104 It is apposite to commence by setting out s 100 of the Act, as follows: Procedure and practice on applications under section 90 100.—(1) The procedure and practice on applications under section 90 shall be regulated by rules which may be made by the Rules Committee constituted and appointed under section 80 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322). (2) The Rules contained in the Fourth Schedule shall be deemed to have been made under the powers conferred by subsection (1) and shall be amendable by rules made under that subsection. [emphasis added] 105 Section 100 was in fact present in the Act right at the outset – as s 86 of the (original) 1947 Ordinance, which read as follows: 86.—(1) The procedure and practice on election petitions shall be regulated by rules which may be made by the Rules Committee constituted and appointed under the provisions of section 88 of the Courts Ordinance. (2) The rules contained in the Third Schedule to this Ordinance shall be deemed to have been made under the powers herein conferred. 106 It can be seen that s 100 of the Act is, in all but one substantive respect, the same as s 86 of the 1947 Ordinance, as represented principally by the italicised words at [104] above. These italicised words serve, in my view, to underscore the view expressed below (at [108]) to the effect that s 100 was originally introduced in order to pave the way for the promulgation of a new and comprehensive set of elections rules. 107 Although the 1947 Ordinance (and, hence, the (present) Act) can be traced, in the main, to the then Ceylon (Parliamentary Elections) Order in Council 1946 (see, for example, the Objects and Reasons to the Bill for the 1947 Ordinance in the Supplement to the Government Gazette (S 176/1947) and the Report of the Legislative Council Elections Drafting Committee (Singapore, April, 1947) (“the Report”) at pp IV–V as well as Annexure B, pp ii–iv), s 86 (and, hence, the present s 100) was completely new (see the comparative table in the Report at Annexure A, p 89). 108 It would appear that the present s 100 of our Act was originally introduced as a completely new provision altogether in order to pave the way for the promulgation of a comprehensive set of elections rules which would have taken the place of the rules in the then Third (and presently, Fourth) Schedule. However, this was not to be. The reasons are unclear. But one thing is clear: What is now r 3 of the PER was introduced in 1982 via the Parliamentary Elections Petition (Amendment) Rules 1982 (S 313/1982). Once again, however, the reasons for the introduction of r 3 are unclear. However, having regard to the legislative history behind s 100 of the Act, it might well have been the case that the rules in the Fourth Schedule of the Act were thought to be adequate and, hence, this resulted in the absence of a new set of elections rules. Nevertheless, the language and tenor of r 3 suggest that this provision was introduced in order to “fill in the gaps” in situations where the situation concerned was not otherwise provided for by the rules in the Fourth Schedule of the Act themselves. 109 The approach I have suggested is also consistent with Mr Chan’s argument which has been