about bringing a petition and thereafter to prosecute it. The reason the court does not do so is that it cannot be seen to descend into the arena and take part in the litigation between the parties. In the fourth place, Mr. Soh seems to be confused between paying filing fees for lodging a document in court and giving security for the payment of all costs, charges, and expenses that may become payable by him, which are two different things. As far as the giving of security for costs on the presentation of an election petition is concerned, rule 12(1) of the Election Petition Rules are clear and the words used in the rule are that such security for costs ‘shall be given’. And rule 12(2) goes on to provide that the security ‘shall be given’ by a deposit of money of not less than RM2,000.00 and rule 12(3) goes on to state that if security for costs is not given by the petitioner, no further proceedings ‘shall be had on the petition’ and the respondent may apply to the judge for a dismissal of the petition. I have deliberately referred to the provisions of rule 12 in some detail to show that it uses peremptory language and also stipulates the consequences for non-compliance therewith – dismissal of the petition on application by the respondent, which all the respondents have applied for now. In Chong Thain Vun v Watson & Anor. (1968) 1 MLJ 65, this is what Lee Hun Hoe J. (as he then was) had to say about rule 12 (at pg. 74): ‘Peremptory language is used by the rules and it behoves a petitioner to study the rules carefully so that every provision is complied with […] If there is a breach of the provision of this rule, it makes no difference whether the petitioner has misinterpreted or misunderstood it he must take the risk. The respondent is entitled to take advantage of a petitioner’s faults. The provisions of this rule must be strictly complied with.’ I fully agree with what was stated above by his Lordship Lee Hun Hoe J. Mr. Soh has so very clearly not complied with the mandatory requirements of rule 12 and his request to treat the filing fees of RM80.00 as part payment of the security for costs cannot be entertained as the Election Petition Rules, 1954 do not allow for security for costs to be given in such a manner. The petition must be dismissed on this ground alone. [emphasis added] 35 Mr Chan also relied on certain other Malaysian decisions, albeit for more general (and, as it turned out, no less important) points which centred on the public interest as embodied in the policy background to our present electoral laws. One such decision – and the focus of Mr Chan’s argument in this particular regard – has already been referred to above. This was the Devan Nair case. In particular, Mr Chan relied on the following observations by Lord Upjohn, delivering the judgment of the Board, as follows ([25] supra at 264–265): The circumstances which weigh heavily with their Lordships in favour of a mandatory construction are: (1) The need in an election petition for a speedy determination of the controversy, a matter already emphasised by their Lordships. The interest of the public in election petitions was rightly stressed in the Federal Court, but it is very much in the interest of the public that the matter should be speedily determined. (2) In contrast, for example, to the Rules of the Supreme Court in this country, the rules vest no general power in the election judge to extend the time on the ground of irregularity. Their Lordships think this omission was a matter of deliberate design. In cases where it was intended that the judge should have power to amend proceedings or postpone