Wong Souk Yee v AG 50 [2019] SGCA 25 We first observe that the parliamentary debate on the Bill which later became the 1988 PE Amendment Act (namely, the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill (Bill 23 of 1987) (“the PE Amendment Bill”)) immediately preceded the debate on the Bill which later became the 1988 Constitution Amendment Act (namely, the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (Amendment) Bill (Bill 24 of 1987) (“the Constitution Amendment Bill”)). In this connection, there is a critical factual point that should be noted. During the second reading of the Constitution Amendment Bill, then First Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong (“DPM Goh”) stated (see Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (12 January 1988) vol 50 at col 345): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir I do not propose to speak at length. All the points in [the Constitution Amendment Bill] are also found in the [PE Amendment Bill] which Parliament has just debated. The two Bills should be read together. As we have had a full debate running over two days on the concept of Group Representation Constituencies, we need not and we should not repeat the arguments. [emphasis added] 51 It follows from this that Parliament regarded the passage of the amendments to the Constitution and the PEA as part of a single package of changes that would effect the implementation of the GRC scheme. It is explicit from the portion of DPM Goh’s speech which we have emphasised that the statements made in relation to the legislative intent behind the amendments to the PEA were equally to apply to the amendments to the Constitution. In a sense, this is unsurprising since both sets of amendments were meant to work in tandem in order to bring the GRC scheme into force. 52 In debating the PE Amendment Bill, the very issue that now confronts us – namely, whether a by-election should be called when the only minority Member, or any other Member, of a GRC vacates his or her seat – was addressed 20