Tan Cheng Bock v AG 121 [2017] SGCA 50 As against this, the Appellant argues that all the other parts of the extraneous material, included the speeches made by other MPs, point to the intention of Parliament being to address a specific mischief created by open popular elections. That is undoubtedly true, but it misses the point. The issue underlying all those speeches pertained, as we have already said, to the concept of a reserved election. As mentioned, the present issue between the parties is a purely transitional issue that is ultimately governed by Art 164. Even if Parliament did intend to address the mischief of free, open and unreserved elections having the effect of excluding particular communities from the office of the President through Art 19B, it was equally mindful of the fact that it had been 46 years since a member of the Malay community had held the office. There was nothing to stop Parliament from also deciding – to address the latter fact – to allow itself the discretion under Art 164 to specify, in subsequent legislation, President Wee’s last term as the first term, such that if it did, the 2017 election would be reserved for candidates from the Malay community. It is evident from PM Lee’s speech that this is precisely what Parliament did decide. Hence, the various references to and illustrations of how the model would work and apply in the other speeches simply do not reveal any specific intention in relation to the meaning of Art 164. 122 Among other speeches in the Parliamentary debates, the Appellant relied on the following excerpts (see in general Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (7–9 November 2016) vol 94): (a) President Tan’s message at the reading of the 2016 Bill on 7 November 2016 stating the following: … After the Elected Presidency was instituted, all, but one of the Elected Presidents have been Chinese, including myself. The role of the President as a titular Head of State representing our multi-racial society is 60