Tag: MacDonald house

When terrorists in one country are national heroes in another

Tensions are running high between Indonesia and Singapore over the former’s decision to name a naval vessel after two convicted members of the Indonesian Marine Corps, who carried out the bombing of the MacDonald House office building in Singapore on March 10, 1965.

The bone of contention lies in how Harun Said and Usman Ali, the two Indonesian commandos, are seen by both countries.

In Singapore, they are the perpetrators of the bombing of a civilian target, while the Indonesian government sees them as national heroes who carried out their duty during Konfrontasi (1963-66) with Malaysia.

The disparate labels for the two men are understandable considering Singapore, still part of Malaysia at the time, and Indonesia were locked in a dispute that stemmed from the latter’s objection towards the formation of the federal state of Malaysia, encompassing large swathes of territory on the island of Borneo that Indonesia had laid claim to.

However, objectively speaking, were Usman and Harun terrorists or were they war heroes?

Merriam-Webster’s dictionary defines terrorism as the use of violent acts to frighten the people in an area as a way of trying to achieve a political goal. By this definition alone, what the two men did qualifies as an act of terrorism.

Singaporean police records state that when they were arrested floating at sea, the two men said they were a fisherman and a farmer, before later confessing to the bombing.

However, it was not until later, during their trial for murder, that the two revealed they were members of the Indonesian Marine Corps with express orders to cause trouble in Singapore as part of confrontation with Malaysia. Apparently, the two men chose to reveal their status in the hope of being treated as prisoners of war under the Geneva Conventions.

When the presiding judge denied them POW status – on the grounds that members of enemy armed forces who are combatants and who come here with the assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits and divest themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers, but are captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war – Usman and Harun retracted their statements that they were members of the Indonesian military.

Despite lobbying by the Jakarta government for their release, Usman and Harun were found guilty of murder and sentenced to death. However, when their bodies were brought back to Jakarta after their execution in 1968, the two were interred in the National Heroes Cemetery with full military honours.

It could well be argued that the granting of national hero status to the two men was Indonesia’s way of saving face after a failed diplomatic attempt to have the two released.

It was also a delicate time for Indonesia as the new government under then President Sukarno was trying to extricate itself from the confrontation.

The hero status for both men was also anomalous even by Indonesian standards, as people given this recognition are usually those who perished in combat against enemy forces. Usman and Harun never actually met these criteria – as never during Konfrontasi did the Indonesian government nor its Malaysian counterpart officially declare war on each other.

So, essentially, both were perpetrators of a state-sponsored act of terrorism. Hence, the adamant position by the Singaporean government that Usman and Harun were terrorists.

By the same token, Indonesians should look at the incident as a lesson in how not to conduct bilateral relations. Sukarno’s accusation that Malaysia was a puppet state of the United Kingdom has never been proven.

To date, it remains obscure why Sukarno instigated the unofficial war against Malaysia in 1963. Some historians have argued that his earlier success in wresting Papua from the Dutch emboldened him to try a similar tactic with the former British Malaya, though Sukarno always publicly denied any territorial ambitions. Nevertheless, Sukarno’s coveting Malaysia as part of a Greater Indonesia may not have been just a flight of fancy.

In many ways, his model for the state of Indonesia was the ancient Majapahit Empire, which encompassed Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and parts of Thailand and Indochina.

Whatever his motives, the border skirmishes and acts of sabotage against Malaysia during Konfrontasi appeared to be designed to provoke the British, who had granted independence to Malaysia in 1957, into declaring war against Indonesia. Had they done so, Sukarno would certainly have obtained his evidence that Malaysia was simply an extension of British imperial powers.

Johannes Nugroho*

###

*Johannes Nugroho is a writer and businessman from Surabaya. This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insider.

Source: The Jakarta Globe

February 19, 2014
Bilahari Kausikan: Sensitivity is a two-way street

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.

February 13, 2014
The days when bombs went off in my kampung

When a bomb went off one Sunday night in April 1964 at Jalan Rebong in Kampung Ubi, the impact was so large that I could feel it from my home in Geylang Serai a kilometre away.

A 50-year-old Malay widow and her only child, a 19-year-old schoolgirl, who were at a neighbour’s house were killed when the bomb exploded nearby.

Three days later, another bomb went off about a kilometre away, at the junction of Jalan Betek and Jalan Timun, at a public telephone booth. Five people were injured, including a 62-year-old Chinese woman and three Malays who lived near the booth.

As a 12-year-old boy who had just entered secondary school, I was curious as to why a bomb had gone off in my kampung area.

I cycled to Jalan Betek, the scene of the second explosion, to see the mayhem. Only the concrete base of the phone booth was left; the booth and its roof had been blown to bits. The house next door was in shambles, its sitting room badly damaged.

Months earlier, terrorists had planted a bomb at Katong Park in front of the Ambassador Hotel in Meyer Road. That park by the beach was a favourite picnic site for many of us who lived in Geylang Serai.

The series of bombings in Singapore occurred at the height of Indonesia’s “Konfrontasi” – “Confrontation” – against the Federation of Malaysia formed in September 1963. Singapore was then a part of this federation.

We were told that it was the work of Indonesian soldiers who had infiltrated the island to launch a campaign of terror in line with its “Ganjang Malaysia” – “Crush Malaysia” – campaign against the fledgling federation.

It was an act of military aggression without a formal declaration of war against Malaysia, which then President Sukarno considered a “British puppet”.

For the Malays in my kampung, Konfrontasi was a campaign of terror against civilians. The series of bombings against targets such as telephone booths, public parks and beaches targeted ordinary people.

Soon, people were afraid to visit these places.

The biggest attack was the bombing in March 1965 of MacDonald House in Orchard Road, which killed three civilians and injured 33 others.

Indonesian marines Osman Mohamed Ali and Harun Said were arrested, tried and convicted of murder and hanged.

Konfrontasi was a source of disappointment to my late father, who was Javanese, and his Javanese friends.

They had come to see Sukarno as a leader who had united the sprawling archipelago, and were disappointed that he had launched the campaign of terror against Malaysia, a newly emerging nation in the Nusantara, the Malay world.

Konfrontasi also became the first test of our loyalty to Singapore – and to then Malaysia of which we were a part.

The Indonesian soldiers who infiltrated Singapore to carry out the bombings were all of Malay stock. Some could have well been relatives of Malays who had migrated to Singapore from Java before the Japanese invasion in 1942.

I recall the swirl of talk in the kampung then: What should the Malays do if the saboteurs came to them to seek refuge? Should we provide food and shelter, or should we surrender them to the authorities?

Those conversations inevitably ended with the same decision: To hand over any infiltrator or wandering saboteur to the authorities.

This was no easy decision, given our kinship ties.

My father’s only sister lived with her family in Indonesia. But he lost contact with her because of Konfrontasi; they renewed contact years later, in 1971.

All that was over four decades ago. Now, the Indonesian military plans to name a navy ship after the two marines who had bombed MacDonald House and struck terror in Singapore.

We may not be the families of those who died or were injured in the bombing, but as Singaporeans, we feel outraged by the move to honour two terrorists by naming a vessel after them.

According to Indonesian Armed Forces chief General Moeldoko, the decision to name the ship was made in December 2012 with no intention to stir emotions.

But surely there are hundreds of Indonesian heroes whose names can be chosen for the vessel. Why pick the names of the two marines, when this would only open up old wounds?

Salim Osman

Source: http://bit.ly/1maEBSa

February 13, 2014
Krisis KRI Usman-Harun 359: Shanmugam membantah, Djoko tetap tegas

Menteri Koordinator bidang Politik Hukum dan Keamanan (Menko Polhukam) Djoko Suyanto menegaskan, pemerintah Indonesia memiliki tatanan, aturan, prosedur dan kriteria penilaian sendiri untuk menentukan seseorang mendapat kehormatan sebagai pahlawan.

“Dan itu tidak boleh ada intervensi dari negara lain,” kata Djoko di Jakarta, Kamis (6/2), menanggapi kabar keberatan dari pemerintah Singapura atas penamaan sebuah kapal perang Indonesia menggunakan nama dua marinir yang terlibat pengeboman rumah MacDonald di Orchard Road pada 1965, yaitu KRI Usman Harun.

Sebagaimana diberitakan the Straits Times, Kamis (6/2), juru bicara Kementerian Luar Negeri Singapura kemarin mengatakan Menteri Luar Negeri Singapura K Shanmugam sudah berbicara dengan Menteri Luar Negeri Marty Natalegawa soal kasus itu. Dia menyatakan penamaan kapal perang buatan Inggris itu bisa melukai perasaan keluarga korban di Singapura.

KRI Usman Harun adalah satu dari tiga kapal perang terbaru milik TNI AL, yang mengambil nama dari Usman Haji Mohamad Ali dan Harun Said, yaitu dua marinir Indonesia yang dinyatakan bersalah atas tuduhan pengeboman yang menewaskan tiga orang dan melukai 33 warga Singapura lainnya.

Kedua marinir Indonesia itu dinyatakan bersalah dan digantung di Singapura pada 1968. Setelah aksi protes dari mahasiswa Indonesia, kedua jenazah marinir itu akhirnya dipulangkan ke Indonesia dan diberi gelar pahlawan dan dimakamkan di TMP Kalibata, Jakarta selatan.

Tidak Boleh Surut

Menko Polhukam Djoko Suyanto mengatakan, pemberian kehormatan sebagai pahlawan kepada putra-putri bangsa tentu mempertimbangkan nilai sesuai dengan bobot pengabdian dan pengorbanan mereka-mereka yang “deserve” untuk mendapatkan kehormatan dan gelar itu.

“Bahwa ada persepsi yang berbeda terhadap policy pemerintah RI oleh negara lain (dalam hal ini Singapura) tidak boleh menjadikan kita surut dan gamang untuk tetap melanjutkan policy itu dan memberlakukannya,” jelas Djoko,

Menko Polhukam mengingatkan, bahwa PM Singapura Lee Kuan Yew pada 1973 sudah menabur bunga ke makam Usman dan Harun di TMP Kalibata. Jadi seharusnya sudah tidak ada permasalahan lagi terkait isu ini.

“Tadi siang pukul 14.30 an, saya sudah jelaskan kepada Wakil PM Theo Chee Hean tentang posisi dan argumentasi tersebut,” tukas Djoko.

Ia menegaskan, Pemerintah Indonesia dalam hal ini TNI AL punya otoritas dan pertimbangan yang matang untuk memberikan penghormatan kepada pahlawannya untuk d abadikan di sejumlah kapal perang RI, seperti halnya nama-nama pahlawan yang lain.

Source: Sekretariat Kabinet Republik Indonesia

February 8, 2014