Tan Cheng Bock v AG [2017] SGCA 50 … 82. The Government agrees with the approach proposed by the Commission. … [emphasis added] 114 With the greatest respect to the Appellant, these extracts were wholly irrelevant to the real controversy that was before us. It is plain from the Commission’s terms of reference that it was tasked with considering and proposing mechanisms to ensure minority representation in the Presidency given the form of the office of the President as it was at the time the Commission was established. References to “free and unregulated elections” producing Presidents from different races or to a “30-year” hiatus that may trigger a reserved election must be understood in that context as pointing to the desirability of establishing a reserved election model. The Commission was not asked under its terms of reference to address its mind to when and how the count would start for the purposes of Art 19B(1). Any explanation of the concept of or the desirability of a reserved election in the Commission’s Report says nothing about the specific question of when the recommended model should take effect. Notably, the Commission expressly declined to comment on the issue of whether and, more importantly, when any amendments to the Constitution should be implemented because it took the view that this was “a political matter for Parliament to determine” (see the Commission’s Report at para 7.19). 115 Thus, the Commission’s Report and the White Paper pertain mainly to the reasons for wanting to ensure minority representation in the office of the President through the introduction of the concept of the reserved election in Art 19B(1), as well as their reasons for proposing and choosing the specific mechanism of a hiatus-triggered reserved election. Both the Commission’s 56