Response to Naming of Warships after Indonesian Marines Responsible for MacDonald House Bombing

Mdm Speaker, in reply to Question No 2, for MINDEF and the SAF, the Konfrontasi was a violent and wrenching chapter in Singapore's history. The Indonesian armed forces, known as ABRI then, targeted non-military installations and defenceless civilians in Singapore from 1963 to 1965. In all, at least 58 people were killed or injured by the 37 bombs set off. Great suffering was inflicted on the victims and their

Page: 10

families. The MacDonald House bomb blast killed three civilians and injured at least 33 more. They still bear the physical and psychological scars of that tragedy to this day. Just take the families of those killed: Elizabeth Choo's six children became orphans, Juliet Goh's parents lost their only child, and Encik Yasin left behind a widow and eight children.

The naming of an Indonesian Navy ship after Usman and Harun now, nearly 50 years later, would undo the conciliatory actions from both sides that had lain to rest this dark historical episode. It would, as we have said, reopen old wounds. The Singapore Government was therefore deeply concerned when we received news of the naming and reacted immediately, instinctively.

Three Ministers, including Deputy Prime Minister Teo, telephoned our counterparts. My counterpart, the Indonesian Defence Minister was in Europe on an official visit and it was 8.00 am there when I called him. I would not have disturbed his trip unless it was an important matter and the Indonesian Defence Minister knew it. I stated the Government's position, and followed up with a written note, so that there would be no misunderstanding about our deep concern. All three Ministers respectfully asked our counterparts, on behalf of the Singapore Government, that Indonesia reconsider the name of the ship. We knew the harm it would cause to bilateral relations.

We want good defence ties with Indonesia and have worked hard to develop our friendship and military cooperation. Deputy Prime Minister Teo related to me how he had taken part in the first ever naval exercise with the Indonesians in 1974 – it was called Exercise Eagle – after President Suharto's visit to Singapore. And since then, military-to-military relations have improved considerably. In fact, two years ago, the SAF celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Indonesia-Singapore Coordinated Patrols to jointly protect the waters of both countries from sea robbery.

In times of need, Members will remember that both militaries have also quickly stepped up to help each other. When SilkAir Flight MI185 crashed near Palembang in December 1997, Indonesia spared no effort in the search and rescue operations; when the Indian Ocean tsunami struck Aceh in 2004, the SAF was the first on the ground to assist Indonesia with its largest disaster assistance relief effort ever.

Such reciprocal support and close cooperation based on mutual respect strengthen defence ties when Indonesia and Singapore treat each other as sovereign equals. With closer ties, the TNI and the SAF have been able to

Page: 11

discuss sensitive matters, sometimes behind closed doors, to find amicable solutions that meet each others' concerns. Where there are disagreements, we find ways to put them on hold until conditions improve to settle them. But the naming of the ship came as an utter surprise. MINDEF and the SAF were disappointed and dismayed over this inexplicable move. Even without ill intent, how can the naming of the ship after the two bombers build good ties, or enhance mutual respect and regard with both our countries?

On the contrary, a ship named "Usman Harun" sailing on the high seas would unearth all the pain and sorrow caused by the MacDonald House bomb blast, which had been buried and put to rest. It would be a bête noire, unleashing resentful feelings and spirits from the past, a constant reminder of the military aggression and atrocious crimes committed by Indonesian marines who killed or irreparably damaged the lives of innocent civilians and their families in Singapore. For Singaporeans, this is the weight of the dark history of Konfrontasi – of lives tragically cut short in vain, the suffering and blighted futures of hapless victims – that this ship will always carry with her.

Singapore will not allow this military ship named "Usman Harun" to call at our ports and naval bases. It would not be possible for the SAF, as protectors of this nation, to sail alongside or exercise with this ship.

As Deputy Prime Minister Teo, Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have said to our counterparts, the naming of the ship will have consequences on bilateral relations. Already suspicions and resentments have heightened on both sides, setting back many decades of relationship building in defence ties.

We want good bilateral defence ties and close military-to-military relationships with Indonesia. But strong defence ties can only be built on mutual trust and respect, expressed through appropriate acts that underscore friendship and amity.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank both Ministers for the reply. I have one supplementary question for the Foreign Minister. There have been reports to say they are going to put up statues now of the two "heros" in the nearby island, next to Singapore. The question now is what can we do to prevent further of such occurrences? What other confidence-building measures can we engage at the government-to-government level in order to prevent such things from happening? The decision to name this ship: who decided at which level to name the ship ultimately? Do we know that?

Page: 12

I thank the hon Member for the question. There are some press reports about potentially some statues being put up but they remain as press reports. From our perspective, the question is this: looking at some of the comments that have come up from Indonesia – where they have said there is no ill will, there is no malice – it almost appears there is no reason to think otherwise. They had proceeded without really considering the impact on Singapore or how Singapore might view it. The fact that we have now registered our point, we have taken it up, we have said exactly how we felt, we have issued a Third Person Note, their Defence Minister has outlined what is and is not doable with the Indonesian Navy in the context of this ship, I think we have made it crystal clear where we stand, and that is achieved. The objective of making sure that it is at least in the consciousness of Indonesia that there is a certain mutuality to that relationship. Our responses have been calibrated. We take it one step at a time. We wait to see what happens as regards to the statues.

Mdm Speaker, I thank both Ministers for their replies and I will have supplementary questions for both Ministers. I will start with the Minister for Defence. The "inexplicable move", as the Minister has put it, rubs salt into old wounds as it was a painful past for Singaporeans. My heart goes out to the families of the victims who have to relive history again today and each time the warship goes out to open seas. Does the SAF see this as a renewed threat, especially when there are parties who are fully supportive of this act and this shows a more nationalistic and militaristic front of Indonesia? Is the SAF also concerned that the warship could be made into a certain national symbol each time there is disagreement, conflict or difference in positions between our two countries?

I also believe that mutual peace and prosperity should be the way forward for both countries. What plans do the Ministry and the SAF have to find common ground with the Indonesian military and government to come to a position that is a compromise and how we can put this episode behind us?

For the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I see a future trend looming as our larger neighbours prosper, they may take a more nationalistic or an abang-adik view to Singapore as well. Singapore's rational diplomatic position and our value to trade in this region also make us a very nice guy. When Minister Marty says, "We have no ill intent" —

In the Minister's view, how is MFA prepared to deal with such tests, or potential provocations from bigger countries willing to test Singapore as a young and small nation?

Mdm Speaker, the SAF and MINDEF will not over-read or jump at shadows from this act. We have stated our view very clearly. I do not want to add to that. As to how we can move forward, this has happened and I think the task before us, as I said, we want good bilateral military relations and we have to take it from there and to rebuild mutual regard, mutual respect that we have taken 40 years to reach. It has set us back. And I would say that, over the next period, we will see what we can do to rebuild the ties. But it also depends on what both parties do.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The point about bigger and smaller countries is never going to change for us. It is not a new issue. It was always there from the time we became independent. The size of others was used as a bargaining chip with us. We withstood that. In international relations and international diplomatic exchanges, the weight and the might of the participants are usually the most important factor.

We have been able to hold our own, punch well above our weight simply because we have been faster, skilful and successful. If we were not successful, we would not be having this debate here.

As we go forward, we must fully expect that others will progress, will indeed seek to move us and move our policies towards their direction. It is not just the region. It is beyond the region. Everyone. And to deal with that, we need to look at it at three levels. One, at the core, our defence has to be top rate. If we cannot protect ourselves, nothing else matters. Two, beyond that, we need to make sure that our regional relationships, both bilaterally as well as multilaterally through organisations like ASEAN, are strong so that we can deal with issues, diplomatically, bilaterally as well as through regional platforms which help move everyone along. Three, at the larger level, we do need, therefore, a very strong network of international partners beyond the region. We have to be successful economically, socially, in defence, all of it. That is the requirement for Singapore to survive.

Mdm Speaker, I do not propose to go into a litany of what we are going to do and what we have done or what we are not going to do. I do not think that is productive. We have stated our concerns. I would suggest that it is more productive to focus on what and why we are deeply concerned about the naming of the ship, what it meant to us. I have stated explicitly in terms of not allowing the ship to enter our port and that SAF would not be associated with or exercise with the ship. I think that is abundantly clear. I do not choose to add to that.

Madam, I welcome the Government's position on this matter. I think it is important for us to state our position clearly. I would just like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government actually accepts the Indonesian government's explanation that the marines are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans. I do not see how these marines would have had been accorded such honours had they not been hanged for their acts in Singapore. So, I would appreciate the Minister's clarification.

I think what the Indonesian government, through its Foreign Minister, has said is that there was no ill will or malice. I do not think there has been an expressed statement in terms that they are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans.

I assume the Member is directing the questions to me, not to the Minister for Defence.

As regards the first question on whether the naming was a calculated act of internal politics, I think we have to take the Foreign Minister of Indonesia at his word that there was no ill will and there was no malice, which means that it was a decision taken at a professional level. What it also makes clear is that there was not enough consideration or perhaps even a substantial degree of thought given to how Singapore might perceive it, and therein lies the rub. So, I would not want to speculate on whether there were broader reasons. I will take the Foreign Minister at his word, as to what he has said.

On the Member's second question whether it is an abang-adik relationship: without characterising it in those terms, I think it is not just in this region, in every part of the world, an inalienable fact of international diplomatic relationships is that every country will use every advantage it has to pursue its interests. And obviously, their size, economic weight, military might, all of these are factors that are often used in negotiations and discussions.

By definition, we will always be at a disadvantage because of size. And we have overcome that disadvantage. What the episode shows in this particular instance is that since 1973/1974, as the Minister for Defence pointed out, we have built a very strong relationship with Indonesia at various levels, including the military-to-military relationship, and we have helped each other on many occasions. A strong bond and mutual trust have been built up. What this episode has shown is that, nevertheless, there was not, at the minimum, due consideration for how we might feel. As Singaporeans, we have to remember that and note that.

Page: 16