structure of the statute as a whole and the location of the provision in question within the statute may be relevant considerations. 45 Furthermore, s 9A(4) of the IA expressly directs that when deciding whether any extraneous material should be referred to and/or what weight should be given to such material, consideration must be given to the desirability of persons being able to rely on the ordinary meaning conveyed by the text and to the need to avoid prolonging legal proceedings. This too suggests that the primary source of information as to the legislative intent should be the text itself. Consideration of extraneous material under s 9A(2) may then be had, but only in appropriate circumstances. It is to these we now turn. Consideration of extraneous material 46 We start by observing that the word “consider” as used (in its various forms) in s 9A implies more than mere reference; it implies some degree of reliance on the material for the purposes stated under s 9A(2). Before deciding whether to “consider” the extraneous material, the court would necessarily refer to it to make a preliminary assessment of whether it is capable of giving assistance. If it is incapable of giving assistance, then there is no question of “considering” it because no useful reliance can be placed on it. Only if the material is capable of giving assistance will the court proceed to “consider” the material in its full depth and breadth. That is how the court avoids being cast adrift on a sea of irrelevant material (see Ting Choon Meng at [63]–[64]). 23