Wong Souk Yee v AG [2019] SGCA 25 undoubtedly be a significant substantive change to the operation of the provision. Article 49(1) would be transformed into a provision which differentiates between GRCs on the one hand and SMCs on the other as to the circumstances in which a by-election must be called. In our judgment, effecting such a substantive change by way of an updating construction cannot be justified, given that it is unclear whether Parliament intended for Art 49(1) to be amended in this fashion to begin with (see [54]–[56] above). Our decision on the proper interpretation of Art 49(1) 70 Given that neither a rectifying nor an updating construction can be applied to Art 49(1), only two possible interpretations remain: the Appellant’s Interpretation and the Respondent’s Second Interpretation. It is common ground that both of these interpretations would not require adjustments to the language of Art 49(1). 71 The Appellant’s Interpretation is severely hampered by the fact that it is antithetical to the purposive approach mandated by s 9A(1) of the IA. It involves compelling all the remaining Members of a GRC to vacate their seats in the event of a vacancy in a single seat in the GRC, thereby forcing a byelection to be held. It is common ground that this would lead to the one result that Parliament had expressly intended to avoid when it implemented the GRC scheme (see [46] and [52]–[53] above). 72 This leaves the Respondent’s Second Interpretation, which we accept is not ideal, in that it results in leaving the Constitution silent on the filling of a vacant seat in a GRC. However, three points should be borne in mind. The first is that the role of the court is not to fashion the ideal formulation of the words of Art 49(1). Instead, we are constrained to work with the text as it stands and to pick from the range of permissible interpretations the interpretation that 30