TRANSCRIPT OF MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS K SHANMUGAM’S REPLY TO A PARLIAMENTARY QUESTION, 18 FEBRUARY 2014
QUESTION:
Dr Lim Wee Kiak: To ask 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.
REPLY:
Mdm Speaker, the Honourable Members would know the position taken by Singapore and 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, and 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 that we are taking. Allow me to briefly set out the main points.
2 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 Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to convey our concerns. DPM Teo Chee Hean and Minister Ng Eng Hen also called their respective counterparts in Indonesia. 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 TPN, a Third Person Note, which is a formal diplomatic note, to the Indonesian 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 the bilateral relationship. The naming of the ship now reopens this issue.
3 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. That action was quite contrary to international law. The two marines had committed a serious crime. They were tried in the Courts and received fair trial. The appeal went all the way up to the Privy Council in London. They were found guilty and hanged in 1968.
4 Not many remember that Usman and Harun were not the only Indonesian saboteurs whom we arrested during 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.
5 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, and that is not good for us and which we cannot accept.
6 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 many Indonesians will 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.
7 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.
8 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.
9 We see Indonesia as an important partner of Singapore. We value their friendship and support. We have a strong bilateral partnership, and we 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. Thank you Mdm Speaker.
_____________
TRANSCRIPT OF MINISTER FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS K SHANMUGAM’S REPLIES TO SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS, 18 FEBRUARY 2014
DR LIM WEE KIAK: Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank both Ministers for their replies. I would like to add one supplementary question for the Foreign Minister. There have been reports that they are going to put up statues now of the two war heroes in the nearby island next to Singapore. The question now is what can we do to prevent further occurrences of what is happening now. And what other confidence building measures we can do between government to government in order to prevent such things from happening. Regarding the decision to name this ship, what is the level, who decided to name the ship ultimately? Do we know that?
MINISTER: I thank the Honourable Member for the question. I think there are some press reports of some statues potentially 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 out 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, that they had proceeded without really considering the impact on Singapore or how Singapore might view it. And the fact that we have now registered our point, we have taken it up, we have said exactly how we feel, we have issued a Third Person Note, the 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 crystal clear where we stand and that has achieved the objective of making sure that, you know, it is at least in the consciousness of Indonesia that there is a certain mutuality to the relationship. And our responses have been calibrated, we take it one step at a time and we wait to see what happens with regard to the statues.
MR ZAQY MOHAMAD: For the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I see a future trend looming. As our larger neighbours prosper, they may take a more nationalistic view or an abang-adik view to Singapore as well. So Singapore’s rational diplomatic position and also our value to trade in this region also make us a very nice guy. 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? Thank you.
MINISTER: 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. That size of others was used as a bargaining chip with us. We withstood that. In international relations and in international diplomatic exchanges, the weight and might of the participants is usually the most important factor. We have been able to hold our own, punch well above our weight, simply because we have been faster, skillful 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 who 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, you 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. Beyond that, you need to make sure that your regional relationships, both bilaterally as well as multilaterally through organisations like ASEAN, are strong so that you can deal with issues, both bilaterally and multilaterally as well as through regional platforms which help move everyone along. And thirdly at the larger level, you need a very strong network of international partners beyond the region. We have to be successful economically, socially, defence, all of it. That is the requirement for Singapore to survive.
ASSOC PROF TAN KHENG BOON EUGENE: Mdm I welcome the government’s position on this matter. I think it is important for us to state our position. I would just like to ask the Foreign Minister whether the government actually accepts the Indonesian government’s explanation that the marines are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans. I don’t see how these marines would have become heroes had they not been hanged for their acts in Singapore. So I would appreciate the Minister’s clarification.
MINISTER: I think what the Indonesian government through its Foreign Minister has said is that there was no ill will, no malice. I don’t think there’s been an expressed statement that they are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans. Thank you.
Ms Irene Ng PHEK HOONG: Thank you Mdm. I welcome the government’s strong stand on this matter, but can I ask the Minister, there’s been some who said that the episode is being drummed up at this time because of elections in Indonesia with politicians finding it to their favour to gain popularity through nationalistic sentiments. Can I ask Minister whether he agrees with this point of view and whether Singapore should stand firm against being used as a convenient election tool just to satisfy domestic gains? My second question has to do with the abang-adik relationship that seems to be recurrent in the relationship between Indonesia and Singapore. Can I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the KRI Usman Harun episode is another reminder of the mind-set of Indonesia towards Singapore, where Indonesia sees itself as a big brother in this abang-adik relationship rather than one where neighbouring states are viewed as equal sovereign entities, where sensitivity is a two-way street.
MINISTER: I assume you are directing the questions to me, not Minister for Defence. As regard to your 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 the 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 will not speculate on whether there were broader reasons, I will take the Foreign Minister’s word as to what he said.
On your second question on the abang-adik relationship, without characterising it in those terms, I think it’s not just this region, in every part of the world, the inalienable fact of international diplomatic relationships is that every country will use every advantage it has to pursue its interests. And obviously 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 is that in this particular instance, since 1973 or 1974, as Defence Minister 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 and a strong bond and mutual trust has been built up. What this episode has shown is that nevertheless there was not at the minimum due consideration for how we might feel. And as Singaporeans I suppose we have to remember that and note that. Thank you.
. . . . .