The Four Tans - Presidential Hopeful

[Guest Guest]

What we need is not a handsome president but one who looks distinguished. For that, TCB is my most obvious choice. He's every bit the perfect gentleman, never coming across as cheeky, silly or sly. Just looking at him gives one an utmost sense of security, not least because he is a caring doctor.

[Guest Erotictales]

I think got another pic of Issac in the news today! He performing with TCB at Jurong.

[Guest Guestbitch]

Is TCB his daddy????

[Guest 4progayPrez]

Transcript of each of their responses to the question of their views on repealing 377A...

Interesting video at this link; to watch all the PC’s speaking:

<http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/08/22/four-presidential-candidates-on-the-gay-issue/>

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

At the forum organised by The Online Citizen on 18 August 2011, in which all four presidential candidates took questions from the small audience, I had the opportunity to ask a question about an independent elections commission and where each candidate stood on Section 377A of the Penal Code, which makes homosex a criminal offence.

I didn’t expect that any candidate would give an unequivocal answer to 377A; they would no doubt be conscious that this is a controversial issue and like all politicians would hate to take a stand. Nonetheless, gay, lesbian and transgender communities are very good at reading between the lines, so that even if they hummed and hawed, we are still able to draw meaning from that.

As it turned out, the four candidates gave quite distinct answers, and I believe they said enough that LGBT voters can be guided by what they hear.

The question asked (starting from 7 min 42 secs in the video) of the four candidates was whether they would favour the idea of an independent elections commission, perhaps with oversight by the president rather than the government, and where they stood on Section 377A.

Here is the transcript (I hope without errors):

(At 09 min 32 secs)

Tony Tan: My guiding principle is very simple, I would do what I think is in the best interest of Singapore, and with regard to what the elections commission should . . . or with regard to section 377A, I think that these would be matters which obviously government would be involved. Parliament will be involved. The president may have a view which he should express to the prime minister . . .

Viswa Sadasivan (moderator): I guess the question is, what is your view?

Tony Tan: What is my view with regard to . . . ?

Viswa: At this point of time.

Tony Tan: At this point, my view with regard to this is that I think that these are issues which do not have clear black-and-white answers. I think we should look into it. 377A has been discussed in parliament and I think that this has been brought up many times. Obviously if it is a simple black-and-white answer, this would have been resolved long ago and I don’t think it is right for us to make simple black-and-white answers to what could be complex situations.

Viswa: On the issue of the election commission?

Tony Tan: On the elections commission, I would say that we want elections to be free and fair. I think that is the basic principle which we have to work under and we want the best arrangement for that.

(At 11 min 10 secs)

Tan Jee Say: I will give you clear answer. The answer is yes, move out of the PMO into the presidential, to an independent commission. Number two is no. Alright? Just to get . . .

[inaudible]

Viswa: On 377A?

Tan Jee Say: No, I would have no discrimination. No discrimination.

[inaudible]

Tan Jee Say: I’m not a lawyer. Ha, ha. I need to consult a lawyer on the intricacy, but I said, no discrimination.

(At 11 min 45 secs)

Tan Cheng Bock: For me, yes, I think we should move to an independent body for this election. As for the other question of three-three-A, I think as a doctor I’ve seen patients of mine also with this type of lifestyle, it is his lifestyle choice. So I am not . . . I have no difficulty in accepting this lifestyle choice.

(At 12 min 14 secs)

Tan Kin Lian: Now, I will move the election commission outside the Prime Minister’s Office, to be managed independently and I will respect the right of people to have their choice of their life so long as it doesn’t cause any harm to the general society.

[Guest Hurting gay people]

Quite obvioulsy Tony Tan seems the only who prefer to keep S377A by populist demand. Anyone here who still want to vote for him obviously do not know where your brain is located. Period!

[Guest jayy]

I dunno, Singaporeans are quite mature and forward thinking these days.. is it really true that 377A is the "populist" stance on the issue?

I can't believe Tony Tan gave such a roundabout limp-wristed answer. No black-and-white answer? Either the law stays, or goes. Either homosexuality is a crime, or it isn't. He should've stated his view and defended it!

I have to say, I really admire this Tan Cheng Bock. He's got a solid gameplan, he's serious about it, not overly cheesy or dramatic like that Tan Jee Say. Most importantly, it looks like he's not afraid to take a stand and defend it.

Edited August 22, 2011 by jayy

[Guest I choose to be gay]

I dunno, Singaporeans are quite mature and forward thinking these days.. is it really true that 377A is the "populist" stance on the issue?

I can't believe Tony Tan gave such a roundabout limp-wristed answer. No black-and-white answer? Either the law stays, or goes. Either homosexuality is a crime, or it isn't. He should've stated his view and defended it!

I have to say, I really admire this Tan Cheng Bock. He's got a solid gameplan, he's serious about it, not overly cheesy or dramatic like that Tan Jee Say. Most importantly, it looks like he's not afraid to take a stand and defend it.

I

I have to say, I really admire this Tan Cheng Bock. He's got a solid gameplan, he's serious about it, not overly cheesy or dramatic like that Tan Jee Say. Most importantly, it looks like he's not afraid to take a stand and defend it.

But TCB said homosexual is "A CHOICE"!!! you mean we can choose to be straight or gay? Gosh!! he is your secret admirer huh?

[Guest jayy]

That's opening another can of worms altogether. The point is not whether we're born gay... the point is that 3 out of the 4 said something to the extent that there shouldn't be discrimination based on sexual orientation, which means that they don't agree with what 377A stands for.

[dsd]

the real issue should be - do you still want a puppet president controlled by PAP? (i ask this despite the fact that Nathan does have a nice big backside I like)

TCB and TKL is there to split the votes, paving the way for TT to an easier win.

the only way to not have TT as the next president is to give your support to TJS (who is leading in opinion polls currently).

please join TJS rally on tuesday nite at Toa Payoh Stadium at 7pm.

[gstc82]

TJS? lol. he will promise the heavens, the sky, the birds, and TJS did not answer the quetion either. he just said ' no discrimination', that is open to lots of interpretations. does he mean no discrimination as we can get married? have same rights in adpotion, in buying HDB direct from govt? its very broad base and did not answer the question asked by alex. anyway, the govt already said there will be no discrimination in the public sector, its very clear on that as everyone knows who org the national day parades almost every year except this years bats for the same team. what TT said is more accurate, at least he did not promise you the stars or gave broad base answers like 'no discrimination', its really up to the parliament to decide, the president of cos can encourage the PM on this matter, but the president has no power to remove 377a. populist? TJS.

[suckling_pig]

TJS? lol. he will promise the heavens, the sky, the birds, and TJS did not answer the quetion either. he just said ' no discrimination', that is open to lots of interpretations. does he mean no discrimination as we can get married? have same rights in adpotion, in buying HDB direct from govt? its very broad base and did not answer the question asked by alex. anyway, the govt already said there will be no discrimination in the public sector, its very clear on that as everyone knows who org the national day parades almost every year except this years bats for the same team. what TT said is more accurate, at least he did not promise you the stars or gave broad base answers like 'no discrimination', its really up to the parliament to decide, the president of cos can encourage the PM on this matter, but the president has no power to remove 377a. populist? TJS.

And which other candidate do you think gave an answer on 377A that will mean a better future for us PLU ?

SP

[Guest Eddy]

Wait a minute and think. The common excuse is that keeping 377A is a populist demand.

Is there any solid statistical information out there to determine what the populations opinion is about 377A?

Are well beginning to believe this just because it is repeated over and over again in the MSM that the population is still very conservative and want 377A as some sort of "anti-gay rape" protection charm? Especially when the only people who seem to be vocally for 377A are the usual pack or rabid fundies who think everyone else is going to hell for not believing in the same religion.

I think we should seriously look into whether or not Singaporeans are truly as closed minded as a "vicious minority" would like us to believe in order to maintain this ridiculously ancient law which is 377A.

[gstc82]

yeap, eddy, becos the GE2011 and its intense anti-pap 'feelings', the pap or anyone will not even dare remove 377a. this anti pap feelings i feel is actually not good for gays like us. there are many many many homophopic idiots out there.

[Guest BW]

Tan Jee Say : 43%

Tony Tan: 25%

Tan Cheng Bock : 10%

Tan Kin Lye : 22%

[Guest Guest]

Tan Jee Say is gaining ground for now, but if some of you are split among TJS, TCB, TLK..

Chances are TT will win this even with 26%

[gstc82]

i dun think TJS is gaining. i think he is losing ground. most middle of the fense people incl myself thinks he is taking things to far, like he is contesting to be prime minister instead of president. TT will win convincingly, followed by TCB, TJS and sadly TKL.

[Guest Guest]

I'm voting for TJS for sure!

[jeeves]

<p>Anyone watching the TJS rally online?</p>

<div id="myEventWatcherDiv" style="display:none;"> </div>

[dsd]

letting the legality for your arsehole to be fxxked decide who should or should not be president of the nation..... :whistle:

[Guest 2centsworth]

From all the media coverage, I like TCB. he is the most credible of the 4 and most distinguish. I think, he is going to do a lot of good to our nation. will pray for him to win .

[gstc82]

Tan Jee Say look really clueless and confused. he is just confrontational, he want to go against the contitution, his rally, he looks as if he want the president to challange the govt in parliament, thus again going against the constitutional role of the president. how can that ever unite the people of singapore, he must remember that 60.1 % of voters voted the PAP to govern the nation till 2016, why does he not accept that, why does his speakers in his rally not respect that as well?

[Guest Guest]

Tan Jee Say look really clueless and confused. he is just confrontational, he want to go against the contitution, his rally, he looks as if he want the president to challange the govt in parliament, thus again going against the constitutional role of the president. how can that ever unite the people of singapore, he must remember that 60.1 % of voters voted the PAP to govern the nation till 2016, why does he not accept that, why does his speakers in his rally not respect that as well?

I'm voting for Tan Jee Say.

[gstc82]

good that you are expressing your right to vote.

[groyn88]

Sorry I started a new topic, not knowing that there was already this one.

Anyway, this is the video I uploaded of only all 4 candidates' views on Section 377A, leaving out the other issues:

Cheers,

Roy.

[groyn88]

Tan Jee Say reaffirmed his stand against LGBT discrimination at his Toa Payoh Stadium rally yesterday night:

Please vote for him!

Thanks,

Roy.

[stars]

Tan Jee Say reaffirmed his stand against LGBT discrimination at his Toa Payoh Stadium rally yesterday night:

Please vote for him!

Thanks,

Roy.

Don't you think we need to look beyond LGBT issues and focus on other, more pressing issues at hand?

[gstc82]

what did he say that is different from LKY? he barely said one sentances abt gays and he did not say he will suport removal of 377a, approve gay marriages, gays adpoting children, property laws etc. all he said was there shd not be discrimination. thats all. so?

[Guest Vote for peace, be wise]

To me, lbgt matters as well as the overall Singapore peace, I feel that we should consider Which candidates are better in maintaining peace in Singapore. President going to be should not make use of people's unhappiness towards Pap and come out with idealistic ideas to stir feelings and emotions of the citizens just to win this election. Imagine if this candidate got elected and things that he promised never come true, fingers will start pointing. Ppl will start blaming the president, president will blame the prime minister for his final decision, then some ppl who supported the president will blame the prime minister, there will be no peace.

A president should be of peace, always. To unite different political parties who don't see eye to eye, should be fair to all and maintain the balance, yet have his presidential stand for the welfare of all but not being dramatic.

Personally, considering the overall stability of Sg, I feel that this time round, competition is between TCB and TT.

TCB is able to state his stand and views without being overly dramatic and did not go messing with citizens' emotions and anger. He is able to take it well. His past performances have shown that he did well and is not a "Yes-Man" to everything PAP proposal. He is more of a people person and a doctor who come into contact with people like us in our everyday life.

TT is a competition because most ppl seen him before, more exposure and he have much more "friends" supporting him.

TJS, after seeing his speeches, I personally feel that if he were to be the president, there will not be peace. His speeches are like for GE, stirring ppl's current unhappiness with the PAP, trying to make use of this point to win this election.

TKL, his matter with the NTUC remains a mystery. Not sure about this character as there's a mystery in his past employment. Both sides saying different story. Shrugs.

[Guest Vote for peace, be wise]

To me, lbgt matters as well as the overall Singapore peace, I feel that we should consider Which candidates are better in maintaining peace in Singapore. President going to be should not make use of people's unhappiness towards Pap and come out with idealistic ideas to stir feelings and emotions of the citizens just to win this election. Imagine if this candidate got elected and things that he promised never come true, fingers will start pointing. Ppl will start blaming the president, president will blame the prime minister for his final decision, then some ppl who supported the president will blame the prime minister, there will be no peace.

A president should be of peace, always. To unite different political parties who don't see eye to eye, should be fair to all and maintain the balance, yet have his presidential stand for the welfare of all but not being dramatic.

Personally, considering the overall stability of Sg, I feel that this time round, competition is between TCB and TT.

TCB is able to state his stand and views without being overly dramatic and did not go messing with citizens' emotions and anger. He is able to take it well. His past performances have shown that he did well and is not a "Yes-Man" to everything PAP proposal. He is more of a people person and a doctor who come into contact with people like us in our everyday life.

TT is a competition because most ppl seen him before, more exposure and he have much more "friends" supporting him.

TJS, after seeing his speeches, I personally feel that if he were to be the president, there will not be peace. His speeches are like for GE, stirring ppl's current unhappiness with the PAP, trying to make use of this point to win this election.

TKL, his matter with the NTUC remains a mystery. Not sure about this character as there's a mystery in his past employment. Both sides saying different story. Shrugs.

[icy_ter]

haha... something funny to share. Tan tan tan!!!...

Edited August 24, 2011 by icy_ter

[SwimVibe]

I will vote for TCB.

Sorry to say but TJS is trying too hard to stir with our feelings, don't think he will bring peace to all. I think those who can vote should consider our peace and stable society as a bigger picture first. Don't put your hopes too high just because the candidate is sweet talking right now. Without peace, we will never be able to see the light of the review or removal of 337.

Think of the bigger picture for Singapore first.

[TheVisitors]

Do we really need a President?

What does he really do or contribute to Singapore any way?

If any of the Tans get in, all of us will really be Wan -TaN !

Lucky only four Tans, not eight.

If eight, those eight candidates shall be known as the eight Wang Ba Tan !

[Guest So Easy]

TCB: a little jittery. He admitted he will resign if he couldn't agree with PAP and faced blockage. Selective passion

Human rights like ISA and death penalty is not on his mind

TKL: too systematic and mild, passionate guy but still need consultatation

TT: Human rights is probably not his cup of tea, strong PAP flavour in speech, action and thinking

TJS: Very confident, firm, and full of vigor. A warrior.

If we look at the bickering happened between the PA and opposition ward, we know by now who is the greatest bully.

To deal with bully, we need a very BENG president among the 4 Tans to put a stop to it and bring peace to Singapore

Who is more capable of carrying out their duty to deal with bully? I am sure the answer is clear.

[Guest TCB Rock]

TJS:

Trouble maker who I doubt will ever bring peace and stability to our fragile small island. Will only bring divide of our own people. With no peace, there wouldn't even be a consideration of issues about people like us.

We got to be responsible and vote for the great of good for all.

We cannot risk the peace of our country just for our selfish mindset about 337. I believe many don't want to live in a country with a president who is there just to oppose against PAP because he lost the GE previously, there will be no moving forward.

TJS is trying too hard to sell himself seriously.

[Guest Guest]

In 1982, when then President Ong Teng Cheong advocated for the construction of the MRT, guess who called out in public that it was a foolish project?

Log on to the site below and read, before you cast your votes on Saturday.

http://www.facebook....150288176913996

[gymcub]

For me, my vote goes to Dr Tony Tan.

This President elections has become like an extension of the GE in May. It should not be this way.

But if you remove all the pro-PAP, pro SDP factor, and just judge the 4 candadates based on their qualifications, and their capabilities, I think Dr Tony Tan has been the best among the 4.

I want a Government and President which can work together.

This is my own opinion.

[Guest Sharon Au exposed]

NOW THE PIECES ARE JOINING TOGETHER DUE TO THIS PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

AS WE ALL KNOW, THAT SHARON AU MANAGE TO GET A SCHOLARSHIP FROM MEDIACORP IN 2005 TO GO TO JAPAN TO DO HER OVERSEAS STUDIES FULLY PAID BY MEDIACORP.

SO THE LINK IS THAT SHARON KNOWS THE DAUGHTER OF TONY TAN AND GUESS WHAT?

TONY TAN IS THE CHAIRMAN OF SPH HOLDINGS, OWNER OF MEDIACORP.

SO IT SEEMS THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW SOMEONE WELL SO THAT YOU CAN GET A SCHOLARSHIP.

SO THAT IS WHY, SHARON HAS TO APPEAR AT UOB PLAZA IN SUPPORT OF TONY TAN.

SO IT WOULD BE GOOD IF SHARON COMES OUT IN THE OPEN AND CLARIFY WHETHER SHE KNEW TONY TAN'S DAUGHTER ONLY AFTER SHE GOT THE SCHOLARSHIP OR BEFORE.

[Guest Guest]

Another scandal by Tony Tan

According to a tip-off we received from a SPH insider, Tony Tan and his family bought three units of Sky@eleven condominium before they were officially launched in 2007.

Sky@eleven is a freehold luxury development by Times Development, the property arm of Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH)

According to a tip-off we received from a SPH insider, Tony Tan and his family bought three units of Sky@eleven condominium before they were officially launched in 2007.

Sky@eleven is a freehold luxury development by Times Development, the property arm of Singapore Press Holdings Ltd (SPH)

Located at Thomson Lane, off Thomson Road, the 43-storey high Sky@eleven is the tallest development in the area. One major selling point of Sky@eleven was its attractive pricing, averaging at $975 psf. The highest price recorded was $1,200 psf.

In 2007, SPH sold out all of 273 units of Sky@eleven condo within 30 hours of its soft launch on the evening of Sunday, 28 January, even before the public launch which was scheduled for this weekend.

In a statement released to the media, then SPH Chairman and Director Dr Tony Tan said:

"We are extremely happy with the overwhelming response and at the same time very grateful to the buyers for their support for our exclusive development."

However Dr Tony Tan did not reveal that his eldest son and daughter-in-law as well as a company partly owned by him and his immediate family had bought 3 units of Sky@eleven before its soft launch.

Below are the pre-sale options some directors asked for and obtained, as declared by SPH to its shareholders, but not reported in the press.

The Directors of Singapore Press Holdings Limited (�SPH� or the �Company�) wish to announce that the Board has approved the proposed sale of units (the �Units�) in the residential development known as Sky@eleven to the following persons who are interested persons of SPH pursuant to Chapter 9 of the Listing Manual of the Singapore Exchange Securities Trading Limited (the �Purchaser�):

- Tan Boon Huan, Peter, son of Tony Tan Keng Yam and Tan Yew Mei, daughter-in-law of Tony Tan Keng Yam

# 39-09

Sky@eleven

$1,871,000

- Bee Kiang (Private) Limited, a company in which Tony Tan Keng Yam and his immediate family have an interest of 30% or more.

# 41-01

Sky@eleven

$3,074,000

- Bee Kiang (Private) Limited, a company in which Tony Tan Keng Yam and his immediate family have an interest of 30% or more.

#41-02

Sky@eleven

$2,828,000

Download the SPH file here:

http://www.temasekreview.com/simages...airman_IPT.pdf

The prices of Sky@eleven have almost doubled since it was launched in 2007. Based on the latest transactions with caveats lodged from URA, Sky@eleven are now selling at between $1,500 to $1,600 psf. read more here:

http://www.ura.gov.sg/realEstateWeb/...xsG!-707989957

After he retired from politics in 2006, Dr Tony Tan was appointed as Chairman of SPH by the PAP regime.

Dr Tony Tan and his family would not be able to obtain the pre-sale options to purchase exclusive units of Sky@eleven before its soft launch if he were not a director of SPH.

Since he is running for the presidency now, Dr Tony Tan should come clean with Singaporeans and reveal the identities of his other family members who have bought the two units of Sky@eleven under his company Bee Kiang (Private) Limited.

[Guest Guest]

My firm support for Dr Tan Cheng Bock. Why? He is the most sincere, stable and steady amongst the four candidates. And he looks the most like the type of president who can make us proud on the world stage. He's refined and distinguished and looks great standing beside President Obama.

[Guest Guests]

On Saturday, I will be voting for Tan Jee Say. It’s a decision I made about a week ago, and in the days since, it has only grown more comfortable. I am now sure enough of that decision to write about it.

I know that, along with the two other candidates who have not received the tacit endorsement of the government, Tan Jee Say’s chances are not particularly bright, but I do not want to desert my own values. Neither is it true that Jee Say’s values are identical with mine; but of all the candidates, his seem to come closest.

In parallel with the candidates’ campaigns, there has been a discussion about what exactly the president can or cannot do and what the office is about. I am not at all starry-eyed about the scope of the job. His powers are limited, and if the government does not fancy the eventual winner of the election, there is a real possibility that more constitutional amendments will be put to Parliament amputating his powers even further. So be it. If the proverbial emperor (in this case the government headed by Lee Hsien Loong) with next to no clothes wants to take off his knickers too, and bare his utterly self-serving approach to politics, let the world see his nakedness.

I think it will be a stretch to expect the president to be, single-handedly, an effective check and balance on the government of the day. Having a substantial and robust opposition in Parliament is the better way to achieve that. But as I said at the Maruah talk last Saturday, to build a properly functioning democracy, every little brick counts. Having an independent-minded person in the Istana is one more brick, and that is why the vote this August 27 is important.

Tony Tan said in his speech at the rally he held at Boat Quay on 24 August 2011, “The president is not a super-MP.” I know he is not, but I would much rather have one who will try creatively to lead a conversation both with the public and with the government privately, than one who will just shrug, give up and do nothing, with the excuse that it is outside the scope of the job. Which, by the way, sounds awfully like what we hear from unhelpful bureaucrats who have no intention of dealing with the problems we draw their attention to.

As it stands, the constitution gives the president discretionary powers in five key areas:

1. Unlocking past reserves;

2. Prolonging detention without trial beyond an initial three months;

3. Key public service appointments including judicial ones;

4. Application of the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act;

5. Unblocking corruption investigations of key office-holders when the prime minister has blocked them.

As I have argued in several recent articles here, knowing what underlying convictions a man holds is important for knowing how he is likely to apply that discretion. Will he be tight-fisted about reserves? Will he, when asked to release reserves, try to persuade the government that the monies so released be applied to certain purposes that will advance greater social equity or longer-term good? Will he be, by nature, skeptical of nominees presented to him for appointment to key public service positions, or will he be ever so trusting of the government in taking on board more and more people with a similar tendency to groupthink?

The convictions articulated by Tan Jee Say sit well with me. He has spoken about how he thinks more should be done for social equity, about how the measure of progress must be anchored to the improvements in the lives of the weaker members of society, not that of the privileged elite. Reserves should serve this aim, he has said. He has expressed a distrust of the Internal Security Act; declared his opposition to the death penalty; and asserted his intention to enquire closely about nominees before signing off on their appointments to senior positions. I find these foundational principles reassuring, and in the consistent manner that he has articulated them, I believe he holds them dear to his heart.

There are arguments that, just as the other candidates have had a history of affiliation with the People’s Action Party (PAP), Jee Say was with the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and is thus no more “independent” than the rest. This argument is flawed in one important way, for it appears to be based on a mirage — that of “independence” as an $!^*| quality. It is never so, it is always relative; and in the Singapore context, when the PAP is virtually certain to be the party of government for the next five years, roughly concurrent with the bulk of the next presidential term, we need primarily to think in terms of independence from the PAP.

In any case, as Jee Say repeatedly said, his affiliation with the SDP lasted no more then three-and-a-half months, while the other three candidates had been active members of the PAP for decades.

I first encountered Jee Say at the SDP’s press conference in April this year, wherein the party was introducing him as a candidate for the May general election. I’ll tell you this: I was squinty-eyed about him. If you look up media archives, you will see that at that press conference, I asked him two deeply searching questions, both of which belied my deep scepticism.

The first was whether he truly subscribed to the SDP’s long and proud history of standing up for human rights and civil liberties. He said he did, but without elaborating much, it left me only half-convinced. (He would later prove me right to be only half-convinced when he distanced himself from the SDP’s previous history of protests, by saying that Chee Soon Juan “had learnt his lesson”!)

The second question I asked at the press conference was why he seemed to appear out of nowhere, never having participated in the SDP’s previous campaigns, and now wanting to stand for election under the party’s ticket. This was the tougher question, but he gave me the better answer, for there was an unexpected honesty about it. He spoke about how in the Singapore context, it is never easy to express one’s political views in public, let alone take sides overtly with an opposition party. The climate of fear and the weight of depoliticisation sit heavily on us all. He spoke about how he had to struggle with his own anxieties and how in the end he had to appeal to his long-time friend, Ang Yong Guan, to walk the path with him before he could find enough strength to do so. (Ang too, as you might recall, stood on the SDP’s ticket for the general election.)

Between these two answers, plus subsequent conversations with him, I think I know quite well now what makes him tick. Indeed, on one score, I was right from the beginning — he’s not a very good fit with the SDP. He doesn’t seem to totally agree with the party on issues of tactics at least, if not other things. He’s not a Trojan Horse for the SDP. So, to the question, ‘Is he independent?’, to me the answer is: Yes, he’s independent enough.

But on the other score, from the way he has been very consistent about it, I was more wrong than right. He may be a johnny-come-lately, but he really does hold certain deep convictions: about social equity, about the whole purpose of economic development, about the moral responsibility to lead a people in a certain direction that is more constructive than self-destructive, about the importance of respect for human rights and human life. When he speaks about conscience, he means it.

* * * * *

Now I come to the gay issue. No person who is not a member of a minority can truly understand why minority identification is such a crucial factor in political decisions. Just as we do not expect a Malay voter to give his vote to any politician who neglects, or worse, demeans, his ethnic identity or espouses discrimination against Malays — or vice versa, the Chinese voter in Malaysia – as a gay person, it is a matter of non-negotiable principle that I will never give my vote to anyone who neglects, demeans or discriminates against me.

The more ardent of my gay brethren will say that Tan Jee Say has not been explicit enough; at no time does he speak of repealing Section 377A. To that, my reply is this:

Firstly, this election is not for Parliament and questions of lawmaking or repeal are ultimately legislative questions; they are not exactly pertinent to the presidency. Secondly, non-discrimination established as substantive principle may be more important, because discrimination against gay, lesbian and transgendered persons goes well beyond Section 377A. Thirdly, it’s better to have a politically smart candidate who knows how to communicate in a way that doesn’t make too many enemies, than have a politically obtuse guy who says exactly what you want to hear at great cost to his own electoral chances.

As many readers will know, when I posed the question to him at the forum organised by The Online Citizen on 18 August 2011, Jee Say said unequivocally that “No discrimination” was among his core beliefs. But more interestingly, among the questions scripted for him at his rally on 23 August, was that on LGBT. He made an effort to include it so that he could repeat his point, even if briefly. See this video below, at 10 min 48 secs.

Host: What is your stand on the lesbians, gays bisexuals and transexuals in our society

Tan Jee Say: Well I support all S’poreans and I do not believe in practicing discrimination and this also applies to other groups such as the elderly, women and disadvantaged.

No other candidate has done likewise.

* * * * *

Some people, including a senior member of an opposition party, have expressed surprise that I intend to vote for Tan Jee Say, and that I have not considered Tan Cheng Bock seriously.

Actually, the more I know about Tan Cheng Bock, the less I want to vote for him. Pealing away his gentle, avuncular demeanour, I find a troubling hole I cannot fathom. I cannot find an answer to a fundamental question: What does the man stand for?

I have no doubt he has compassion for the common people; I have no doubt that he is more in touch with the average Joe and Jill than the other leading PAP-associated candidate. This easy familiarity probably made him a fine constituency MP. In this presidential campaign however, there is an uncomfortable disconnection among the various ideas he has expressed, as if there is no overarching political philosophy.

Worse than that, in certain specifics, he has said things that I cannot agree with. To a question about the death penalty, he defended it and even gave me the impression he’d like to see more of it. To a question about detention without trial, he appears to have a mental block against revisiting past cases or reexamining the whole issue from a fairness and human rights point of view.

At other points in the campaign, he lost me when he played up football and the idea of moving the prime minister’s office out of the Istana compound. These are insubstantial issues, almost gimmicky.

What’s the common thread? I asked myself repeatedly, but could never quite find an answer.

Instead, what I found telling was his repeated reference to a “rogue government” and about “doing wrong”. At no time did he elaborate on what he meant by that, but repetition itself seemed to indicate that he did have specific issues in mind. As I have said to a number of friends, I got the sense that he has certain very specific beefs with the government, which might have been the chief motivation for him pursuing this campaign. But why is he so guarded about the details? Or is he aware that the details are either petty or personal, that public examination of them might be vote-losers?

I am acutely aware that in an increasingly complex political landscape, not everybody who is frustrated with the present PAP government is critical of it from the liberal left perspective. Increasingly, there will be critics from the conservative right. The abortive takeover of Aware was one event, for example, in which the conservative right revealed themselves as a group that was unhappy with government policy — in that instance, sexuality education in schools. Prior to that, we had the pulpit-led groups that objected loudly when in 2003, the government said the civil service would not discriminate against gay employees.

I’m not at all suggesting that Tan Cheng Bock shares the views of those groups — as far as I know, he has said nothing about them — but the purpose of my mentioning these recent events is to underline my point that we should not assume that anyone critical of the present government is doing so from the angle of the liberal left.

And this possibility made my inability to read Tan Cheng Bock’s overall political philosophy all the more troubling. Where does he stand? I kept asking myself. What does he believe in?

Even Straits Times reporters have noted that Cheng Bock is hardest to read. Reporter Elgin Toh, for example, has written that of all the candidates, his position has shifted the most in the course of the campaign. He started off prior to Nomination Day declaring that he would not be a caged president:

"Many of you all think that the president is so caged that he can’t do any damn thing. No, he’s not", he declared, with a gusto that led many to assume he was in favour of an activist presidency.

But as the campaign progressed, it emerged that Dr Tan’s stance was a moderate one, even though he has said he would speak out freely if there were corruption on the part of the Government.

On the eve of Nomination Day, at a Straits Times round-table discussion, he began differentiating himself from opponents as the candidate who would not meddle in ‘day-to-day politics’.

On Saturday, this theme came to the fore in his interviews with reporters, as he slapped the ‘meddling’ charge not only on interventionist candidates like Mr Tan Kin Lian, but also on a seemingly conservative one: Dr Tony Tan.

– Straits Times, 23 August 2011, Pitches get quieter as big day draws nearer, by Elgin Toh

Some friends have argued that Tan Cheng Bock has the best chance of defeating Tony Tan. This is because he can draw votes from both the PAP-sympathetic side and the opposition-sympathetic side. Maybe so, maybe not. It’s hard to estimate this because we’ve never had an election like this before. We have no useful historical data on voting behaviour to draw on.

This argument in favour of Tan Cheng Bock presumes that one should do everything possible to block Tony Tan’s ascent to the presidency. If a donkey looks like he has the best chance, vote for the donkey. I’m not saying Tan Cheng Bock is a donkey, but I’m sure you get the point.

My position is that we know so little about what Tan Cheng Bock intends to do with the office, it might even be a bigger gamble than voting for Tony Tan. More likely than not, he will be almost as passive — which is why political analysts think the PAP government might, at a pinch, be able to live with him.

* * * * *

This is not to say that voting tactically never crossed my mind. To an extent, I am voting tactically too because I personally like Tan Kin Lian, but at this stage I think his chances are poor. I have no doubt about his personal integrity and where his heart lies. However, at several points in the campaign, he gave me the impression that he was out of his depth in areas outside of finance; he had not thought through other issues enough. He might make a good candidate at the next presidential election, but alas, he appeared rather less than ready for this one.

So I am endorsing Tan Jee Say. I am voting for him because as far as I can see, he is forthright about his views and holds values that are in rough alignment with mine. These are values anyone with a concern for human rights and human dignity would be comfortable with. He has made an effort to acknowledge the concerns of the gay, lesbian and transgender communities. And not least, because I judge that his convictions are sincere and strong, he has the will to stand by them and, of all the candidates, the fortitude to withstand the bullying that will surely come.

[Guest guess]

i will not vote for TJS

[Guest BW]

I will not vote for Tony Tan or Tan Cheng Bock. Both of them are Pappies.

[Guest guest]

This is a prestigious President Election. TKL promised to conduct the campaign in a dignified, fair and nice manner. He grew desperate and started to be vitriolic on the eve of the Cooling Period so that the others have no chance to rebut him. He is very cleverly cunning...This type of person cannot be our President...sorrie...He is OUT!!!

[Guest Guest]

wtf, they r all ugly no offense

you are so funny yet honest. I had a good laugh reading your post

[SwimVibe]

So my guests who are not a member here commenting. Just log in and comment, there's no need to hide your identity.

[gstc82]

i really wonder is that 'guest' part of TJS's publicity team placing an 'advert' for TJS here, it does not look like a random post by a person who happens to visit this site, it looks like a well tot out written piece to glam up TJS.

[Guest Random Guest]

A friend of mine told me that when he was in his army days he went to TCB's clinic and told him that he do not have money for consultation. TCB let him owe the bill for years without calling him to pay back... Ask yourself where can u have "free consultation" nowaday? Not even the polyclinic..

[gymcub]

Are we allowed to discuss about the candidates today since it is Cooling Off Day?

[superflawless]

The Candidate cannot canvass but ordinary folks like us can discuss. Let's talk this over.

I am personally voting for Tan Jee Say. For those of you undecided, did you know he supports the LGBT community? Please take a look at this article by Alex Au:

http://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2011/08/25/i-endorse-tan-jee-say/#more-5611

[superflawless]

A friend of mine told me that when he was in his army days he went to TCB's clinic and told him that he do not have money for consultation. TCB let him owe the bill for years without calling him to pay back... Ask yourself where can u have "free consultation" nowaday? Not even the polyclinic..

TCB openly declares that gay is a choice. That means we choose this "lifestyle". He does not believe in nature dictating who is str8, who is gay and who is transgendered. This is not someone I want as my President.