Wong Souk Yee v AG [2019] SGCA 25 representing that GRC were to vacate their seats. This intention was reflected in the express provision in s 24(2A) of the PEA to this effect (see [44] above). Second, Parliament was well aware that the GRC scheme which it had designed was not perfect and that there would have to be trade-offs in implementing the scheme. What is crucial is that Parliament had weighed those considerations which were thought to be relevant to the safeguards that it had chosen in crafting the GRC scheme. In the context of this specific issue, namely, whether it would be obligatory for the Government to call a by-election in a GRC when not all the Members of the GRC had vacated their seats, the extraneous material makes it clear that Parliament had decided that there would be no such obligation because this was preferable to the alternative, which was the possibility that one Member of a GRC team could hold the other Members of the team to ransom. 54 However, while the extraneous material is clear on the intended outcome in this situation, it is unclear as to how Parliament thought it would effect this outcome. It certainly expressed this intended outcome in the PEA, but did not expressly do so in the Constitution. In our judgment, this gives rise to at least three distinct possibilities: (a) First, Parliament intended to amend Art 49(1) to reflect its intention that no by-election would be held in a GRC so long as not all the Members of the GRC had vacated their seats, but inadvertently omitted to do so. (b) Second, Parliament intended that Art 39A would be the operative provision in regulating all matters pertaining to GRCs, including the filling of vacancies, and contemplated that Art 39A incorporated a sufficient reference to s 24(2A) of the PEA to achieve the result that it desired. Article 39A(1) states that Parliament may “by law 22