Singapore will be voting for the next President on the Aug 27th, 2011. Unlike the previous two elections where all contenders were disqualified and the selected endorsed candidate waltzed into the Istana, this time round there are four candidates.

Four! Which means there’s a possibility that the next Elected President may be elected with less than 50% of the popular votes. Conspiracy theories flew fast and furious, and it suggested that all four candidates were granted their eligibility certificate to divide the opposition vote to ensure victory for the government endorsed candidate.

I won’t talk about the merits of each candidate (or the lack thereof). I will simply talk about the candidate I had decided on all along, even though at one point I had wavered. The candidate I will cast my vote for is Dr Tan Cheng Bock.

When I read that Dr Tan has voted against the Nominated Member of Parliament [NMP] scheme, I respected the man for standing up against his party. After all, I have always considered the NMP scheme to be a waste of public monies, or as the hated Mah Bow Tan put it – raiding our reserves. A friend even called it a elaborate charade orchestrated the PAP for the Western democracies to show that Singapore allow dissenting voices. Even though an NMP may speaks passionately about a matter, he / she has no voter backing compared to the Non-Constituency MPs [NCMP]. As if having no voter backing isn’t bad enough, a particular NMP has championed an issue that in my opinion has the least of importance to Singaporeans in general. In fact, I even felt he was deliberately putting the weight of his position as an NMP behind the issue while claiming to be doing so in his personal capacity. It was with some relief when he wasn’t re-apppointed again.

I know I would be standing on thin ice if I had considered this to be my sole reason for voting for Dr Tan. And I also know that if I quote from the election flyer he sent to my mailbox it would only bored everyone else. So I won’t bother regurgitating most of that.

However, I would still like to talk about Dr Tan the general practitioner [GP]. A colleague mentioned some time ago that his wife suddenly felt very ill while they were out many years ago. Far from home, my colleague took his wife to the nearest clinic he can find. It was a pretty rundown clinic with minimum renovation, a far cry from those with nice furniture and posh set up. tHERE, he met a kind, old GP who took his time ensure a proper examination is done and speak kindly to them to reassure them that everything is alright. They didn’t even know who he was at first, until very much later they saw him speaking on TV during one of the Parliamentary sessions. They further confirmed they were not mistaken by checking the appointment card. What really touched them was that he didn’t just try to ‘process’ them and ‘get it over with’ much like some of the young GPs tend to do. The human touch of Dr Tan left them with a fond memory until this day.

No matter what the credits are for each candidate, there will also be many negative comments and remarks going around about them. In Dr Tan’s case, it was his stand on the ISA arrests in 1987. A fellow brother-in-Christ pointed out that the Internal Security Act [ISA] denied the detainees a fair trial completely, not to mention that it provides an avenue for the PAP (or any ruling party in the future) to use it against their political opponents. Even so, I am neutral about the ISA as it is useful against certain threats to our national security – such as the members of the Jemaah Islamiyah [JI]. To elaborate, I can agree than the ISA is a blunt tool but I am not for getting rid of that tool until a better tool is in place.

Thus, it is my personal opinion that Dr Tan’s stand on that matter back then should not be held against him since he was not part of the decision makers. I understand this matter is of great importance to some because the Elected President would hold the final decision on whether anyone should be detained under the ISA. But I am not for the argument that a candidate’s support for the ISA would mean he would stand back and allow the ruling party (whichever one it might be) to persecute its political opponents.

Before I end, I was once accused as PAP hater by a guy who couldn’t accept that I could settle for Chee Soon Juan if I am asked to chose between him against say Vivian Balakrishnan, Wong Kan Seng or Mah Bow Tan. I doubt I could really deny being one when one goes through the stuff that I have posted on this blog. But this time round, I beg to differ from the vociferously anti-PAP and I ain’t going to vote based on party affliation. I will vote based on which candidate I can most agree with and I have found the other three wanting in that department.

I ain’t going to sway anyone from their decisions. But may the person who win be the best for our country. Majulah Singapura!