Wong Souk Yee v AG (b) [2019] SGCA 25 The Appellant’s interpretation of Art 49(1) was unworkable because it required the remaining Members of MYT GRC to resign when there was no legal basis for compelling their resignation (at [25]– [26]). (c) An updating or rectifying construction should be applied to Art 49(1) to reflect the changes introduced by Art 39A. This was consistent with the clear intent and will of Parliament (at [36], [38] and [41]). (d) In relation to the Appellant’s argument on Art 39A(2), the Appellant had clarified in oral submissions that her case was that a byelection must be held if any seat in a GRC (whether or not held by a minority Member) was vacated. It was therefore no longer necessary to consider her separate submission on Art 39A in relation to the special interest in ensuring minority representation. In any event, there was no basis in law to compel the remaining Members of a GRC to vacate their seats when a seat in the GRC became vacant (at [52]–[53]). (e) Under the GRC scheme, voters in a GRC voted not for individual Members, but for the entire team of Members who would represent that GRC. Hence, voters did not lose their right to representation merely because one Member of a GRC team had vacated his or her seat (at [57]). (f) The Appellant’s substantive case thus did not succeed, and for the same reasons, the Appellant had not shown an arguable or prima facie case for granting the reliefs sought in OS 1034. Leave was therefore not granted for the Appellant to apply for those reliefs (at [61]– [62]). 7