Wong Souk Yee v AG [2019] SGCA 25 left to be represented by less than its full complement of Members where one or more of them has vacated his or her seat. It is therefore unnecessary to consider the existence and scope of the basic structure doctrine for the purpose of disposing of this appeal. 79 The Appellant added a gloss to her argument on the implied right to representation, which is that Art 39(1)(a) of the Constitution provides evidence that voters have the right to be represented by the full slate of elected Members returned at each general election. Article 39(1)(a) reads: Parliament 39.—(1) Parliament shall consist of — (a) such number of elected Members as is required to be returned at a general election by the constituencies prescribed by or under any law made by the Legislature … … [emphasis added] 80 The Appellant argues that the word “shall” in Art 39(1)(a) creates a requirement that the total number of elected Members in Parliament must comprise the number required to be returned at each general election. Since 89 elected Members were returned in the 2015 General Election, Parliament must always comprise that number of elected Members until it is dissolved and any vacant seat must thus be filled by a by-election. 81 We reject this argument. A similar contention was considered and rejected by this court in Vellama at [91]. The Appellant submits that the arguments in Vellama are irrelevant because the court in that case was concerned with whether Parliament had the competence to legislate in the event of a vacancy. However, this ignores the fact that the appellant in Vellama was 34