Wong Souk Yee v AG 10 [2019] SGCA 25 Initially, the Attorney-General (“the Respondent”) indicated an intention to challenge the SDP’s standing to make the application, but not that of the Appellant since she was a resident of MYT GRC. Since the Appellant’s case remained the same regardless of the SDP’s involvement as a party to the application, in the interest of saving time and costs, an amendment to OS 1034 was filed on 5 December 2017 removing the SDP as a party to the application. The rest of OS 1034 remained unchanged. As a result, there is no dispute before us as to the Appellant’s standing to bring the application. 11 At the hearing before the High Court judge (“the Judge”) on 22 January 2018, the parties agreed to have the leave application and the substantive application for relief heard together. This was because the leave application turned on whether the Appellant could show an arguable or prima facie case for granting the orders sought in OS 1034, and this involved a question of constitutional interpretation that would traverse the same issues as the substantive application, albeit with a different standard of persuasion being applicable. 12 In the proceedings below, the main thrust of the Appellant’s case was that the law required that the remaining Members of MYT GRC vacate their seats and that a by-election then be held in MYT GRC. The Appellant made three main arguments in support of her position: (a) first, Art 49(1) of the Constitution mandates that a by-election must be called when any seat in a GRC falls vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament; (b) second, Art 39A(2) of the Constitution requires that there must be a minority Member for a GRC until the dissolution of Parliament; and 5