Singaporeans upset about Indonesian naming ships after their ‘heroes’? Why?

Indonesian military officers have pulled out of a Singapore aerospace show amid a row over the controversial naming of a naval warship.

Indonesia angered its neighbour by naming the new ship after two marines who carried out a bombing which killed three people in Singapore in 1965.

Singapore's second minister for defence said he was "disappointed" with Indonesia's naming decision.
Jakarta defended the move saying it was customary to name vessels after heroes.
- bbc

In conversation,


Ed: I don't see what the fuss is about. The chinese fascist government of singapore had no problem erecting a statue of mass-murdering chinese premiere, Deng Xiao Ping in singapore.

And anyway, the attack was on Malaysia, not singapore - as singapore was a part of Malaysia then. So this issue is actually a non-issue. The singapore government is just trying to flex its paltry muscles regionally. Silly fellas.


Kelvin Leong: while I may not agree 100% with the way my government handled the fall out and disagreement with Indonesia over this incident, I find your sense of history and logic in need of some review.

You are saying that because Singapore was part of Malaysia when the war against Indonesia happened, therefore Singaporeans have no right to be angry at the bombing carried out in our city against civilians during that war? Let's say that Argentina and the UK declare war on each other, and Argentina sends soldiers to infiltrate the streets of London and bomb a shopping mall. Can I say that because England is part of the United Kingdom, and because the war with Argentina is with the UK and not England, therefore the English people and London as well have no right to be angry?

Let's say that Argentina and the UK declare war on each other, and Argentina sends soldiers to infiltrate the streets of London and bomb a shopping mall. Can I say that because England is part of the United Kingdom, and because the war with Argentina is with the UK and not England, therefore the English people and London as well have no right to be angry?

Furthermore, are you aware that this particular bombing incident in Singapore was not a military engagement between the respective soldiers of both warring sides, but that the Indonesian marines infiltrated Singapore disguised as civilians to kill our civilians? This is clearly an act of state sponsored terrorism, the hurt still lingering in the relatives of the dead victims. I find it shocking that you think this crime is a non-issue.

Regarding your point about China. I am not a fan of the Chinese government and in fact, I am a staunch critic because I read alot about Chinese history and I am aware of the atrocities committed during the Cultural Revolution. But to describe Deng Xiaoping as a mass murderer is grossly inaccurate. Most of the mass murder happened during Mao Zedong's era, and even Deng himself was a victim, his own son losing both his legs escaping from Mao's red guards. But Deng would rise back to power after Mao's death and reverse the damages inflicted by Mao on China.

I don't agree with everything that Deng did, nor do I admire him. But I can understand why he is so respected by many ethnic Chinese around the world because he dared to reverse what Mao implemented and even openly criticize his flawed policies. In fact, he is largely responsible for the opening up of China and its subsequent prosperity. Your view of him needs to be more fair and just.



Ed: Sure Kelvin, singaporeans can get angry about it, but they can only get angry about it as malaysians.

Your logic about Argentina and the UK is flawed and completely irrelevant. If the English got angry, it would make sense, because they are being attacked themselves, and they are the centre of authority for the UK.

Singapore is taking up this issue as an INDEPENDENT state at present where they were just a part of another state when they were attacked during the confrontation.  Hence, there is no logical reason why they should be taking it personally now.  This is just an effort to nationalistically rally the people around singapore by making an issue where there is none.

Singapore is taking up this issue as an INDEPENDENT state at present where they were just a part of another state when they were attacked during the confrontation.  Hence, there is no logical reason why they should be taking it personally now.  This is just an effort to nationalistically rally the people around singapore by making an issue where there is none.  By the way, i'm not saying that what Indonesia did with the 'confrontation' or the bombing was right.  In fact, i think it wrong.  However, the issue here is whether singapore should take it personally.

As for 'terrorism', according to your definition, the resistance movement against apartheid in South Africa, or the Nazis, would be considered 'terrorists' as well. I'd be careful in bandying about the 'T' word with reference to those who don civilian outfits and attack civilians as that frequently allows states to commit greater evil with or without military outfits on civilians and otherwise - as the u.s. has done time and again.

So Deng isn't a mass-murderer because he didn't kill as many as Mao. You're joking right.

According to your logic, Hitler should be respected for his being able to address the humiliation Germany suffered after the treaty of Versailles and one should be 'fair and just' and not make a fuss over the millions of Jews he killed.

As for his 'opening up of China' and subsequent 'prosperity', all this is about is opening up local labour for foreign exploitation.

You are probably one of those who thinks that the ends justifies the means. I think your Lee Kuan Yew thought similarly in his praises for Deng's Tiananmen massacre, which to you isn't a big problem because it isn't as bad as Mao.


Kelvin Leong: you completely miss the point when you said that England is the center of authority , therefore granting them the right to feel angry about a war against a wider UK. Suppose the act of terrorism by Argentina happened not in England but in a shopping mall in Wales or Scotland, does that mean that when a Welsh or Scottish becomes angry at Argentina for the particular bombing incident in their hometown, they are wrong to do so because only England and the UK have the right to tell them when to be angry?

Are you also saying that the relatives of the victims have no right to be angry because they are technically Singaporeans now and no longer Malaysians? What kind of logic is that?

Singapore was part of another state when the war happened, that much is true and although many of our own troops were brutally killed while fighting the Indonesians in present day Malaysia territory, Singaporeans do not complain because ultimately those were acts of war between two powers.

What we are angry at however, is that the bombing act was carried out as a despicable act targeted against innocent civilian Singaporeans who had nothing to do with the conflict directly. Your examples of Nelson Mandela is flawed and cannot be compared to exonerate Indonesia's act of terrorism. Tell me, did Mandela ever kill any innocent white civilian at all?

What we are angry at however, is that the bombing act was carried out as a despicable act targeted against innocent civilian Singaporeans who had nothing to do with the conflict directly. Your examples of Nelson Mandela is flawed and cannot be compared to exonerate Indonesia's act of terrorism. Tell me, did Mandela ever kill any innocent white civilian at all?

And another difference between Mandela and Indonesia is that while the former was then an oppressed group fighting to free South Africa from Apartheid, Indonesia was then the dominant military power and the largest country in Southeast Asia trying to oppress Malaysia and Brunei into becoming part of its empire which we were then very unwilling to. To achieve its aims, Indonesia was then prepared to wage war as well as conduct terrorist acts to scare us into submission. How can you compare a large bully with a people's hero like Mandela?

Regarding Deng Xiaoping, believe me when I said I am a staunch critic of him and I did say I do not agree with many of what he did. But I cannot deny the fact that he was the key figure who reversed the destruction by Mao and made China a powerful country.

Using Hitler as an example to imply that I support him is an extreme and illogical twist. While Deng's crackdown on Chinese students during the Tiananmen remains a regrettable incident, one which I am a strong critic of, I do not think it is fair to compare him next to Hitler simply because of the scale in which damage was done in both cases. You take a condemned mass murderer who killed millions of Jews to compare alongside with Deng's killing of a thousand students; this cannot be said to be a fair assessment of Deng.

Furthermore, while Hitler is remembered for bringing about much hardship to the German people in the form of endless wars and eventual ruins, Deng is remembered by the vast majority of Chinese for saving them from economic ruins and vastly improving their standard of living. Who are you to tell the Chinese people that they should not feel grateful to Deng?

You seem to demand perfection for every leader. But none of the great leaders in history have ever been able to avoid committing any wrong doing. Which is why we need to take a more objective and fair review of each leader in the context of history. It is unjust to zoom in on Deng's Tiananmen incident alone to justify that he is on par with one of the greatest mass murderer in history; that is a myopic and unscholarly, even childish view point.


Ed: If the bombing took place in Scotland, and Scotland was a part of the UK. Then the Scottish can be angry about it though not take it personally unless they identify with the UK as a whole. But if they become an independent nation thereafter, then they can't take it personally.

Putting it simply, If i was part of a gang and get shot because of gang warfare, then i wouldn't take it personally. And if i was to leave the gang thereafter, and see the guys who shot me, i'd appreciate the fact that they did so because of my membership of the gang previously. That is only logical.

In answer to your question. Yes, Mandela did kill white civilians. He was part of 'UmKhonto we Sizwe', or 'Spear of the Nation' which was the armed militant wing of the African National Congress.

In relation, i am not comparing Mandela's anti-Apartheid movement with Indonesia.  The focus was on the idea of terrorism.  You stated that because they were targeting civilians and were dressed like civilians, they were terrorists.  Hence, the example of Mandela or the resistence movement against the Nazis becomes relevant.  Make up your mind.  Are you talking about the tactics that makes terrorism 'terrorism', or who has the right to be a terrorist on the basis of their fighting a bully.  You seem to swing from one to the other.

As for civilians, logically, there is no real distinction between civilians, and the military and government in a political democracy.  To make such distinctions only serves to enable their elected government do as they please, and for the government to use said civilians as a shield of purported innocence in the face of retaliation.

As for civilians, logically, there is no real distinction between civilians, and the military and government in a political democracy.  To make such distinctions only serves to enable their elected government do as they please, and for the government to use said civilians as a shield of purported innocence in the face of retaliation.  'Civilians' need to get more responsible and ensure that their governments are their representatives and not as an excuse to profit from what the government does whilst disclaiming any responsibility for their actions.  If you want to talk about 'terrorism', a good example of terrorism is when America tossed 2 atomic bombs on the Japanese at a time when there was no political democracy there.  Those civilians have a greater claim to being 'innocent'.  Logically speaking that is.

As for 'terrorism', i don't bother with terms such as those.  America has killed civilians in many regions via embargoes if not 'terrorists' dressed as civilians.  So they, along with other western states, have sought to define 'terror' and 'terrorism' in ways that basically excludes the means by which they do worse than what 'terrorists' do in civies.

I'm not comparing Deng to Hitler. Hitler was used as an analogy, and hence, the point about who was the greater evil is irrelevant.

I don't demand perfection from leaders. I demand that people don't discount their imperfections because of their achievements, especially if the former has evil consequences. Other than that, what they do in their private lives is their business.

if singaporeans want to be pissed off about this because there isn't anything good on the telly, i'd suggest they go re-merger with Malaysia and then they can get their knickers in a twist over it.....as Malaysians. 

The chinese people can be 'grateful' to Deng if they want. But that just shows that they aren't very bright or humanely conscious - which they aren't given the millennia old oppressive circumstances they have been taught to accept as the norm. The point about 'who am i to say they shouldn't' is silly. It is only reason that matters.

People like you are scary. You actually think that it is alright to kill thousands of people to maintain your own power so long as you can deliver wealth to the people. Typically chinese that.  I wonder how you'd feel if it is your child, your mum, and dad, whom were run over by the tanks.

Thanks to people like you, it is no wonder both china and singapore has governments that piss on human rights and buy their way out by delivering some wealth to the majority despite the evils minorities have to suffer. Singapore's racist 'ethnic/cultural cleansing' via pro-chinese policies against the non-chinese is a good case in point.

As for this issue, considering the influx of new foreigners into singapore, and the granting of citizenship to many - particularly those of Chinese origin - i suppose that this issue has been stoked so as to instill in these new foreigners and locals (old foreigners, except the Malays whom are the natives) a sense of patriotic 'oneness'.  The elite always tend to use such situations to bring about such nationalistic unity every now and then.  And it seems especially the case at a time when the government feels the need to create unity between said new foreigners and locals.  What better way to strengthen the 'us' than to do so in the face of an annoying other right.

However, if singaporeans want to be pissed off about this because there isn't anything good on the telly, i'd suggest they go re-merger with Malaysia and then they can get their knickers in a twist over it.....as Malaysians. 




ed