Splitting Hairs - Event or Process?

Singapore High Court Justice Philip Pillai has concluded that "there is no requirement" in our constitution to call for elections to fill a vacancy when an MP leaves his parliamentary seat for whatever reason.

His ruling rests on the interpretation of the term "election" in Article 49(1) in Part VI of Singapore's constitution (Reproduced below)

Filling of vacancies
49.

—(1) Whenever the seat of a Member, not being a non-constituency Member, has become vacant for any reason other than a dissolution of Parliament, the vacancy shall be filled by election in the manner provided by or under any law relating to Parliamentary elections for the time being in force.

According to Justice Pillai, if the word 'election' is interpreted as a process, then it is not mandatory for the PM to call for a by-election. If it is interpreted as an event, then it is mandatory.

But a reasonable man might ask how would a parliamentary seat be filled otherwise other than by a process of election? Surely our constitution does not permit a parliamentary seat to be filled by appointment? If that is the case, then the event of election is a prerequisite. You cannot have the process of election without the event of election occuring first. So, wouldn't interpreting the word 'election' as a process be putting the proverbial cart before the horse?

One can only hope that the Act governing the General Election is not couched in similarly ambiguous terms. For all we know, the PM also has the discretion to call or not to call for general elections every five years!