Tan Cheng Bock v AG (b) [2017] SGCA 50 it was clearly the case, at least from those parts of the Parliamentary debates which we have highlighted earlier and which address the concept of a reserved election (see [122] above), that Art 19B was meant to correct a particular mischief – that of the failure of open and unregulated elections to produce minority candidates; (c) therefore, the phrase “5 most recent terms of office” in Art 19B must be limited to the terms of office of those Presidents who were elected in open and unregulated elections; and (d) similarly, Art 164 must be read in the same way, meaning that the choice of which term of office Parliament could specify under Art 164 as the first term must be restricted to those terms of office of those Presidents who were elected in open and unregulated elections. 127 There are a number of difficulties with this reading. First, it rests, not on the language of the provisions in question, but on extracts from the Parliamentary debates, and we have already cautioned against this. Second, even then, it plainly runs counter to PM Lee’s speech, which, as we said, is the only statement in Parliament which directly addresses the question of when Parliament intended that the count could start, and which specifically says that the Government intended to specify President Wee’s term as the first term even though he was plainly not a President elected in an open and unregulated election. 128 In order to square PM Lee’s speech with the Appellant’s reading of Arts 19B and 164, the Appellant argues that PM Lee must have been mistaken about President Wee being elected by the citizens and must have been misled by the AG’s advice. It would also follow on this basis that the other MPs in Parliament too thought that President Wee was popularly elected. 63