Singapore's Position on Naming of Warships after Indonesian Marines Responsible for MacDonald House Bombing

Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the Government's position on reports that the Indonesian Navy has named one of its new warships after the two Indonesian marines who were convicted and executed for the bombing of MacDonald House in Singapore in 1965 which killed three persons and wounded at least 33 others.

Thank you. Mdm Speaker, the hon Members want to know the position taken by Singapore and by Indonesia on this matter over the last two weeks. We have taken a principled stand. We have expressed our concerns directly and clearly to the Indonesian government. We have heard their response. I recently spoke at some length to the Singapore media about why we feel this way and why we take the position we are taking. Allow me to briefly set out the main points.

We were surprised and disturbed to learn that the Indonesian Navy was naming a warship after the two marines, Usman and Harun. I was, in fact, in Jakarta when the news came out in the media, and spoke immediately to the Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to convey our concerns.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen also called and spoke to their Indonesian counterparts. We respectfully requested that Indonesia takes our concerns into account and reconsiders its decision to name the warship Usman Harun. Later, we followed up with a Third Person Note (TPN), which is a formal diplomatic note, to the Indonesian

Page: 8

government to register our regret.

We asked Indonesia to undertake constructive steps to minimise the damage to our relationship. In particular, we noted that both countries had considered the episode closed in May 1973 when then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew visited Indonesia and scattered flowers on the graves of the two marines. That was a gesture to close a painful chapter in bilateral relationships. The naming of the ship now reopens this issue.

Why are we concerned about the naming of the warship? We have to look at what happened in 1965 and what it meant then; and what does the naming of the warship mean to us now. The facts of the MacDonald House bombing are not in dispute. The two Indonesian marines, Usman and Harun, in civilian disguise, planted a bomb in MacDonald House. It was part of a campaign of terror targeted at civilians. This action was quite contrary to international law. The two marines had committed a serious crime. They were tried in the Courts in a fair trial. Their appeal went all the way up to the Privy Council in London and they were found guilty and hanged in 1968.

Not many remember that Usman and Harun were not the only Indonesian saboteurs whom we arrested during the Konfrontasi. Two other marines, Stanislaus Krofan and Andres Andea, were caught and sentenced to death for the crime of carrying a bomb which exploded. Indonesia also appealed for their release. We pardoned them, because there were no deaths. In total, 45 Indonesian saboteurs were released and returned to Indonesia. But we could not pardon Usman and Harun because their crime was very serious and civilians had been killed and injured.

Not pardoning Usman and Harun was a defining moment for Singapore. Had we agreed to release them, it would have set the precedent for our relationships with all bigger countries. That precedent would be that we will – or we should – do what a bigger country asks and pressures us to do, even when we have been grievously hurt. That is a different concept of sovereignty that is not good for us and which we cannot accept.

The Indonesians consider Usman and Harun heroes. But for Singaporeans, in particular the victims and their families, their action was criminal, not heroic. We do not quarrel with Indonesia's sovereign right to choose their heroes. But it is quite another thing to name a warship after these two marines. The warship will travel to different places, bringing painful memories wherever it goes. This is something that Singaporeans quite justifiably will find hurtful. I am sure that

Page: 9

many Indonesians would feel the same way if they were in our position.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has said that Jakarta takes this issue "very seriously" and that there is no "ill-will" or "malice". We welcome his comments. That is a step in the right direction. I agree fully with Minister Marty's remarks that there is a need for mutual respect between Singapore and Indonesia.

As we go forward, it is important for us to know that the marines are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans. It is also important that it is understood and acknowledged that the naming of the ship impacts on Singapore, especially the families of those killed and injured.

A fundamental tenet of our foreign policy is that we deal with other countries – irrespective of size – as sovereign equals, based on mutual respect. Just as Indonesia expects others, including Singapore, to show sensitivity to its concerns, we too expect the same of Indonesia.

We see Indonesia as an important partner of Singapore and we value their friendship and support. We have a strong bilateral partnership and also cooperate closely in ASEAN where our interests converge on many issues. We, therefore, hope that it will be possible for us to maintain and strengthen this friendship and cooperation. The naming of the ship has caused an impact. And we have stated what our position is on that issue.