97 I turn now to the various arguments from general principle tendered by both parties. I should add, however, that most of these arguments (in particular, those relating to the public interest in the speedy resolution of the controversy concerned) have already been considered in this part of the judgment relating to an analysis of the relevant case law. Indeed, only two substantive arguments from general principle remain. 98 The first is whether or not the Rules of Court apply in the present proceedings, a point on which (as we have seen) both parties have proffered diametrically opposed views. The second relates to the more general argument made by Mr Ravi to the effect that the plaintiff, having taken all reasonable steps to fulfil her obligations to furnish security for costs under r 13, ought not to be penalised harshly. I now consider these arguments seriatim. Are the Rules of Court applicable? 99 I consider, first, the issue as to whether or not the Rules of Court apply in the context of proceedings such as these. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no specific decision covering this point in the Singapore context. This issue has therefore to be decided from first or general principles. 100 In my view, the issue can be resolved without even having recourse to either Mr Chan’s or Mr Ravi’s arguments. This is because I have found that r 13 is a mandatory provision. If so, then it must, ex hypothesi, be complied with strictly. In other words, there can be no room for extension of time so that even if it were open to this court to consider the application the Rules of Court in general and the provision therein for extension of time in particular, it would make no difference to the present proceedings since it is clear, as I have elaborated upon above, that r 13 is clearly mandatory and must be complied with strictly. This interpretation is further supported by the opening words of r 3 of the PER itself (reproduced above at [44]), which state that the application of the Rules of Court, with the necessary modifications, to the practice and procedure in any proceedings under the Act is “[s]ubject to the provisions of these Rules [viz, the PER] and of the Act [viz, the Parliamentary Elections Act]” [emphasis added]. It should also be noted that the underlying philosophy and as concomitant general approach adopted in the Rules of Court are quite different, as the underlying presumption appears to be that the provisions contained therein are generally directory rather than mandatory (reference may be made, in this regard, to O 2 r 1 of the Rules of Court). 101 However, as I have already pointed out above, the precise relationship between O 1 r 2(4) of the Rules of Court and r 3 of the PER is none too clear. It is not necessary for me to attempt to clarify this relationship (assuming that this is possible in the first instance), having regard to my holding in the preceding paragraph. I will content myself with a few tentative comments, leaving it to a later court to expound on the issue in more detail when faced with it directly. 102 It seems to me that r 3 of the PER is intended to be a “gap-filling” provision. By this I mean that the PER constitute the foundational set of rules which govern proceedings under the Act, although relevant provisions of the Rules of Court might apply, with the necessary modifications, where a certain procedural issue or step is not covered by any of the specific rules within the PER themselves. That this is the case is buttressed by the language of O 1 r 2(4) of the Rules of Court (reproduced at [45] above). Indeed, a plain reading of O 1 r 2(4) clearly envisages that the Rules of Court will have little, or no, role to play in the context of the Act itself. Pausing for the moment, the view to the effect that r 3 of the PER is intended to be “gap-filling” only is perfectly consistent with my holding to the effect that r 13 is a mandatory provision which must be complied with strictly. 103 That r 3 of the PER plays a “gap-filling” role appears to be further supported by the relevant legislative history.