Be sensitive to Singapore's feelings. This is the message from two former diplomats, responding to Indonesia's decision to name a naval vessel after the two marines who bombed MacDonald House in 1965.
Sensitivity is a two-way street
By Bilahari Kausikan, Published The Straits Times, 13 Feb 2014
INDONESIAN Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has told the Singapore media that "no ill intent was meant, no malice, no unfriendly outlook", when Indonesia named a new frigate KRI Usman Harun, after two Indonesian marines executed in 1968 for a 1965 terror attack on MacDonald House in Orchard Road that killed three and injured 33.Singaporeans will no doubt be happy to know this. But I am afraid that the Foreign Minister entirely missed the point.
The issue is not Indonesia's intentions. It is something far more fundamental. Indonesians never tire of reminding Singapore that we should be "sensitive" and "neighbourly". But Indonesians do not seem to believe that they should be equally "sensitive" to their neighbours. "Sensitivity" and "neighbourliness" are to them a one-way street.
These are the facts: Between 1963 and 1966, then Indonesian President Sukarno waged a "Konfrontasi" (confrontation) of terror attacks and military action to "Ganjang (crush) Malaysia". Singapore was part of the Federation of Malaysia formed in September 1963 until August 1965 when it became independent. In Singapore alone, there were some 40 bomb attacks over about two years. Most of the targets could by no stretch of the imagination be considered legitimate military objectives. They included schools, hotels, cinemas, bus depots, telephone booths and residences.
MacDonald House was an office building. The victims of that bombing were civilian office workers. Relatives of the victims are still alive. Older Singaporeans still remember the fear and uncertainty of that period. Are we not entitled to some "sensitivity"? The two who planted the bomb, Osman Mohamed Ali and Harun Said, may have been Indonesian marines, but were in civilian clothes and sneaked into Singapore for terror attacks against civilians. They were found guilty of murder and executed after they had exhausted all legal appeals.
What would Indonesians think if the Singapore Navy were to go crazy and name one of its warships after Noordin Top, the terrorist behind bombings in Jakarta in 2004 and 2009 and who may have assisted in the 2002 Bali bombings?
The late President Suharto sent a personal emissary to plead for clemency for the two marines. But they had been convicted of murder after due legal process. On what grounds could Singapore have pardoned them?To have done so would have been to concede that the small must always defer to the big and irretrievably compromise our sovereignty.
After Singapore refused the clemency appeals, a Jakarta mob then sacked our embassy, burned our flag and threatened to kill our ambassador.
There were actually four Indonesians on death row in Singapore in 1968 for crimes committed during Konfrontasi. Two others, Stanislaus Krofan and Andres Andea, had their sentences remitted after pleas by the Indonesian government and were sent back to Indonesia. The bomb they planted did not kill anyone.
A few years later in 1973, Singapore's then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew placed flowers on the graves of the two executed marines, thus bringing the episode to a close.
Both actions - standing firm on fundamental principle even at the risk of conflict and making a gracious gesture once the principle had been established - were equally important in setting the foundations of the relationship Singapore today enjoys with Indonesia.
The origins of Konfrontasi are complex: the political tensions and contradictions within Indonesian society of that time, Sukarno's fiery personality and grandiose ambitions for "Indonesia Raya" (greater Indonesia), among other things.Self-righteous nationalism
THESE conditions are not likely to be repeated. But as the respected American scholar of Indonesia, the late Dr George McTurnan Kahin, wrote in 1964 while Konfrontasi was still ongoing, that episode of aggression towards its neighbours was the consequence of the "powerful, self-righteous thrust of Indonesian nationalism" and the widespread belief that "because of (the) country's size… it has a moral right to leadership".
Time may have given a more sophisticated gloss to this attitude but has not essentially changed it.
This attitude lies, for example, behind the outrageous comments by some Indonesian ministers during the haze last year that Singapore should be grateful for the oxygen Indonesia provides; it is the reason why Indonesians think Singaporeans should take into account their interests and sensitivities without thinking it necessary to reciprocate.
Indonesians and Singaporeans need to understand this.
Of course, Indonesia has the right to name its ship anything it pleases, as some Indonesians have argued. But that is beside the point.
Why choose a name that is bound to cause offence? That the Indonesians did not even think of the implications, as Foreign Minister Marty's comments to the media would suggest, is exactly the point.
I do not expect the Indonesians to change the name of the ship. But would any Indonesian leader be prepared to emulate Mr Lee Kuan Yew and place a wreath at MacDonald House?
It was not Singapore that started this incident. And Singapore has no interest in seeing relations with a close neighbour strained.
But Singaporeans cannot let this episode pass without signalling our displeasure.
The foundations laid for the bilateral relationship in 1968 and 1973 are still valid. Mutual respect is the essential condition for good relations.
My father was ambassador to Indonesia when Singapore's embassy was sacked. He was on leave in Singapore when the decision was taken to turn down the appeal for clemency. He went back to Jakarta to be at post when the execution took place.
After the mob attacked our embassy, he and all our staff remained at post, operating from Hotel Indonesia.
I was a schoolboy studying in Singapore at that time. But shortly after the attack, he summoned me to Jakarta to join him and my mother. I now realise that it was to show that we were not intimidated. It was my first lesson in diplomacy.
I spent a boring month holed up in Hotel Indonesia.
The only "entertainment" was the daily demonstrations in the square in front of the hotel, which included a seemingly endless stream of red-bereted KKO (Navy Commando Corps) commandos marching by, shouting threatening slogans.
But after a while, I realised that it was only a few units marching round and round in circles because I came to recognise the faces of individual soldiers. And that too is a lesson that Singaporeans should understand.
The writer is ambassador-at-large at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where he was, until May last year, its permanent secretary.
Why the past matters
By Barry Desker, Published The Straits Times, 13 Feb 2014
AT NOON on Saturday, the blast of air raid sirens will be heard again. It is a reminder that the fall of Singapore to the Japanese imperial army occurred on this date, Feb 15, in 1942. This year, for the second year, the Singapore Armed Forces will hold the Total Defence Commemoration Ceremony at the War Memorial Park on Feb 15. As part of this event, recruits from the 3rd Battalion Singapore Guards will be handed their rifles in a weapon presentation ceremony at 6.20pm. This recalls the exact time of the surrender of allied forces to the Japanese at the old Ford Motor Factory on Upper Bukit Timah Road.
For a generation of Singaporeans now passing away, the Japanese occupation was the single most significant formative experience of their lives. The sense of helplessness, the fear of a new set of colonial overlords, the loss of close relatives and the dislocation of families resulted in many a story being told over dining tables as Singaporeans were growing up.
People in Singapore did not see themselves as one people in 1942. At most, you took care of those nearest and dearest to you. Beyond the family, clan and ethnic loyalties were probably most significant.
By contrast, over the past 50 years, there has been a gradual coming together of Singapore society. There is a sense of nationhood and an identification which goes beyond clan, race, language or religion.
Ties are emerging which link Singaporeans wherever they are, even if it is Singlish, celebrating Chinese New Year with lo hei, eating roti prata or satay and complaining about the educational system. But shared perspectives go beyond food or celebrations. We are now a more resilient society, with the ability to withstand challenges and to respond effectively.
Today, many Singaporeans have little exposure to riot, revolution and mayhem. It is difficult to believe that Singapore formed part of a region which was seen as the Balkans of Asia, a cockpit of war and conflict in the 1960s.
The Vietnam War spilled over into Laos and later Cambodia, while Malaysia, Thailand, the Philippines and Burma, as it then was, were confronting major communist insurgencies.
A turbulent neighbourhood
NEVERTHELESS, Singaporeans are reminded from time to time that they live in a turbulent neighbourhood. The events of the past few days are one such reminder. Singapore reacted strongly to Indonesia's decision to name a naval vessel after Osman Mohamed Ali and Harun Said, two Indonesian marines who were executed by Singapore in 1968 for the MacDonald House bombing of March 1965. Three people were killed and 33 injured.
While the Indonesian armed forces appear to be seeking to limit the fallout resulting from the naming of the ship, there have been populist moves by politicians seeking to build their base as the April elections approach.
The MacDonald House bombing was the most serious incident in Singapore during Indonesia's Confrontation with Malaysia, an undeclared war from 1963 to 1966 which saw several hundred casualties across the archipelago. It included Indonesian paratroopers landing in Labis and seaborne landings in Pontian, as well as cross-border raids in East Malaysia. Singapore also faced a series of bomb attacks mounted by infiltrators.
The Indonesian decision on the naming of the ship was a surprise. It revived painful memories of an Indonesia which sought deference from its neighbours and was prepared to use force to implement its desires.
Singaporeans thought such memories had been banished by Indonesia's role in building Asean. In the 1960s, Indonesia sought to stride the global stage even as it antagonised its neighbours. Its leaders from Suharto onwards, however, have sought to increase their regional influence by more peaceful means.
Today, Jakarta's insensitivity towards its neighbours could have a costly impact on Indonesia's desire to play a role as a rising middle power in global affairs.
Most Singaporeans thought the MacDonald House bombing had receded into history, especially after then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew sprinkled flowers on the graves of the two Indonesian marines. He did this at the Heroes Cemetery in Jakarta in September 1973 during his first visit to Indonesia since independence, a move which led to Mr Suharto's first state visit to Singapore in 1974.
What this latest incident reveals is that in times of stress in bilateral relations, old grievances come to the fore.
In Indonesia, social media sites in recent days have gleefully referred to Singapore as a little red dot. They accuse Singapore of benefiting from Indonesia's travails and allege that Singapore provides shelter to corruptors and capital fleeing the country.
Bilateral relations have been smooth, but there is always a risk that Indonesia's highly competitive political system could lead nationalist politicians to stoke popular sentiments for domestic political gain.
For 30 years, when Indonesia was under the leadership of President Suharto, Singapore enjoyed excellent relations with Indonesia.
But with today's more democratic system, Indonesian leaders have to take greater account of public sentiments. Inevitably, this will lead to periodic tensions in bilateral ties. Fortunately, they have generally been well managed by Mr Suharto's successors.
While Singapore has prospered and now has an enviable standard of living, the island remains vulnerable as a city state. Creating a sense of security is vital as it underpins Singapore's economic prosperity, social equilibrium and political stability.
Events such as the commemoration of Singapore's surrender in 1942 remind us of Singapore's past experiences and raise awareness about the challenges that Singapore could face in the future.
In the same way, the response to the ship-naming incident highlights that just as Singapore is expected to be sensitive to its neighbours, there is also a need for them to be alert to issues which have caused unhappiness to Singaporeans in the past.
As we approach the 50th anniversary of Singapore's independence, Singaporeans should remember the troubled history of foreign invasions, communist subversion and communal riots that undermined our stability and well-being, and tested the unity of our forefathers.
With confidence born of a growing sense of shared values and identity, Singaporeans should also reflect on how much better prepared the country is today to face the challenges of the future.
The writer is the dean of the S.Rajaratnam School of International Studies, Nanyang Technological University. He was Singapore's ambassador to Indonesia from 1986 to 1993.
A more confident and difficult Indonesia
In the 1960s, a rising Indonesia chose a way of confrontation and conflict with its neighbours. The region is watching how Indonesia today relates to its neighbours, amid a bilateral row with Singapore over Indonesia's act of naming a navy ship after two soldiers executed for a bomb attack in Singapore.
By Hugh White, Published The Straits Times, 12 Feb 2014
IT IS not surprising that Singaporeans should be disconcerted by Jakarta's decision to name a new navy frigate in honour of two Indonesian marines executed in Singapore for crimes of terrorism.
Most obviously, of course, there is understandable concern about the feelings of people with family and friends who were among those killed in the bombing of MacDonald House in March 1965. This was, after all, an atrocious crime. But perhaps more importantly, it is an uncomfortable reminder of a difficult and dangerous period in Indonesia's relations with its neighbours.
And this reminder comes at a time when questions about Jakarta's future regional policy are inevitably being raised by the profound economic and political transformations under way in Indonesia itself, and in the wider East Asian region.
What kind of neighbour will a wealthier, more powerful and more democratic Indonesia be for us in the more complex, more contested and potentially more dangerous East Asia of the Asian Century?
For Singaporeans, the names Usman and Harun are reminders of the time of Confrontation in the early to mid-1960s. Two Indonesian marines, Osman Mohamed Ali and Harun Said, were convicted of the bomb attack that killed three and injured 33 in 1965.
In those years - the years of "living dangerously" - President Sukarno tried to take advantage of Cold War rivalries between America and China to expand Jakarta's power and influence over its neighbours, and he was prepared to use terrorism and military intimidation to achieve his ends.
Everyone in our region, Indonesian and non-Indonesian alike, owes a huge debt to President Suharto for his wisdom in abandoning his predecessor's adventurism after he took over from Sukarno, and for his skill in transforming the basis of Indonesia's relations with its neighbours from bullying and intimidation to trust, respect and cooperation within the Asean framework which he did so much to promote.
Of course, the same can be said for his counterparts among Indonesia's neighbours. Nothing typifies the tact, forbearance and statesmanship that helped to build stable relations between the giant Indonesia and its smaller neighbours so vividly as Singapore's then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew's famous gesture of sprinkling petals on the graves of the two executed marines in Jakarta's Kalibata cemetery.
It was a remarkable gesture, only five years after they had been executed by his government. Mr Lee no doubt understood why it was important for these men to be honoured by the country they had served, even after the policy they had carried out had been repudiated, and why it was important for him to do so too, painful though it must have been for him. This was the kind of statesmanship that turned South-east Asia, in a few short years, from one of the world's most turbulent regions into one of its most peaceful.
But that is now a long time ago.Today, a new set of leaders faces a new set of challenges in managing our region's relations, and they do it in very different circumstances.
Indonesia today is not the country it was under Suharto's New Order. For 15 years, it has achieved remarkably steady economic growth, even without the major reforms that would make such a difference to its ability to attract investment and realise its immense potential.
Indonesia today is again a rising power in the world, as it was under Sukarno, but built this time not on Sukarno's soaring revolutionary rhetoric, but on the much more durable foundation of solid economic performance.
How it will choose to use this power depends on the new generation of rising Indonesian political leaders, and how they can shape and respond to the popular will through Indonesia's rambunctious version of democracy.
Where will this lead?
Indonesia's neighbours have been very fortunate that since Suharto fell 16 years ago, his successors have stuck to the broad directions he set for Indonesia's regional policy. They have resisted the pressures that inevitably arise in any democracy to promote and exploit jingoism and xenophobia for domestic political advantage.
In the region, many will be watching with great interest to see whether the leading candidates in this year's forthcoming presidential election show the same restraint. It would be unwise to take it for granted that they will.
Even if they do, none of Indonesia's neighbours can assume that its foreign policy will remain essentially unchanged over the coming years.
It will seek to redefine its regional role as its relative wealth and power grow, and as the region itself changes under the influence of the rise of China, the emergence of India, and the inevitable implications for the roles of America and Japan.
No one should be surprised if we see over the coming years the emergence of a more confident, assertive Indonesia, more diplomatically and strategically active on the regional stage, and working not just through the medium of Asean, but increasingly as a key independent power in its own right.
There is no reason to assume that such an Indonesia would be threatening to neighbours like Singapore or Australia. But equally, no one should be surprised if this more confident Indonesia is a little harder to deal with, less willing to compromise and more inclined to assert what it sees as its interests.
In a very different context, Australia has seen this new assertiveness in its difficulties with Indonesia over intelligence revelations and the management of asylum seekers in recent months.
Unlike Singapore in the present case, Australia bears much of the blame for these problems, but any long-term observer of the Australia-Indonesia relationship cannot help but be struck by the greater firmness with which Indonesia is responding to these disputes.
Wherever the blame lies on particular issues, the rest of the region as well as Indonesia itself will need to learn to handle better the realities and sensitivities.
The writer is professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University.
Hard-won relations, so quickly forgotten
The decision to name an Indonesian warship after two bombers who attacked Singapore in 1965 undermines decades of effort to build military ties
By Winston Choo, Published The Straits Times, 14 Feb 2014
IT WAS about two years after I was commissioned as an officer in 1961 that Konfrontasi broke out.
Konfrontasi, or the "Crush Malaysia" campaign, launched by then Indonesian President Sukarno in 1963 to oppose the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, saw Indonesian troops engage in raids, bomb attacks and acts of subversion across the federation states.
At that time, Singapore was part of the Federation of Malaysia, and a target.
In 1964, I was sent to Sebatik Island, south of Sabah, and later, to the Kota Tinggi area in southern Johor as part of the 1st Battalion Singapore Infantry Regiment (1 SIR) to repel Indonesian infiltrators.
Those of us in 1 SIR did not suffer any casualties in our fights. However, our comrades in 2 SIR in Kota Tinggi were less fortunate, and several of them were killed. These are painful memories that can never be erased, particularly for those of us who have lived through the conflict.
In Singapore, at least 42 bomb explosions occurred, culminating in the bombing of MacDonald House that killed three people and injured 33 others on March 10, 1965.
It is crystal clear to me as a former military officer that such attacks - conducted by non-uniformed military personnel and directed at non-military targets, resulting in the loss of innocent civilian lives - were clearly illegal under the laws of armed conflict and went against every principle that I stood for.
It was thus with surprise and immense disappointment that I read about Indonesia's decision to name a warship after the two men responsible for bombing MacDonald House. Despite protests from Singapore, Indonesia has decided to stick to its decision.
When the perpetrators of the bomb attack were later executed in Singapore on Oct 17, 1968, relations between Singapore and Indonesia were fraught with tension and unease.
It was only years later that then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew sought to bring closure to the difficult episode during his trip to Indonesia in 1973.
People may have forgotten, but when then President Suharto visited Singapore in return in 1974, he signalled a major change in attitude towards Singapore by publicly accepting Singapore as an equal, independent state.
This set the tone for Singapore and Indonesia to move on and build a normal, healthy bilateral relationship that benefited both sides.
In the years since, our two countries have cooperated in many areas of mutual benefit, including in trade and investment, and military cooperation, as well as in Asean.
Hard-won relations
BECAUSE of this healthy state of affairs, in my 33-year career in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF), I have had the good fortune to build many strong and close friendships with many TNI (Tentara Nasional Indonesia, or Indonesian National Armed Forces) counterparts, including the TNI leadership.
From my personal experience, this episode of naming a warship after the two bombers of MacDonald House which caused the death of innocent Singaporean civilians is not characteristic of the way the TNI would have handled matters back in my time.
It was clear to me that both sides understood the importance of maintaining a good degree of understanding and stability between our militaries, as a ballast to Singapore and Indonesia's bilateral relations, which may see ups and downs at the political level.
From a point before 1974, when the SAF and TNI hardly had any bilateral interactions, we took careful and deliberate steps, and worked hard to build up our ties to a level where our military leadership could easily pick up the phone and call each other.
This helped greatly in reducing any potential misunderstandings, as our commanders were able to consult in private and resolve sensitive issues quickly before things got out of hand.
Later, the close relationship saw an expansion of military-to-military cooperation, leading to more bilateral exercises and joint naval operations to keep our contiguous waters safe, like the Indonesia-Singapore Coordinated Patrols, which witnessed its 20th anniversary in 2012.
This level of cooperation was possible only because of the strong foundation of trust and understanding that we had built up through different generations of SAF and TNI leadership.
Times of crisis
IN TIMES of crisis, both countries have also come to each other's
aid without hesitation. When the Indian Ocean tsunami struck in 2004, the SAF was the first to reach and lend a hand, deploying an unprecedented amount of manpower and assets in its history of disaster assistance.
The close ties and familiarity between our armed forces were evident during the operation. The SAF and TNI regularly send our officers to each other's training courses, and the SAF officers who had graduated from the Indonesian military academies could speak fluent Bahasa Indonesia and had experience with the Indonesian way of doing things.
When Singapore was in need in December 1997, when SilkAir Flight MI185 crashed into the Musi River near Palembang, killing all 104 passengers and crew, the Indonesians came swiftly to our aid.
They spared no effort in supporting the search and rescue operation, deploying several ships to help locate survivors and recover the two black boxes.
It saddens me to think that those in the Indonesian establishment who decided on the name KRI Usman Harun for the warship - after the two convicted bombers - could have so quickly forgotten the deep relations that both countries have painstakingly built over the years, on so many fronts.
What Indonesia does not seem to realise is that such actions, taken without due consideration, not only disregard the sensitivities of a neighbouring country, but also undermine the decades of peace and friendship both our militaries have built in partnership, by reopening a closed chapter that both nations have agreed to lay to rest.
There are surely many other deserving warriors and soldiers in Indonesia's illustrious history, so why choose to name the warship in a manner that reflects the violence and callousness of Indonesia's past actions?
It appears that when decisions need to be made for one's own interests, the concerns of a small country like Singapore can be disregarded. The "little red dot" mentality is still alive and entrenched in the minds of many Indonesian officials.
This incident comes as a poignant reminder for those Singaporeans who believe that Singapore is no longer as vulnerable as before, and that a strong SAF is no longer necessary because relations are rosy and peace has prevailed in the past few decades.
There is no better moment than now for us as a nation to recognise that the peace and security of Singapore can never be guaranteed.
I have witnessed for myself how hard-won our recent decades of peace are. We have now witnessed how quickly things can turn sour overnight.
A small country like ours will face situations where others do not take us into account when they make decisions. If we do not have a strong and capable SAF, we leave ourselves open to being cowed, intimidated and vulnerable to pressures from larger states.
If we do not want this to be the reality for us and our children's generations, all Singaporeans must take on the collective responsibility of protecting our way of life and play our part for the defence of our nation.
Only then will we be able to stand up to challenges, shape our present and plan for the future that we most desire.
This is our only reality.
Lieutenant-General (Ret) Winston Choo was the first and longest-serving chief of the Singapore Armed Forces (1974-1992). He is currently chairman of Metro Holdings' board of directors and non-resident ambassador to Israel.
