Source: Channel News Asia, click here
18 February 2014
SINGAPORE: Singapore will not allow the Indonesian warship, named after the MacDonald House bombers, to call at its ports and naval bases.
Nor would the Singapore Armed Forces carry out military exercises with the ship.
Minister for Defence Ng Eng Hen said this in Parliament on Tuesday, in response to questions fielded on the government's response to the naming of the warship.
The period of Konfrontasi, between 1963 and 1965, was a violent chapter in Singapore's history.
This was when Indonesia launched an "undeclared war" to oppose the creation of Malaysia, which included Singapore.
But it was the MacDonald House bombing by two Indonesian Marines in 1965 that sealed the memory of the dark period for Singaporeans.
Three people were killed, and 33 others injured.
The two Marines, Usman Mohamed Ali and Harun Said, were found guilty and hanged in 1968.
Despite pleas for clemency from then Indonesian President Suharto, Singapore went ahead with the hanging.
Minister for Foreign Affairs K Shanmugam said that was a defining moment for the nation.
"Had we agreed to release them, it would have set the precedent for our relationships with all bigger countries. 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 that is not good for us, which we cannot accept," he said.
Relations between the two countries were tense until then Singapore Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew visited Indonesia in 1973, and scattered flowers on the graves of the two marines.
Both countries considered the matter closed, so Dr Ng said it came as an "utter surprise" when Indonesia decided to name one of its warships after the two marines, nearly 50 years later.
Dr Ng said: "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. 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."
Dr Ng said bilateral defence ties between the two countries have grown since 1974.
He cited examples of how Indonesia went all out in search and rescue operations when the SilkAir Flight MI185 crashed in Palembang in 1997. And the Singapore Armed Forces were the first on the ground to help Indonesia during the 2004 Tsunami.
But this incident has set ties back.
Dr Ng said: "We want good bilateral military relations and we have to take it from there - to rebuild the mutual regard, the mutual respect that we've taken 40 years to reach here. It has set us back and I would say that over the next period we will see what we can do to rebuild ties, but it also depends on what both parties do."
Mr Zaqy Mohamad, MP for Chua Chu Kang GRC, asked: "How is MFA prepared to deal with such tests of potential provocation from bigger countries willing to test Singapore as a young and small nation?"
Mr Shanmugam said: "As we go forward, we must fully expect that others who progress will indeed seek to move us and our policies towards that direction. It's not just the region but beyond the region. Everyone. And to deal with that, you need to look at it on three levels. 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 diplomatically, both bilaterally, as well as through regional platforms which help move everyone along.
"Thirdly, at the larger level, you do need therefore, a very strong network of international partners beyond the region."
To survive in such a climate, Mr Shanmugam said, it's also about ensuring Singapore is successful economically, socially and in defence. - Channel News Asia
Ok. It is a given our defence budget will rise for 2014. The nxt question is how much?
ReplyDeleteDear Anon,
ReplyDeleteOur defence budget is capped at 6%of GDP.
Past years' spending has not flirted close to this ceiling. Even so, it can't keep rising forever.
And yes, it is worth it.
Best regards,
David
stupid singapore! our population is much more than you all so watch out
ReplyDeleteIf one can touch the beach alive, I salute you. If cannot...
ReplyDeleteinevitable. i think sg is going to get more of these as other countries progress economically and militarily; realism still the dominant explanation behind how states behave..
ReplyDeleteLol. Fix your people staying under the poverty line and then talk abt invasion indon. What a joke.
ReplyDeleteafter you banned indonesia flagship what you expected?
ReplyDeleteNo Indonesia ship enter Singapore port? No more Joint military training? Called your attache?
Will be interesting to see "Who is Who"
Why..so..silly? The objective about banning the ship is not to stop the ship from moving into Singapore waters. The ship can simply sail around Singapore. The objective is to shame Indonesia. News will spread around the world that indonesia is insensitive, rude and supports terrorism. Indonesia's image is tarnished. It may complicate Indonesian diplomatic efforts and even in the economic and military sectors.
ReplyDeleteThis may put Indonesia's attempt to cuddle up to the United States on the back foot.
ReplyDeleteSingapore has a lot of clout with the US.
Indonesia is just mending its relationship with America. Any thought of state sponsored 'terrorism' is anathema to the American psyche.
Possibility of Indonesian acquisition plans being affected.
Is this a price worth paying?
After all, surely Indonesia have better heroes to name their ships after than that?
Indonesia should have learnt her lesson from the extradition issue. Singapore might be small but it is rich, militarily powerful and influential. It operates on the global stage like a regional power - and why not - given the strength of the SAF. Malaysia learnt it the hard way. Singapore will draw blood from Indonesia, one way or another, for offending it.
ReplyDeleteIn Politics There Are No Permanent Friends Or Enemies, Only Permanent Interests.
ReplyDeleteRecently US Secretary of State just pay visit to Jakarta or Singapore?
We can banned Indonesia Ship,
Indonesia also can do the same thing. Never learn from rescinded invitation at Airshow? They also decided not to attend.
Most likely this is a blunder
Thanks to Paper General and their political agenda stir up with neighbour.
Duh..it is not banning but the rationale behind the banning. Indonesia will only tarnish its name even more by reciprocating in the same way. News about the ship will keep spinning the globe. It is a calculated move by Singapore.
ReplyDeleteSingapore influence in Washington is way bigger.
ReplyDeletelegislature is one thing but also have to pass through congress.
Who berths LCS?
Indonesia suddenly got money think can push weight around?
Not so easy kawan.
Urmmm. Kerrys visit was already planned in advance..duh. And he has visited Singapore previously and biden and obama. They have a tight schedule.
ReplyDeleteHaha..good ban. Time to teach indonesia a lesson that size isnt.everything. Look at Israel. Secondly, indonesia isnt even a developed country. Its recent puchases are aimed at replacing antiquated equipment. Even thailand and vietnam have better air forces, let alone Singapore. Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch. It is a long road towards a developed country. And other countries aint standing still
ReplyDeleteDo we still have soldiers in Afghanistan?
ReplyDelete"We decided to test how palatable the newer ration packs are, and begged a meal from the many countries with soldiers in Kabul for a charity dinner in aid of schools in Afghanistan.
On the night, diners chose between food from 11 countries, from Denmark to Spain to Singapore."
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2014/feb/18/eat-of-battle-worlds-armies-fed
Reviewers in Kabul did not have anything good to say about the military rations from Singapore.
ReplyDeleteSee Anon 2.22pm.
In my opinion the response to the KRI Usman-Harun is measured and proper. She is a Bung Tomo class corvette of 2,000 tons, and while she will be the most modern ship in the Indonesian Navy when she commissions, she is no where near the 'flagship' that some here proclaim to be.
ReplyDeleteSingapore has every right to exclude her from entering Singaporean waters, and not conducting joint exercises with that specific ship.
If Indonesia was serious about resolving this matter, a step in the right direction is for the Indonesian President to lay a wreath at McDonald's House, which none have ever done in the last 40 years, while Singapore's then Prime Minister did so in 1973.
Who need it? Kiss my ass dude!
DeleteIndonesia don't need berth their navy ship @singapore port. You think your port so big and beautiful? Keep it for your self
Silly poor...
ReplyDeleteDo you think Indonesia Navyship need to berth Changi or Tuas naval base.
How big Singapore water?
Talk-cock Yaya Papaya.
Please cancelled all the joint- military exercise, call the attache and ambassador from Jakarta. And alienated Singapore from her neighbor.
All if brave just launch torpedo to that ship!
Banning the ship is measured and proper. But uninviting a military delegation who have already been invited is not proper. It's not a contest of showing power.
ReplyDeleteAt anon 5.01 pm...shoot at you for what...declare war for what..we only need to make you look stupid, blind and supporter of terrorism..you will regarded as a pariah state by many. You see Pak... When you deal with Sg, you need to use your brain. You see what we did to Dr Mathathir and friends...reduced to throwing tantrums.
ReplyDeleteStupid? Just look at to the mirror.. How silly and noisy and Kaypoh... Use brain Ah Beng... who catch Mas Slamat? CID? Gurkha? Who catch Mas Slamat Son? SPF that run while his pants wet @ little india? Be Yaya with your neighbour. You will see who last smiles ;p
DeleteDavid, don't you think this trolling has gone on long enough?
ReplyDeleteMeanwhile, in Indonesia entire groups of criminals and terrorists escape from prisons. Indeed, we are laughing at you. Thanks for doing the dirty work for us too in regards to Mas Selamat ;)
ReplyDeletehttp://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_embassies_attack_plot
DeleteFrom where this terorrist? Malaysia?
IQ ratings...urmmm, can you help me spot Indonesia:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.iqtestforfree.net/average-IQ-by-country.html
Or this latest one:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.statisticbrain.com/countries-with-the-highest-lowest-average-iq/
Where's Indonesia?
It just shows Singaporeans are better test takers or more educated, not better problem solvers. No surprise considering the amount of time our kids spend studying.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 6:51PM 19 Feb'14 said...
ReplyDeleteDavid, don't you think this trolling has gone on long enough?
Dear Anon,
Yes, fully agree.
Analytics programmes are collecting data from your visits 24/365.
Bear with us a little more as this is a rare albeit unwelcome opportunity to collect data on a defence-related troll infestation.
We use the data to calculate things like pace, tempo and exchange ratios on certain topics. This helps us work out the intensity and sustainability of cyber world reaction to topics of interest. Our benchmarks have thus far proven fairly accurate.
Wasalaam,
David
My god, it sounds like the US is a ring around Singapore's finger.
ReplyDeleteWhere's bilbo baggins when ya need him. Them trolls be out in force...
ReplyDeleteAnon 6:29pm,
ReplyDeleteI understand you are not happy with comments made by Malaysians toward Singapore, but that does not mean you can throw an unprovoked taunt at Malaysia like now and still be a reasonable Singaporean.
A Malaysian
VIVAnews - Kepala Komunikasi Publik Kementerian Pertahanan, Brigjen TNI, Sisriadi, mengaku tidak ingin terlalu reaktif dalam merespons larangan KRI Usman-Harun melintasi perairan Singapura yang dikeluarkan Menteri Pertahanan Negeri Singa itu.
ReplyDeleteSisriadi hanya merujuk kepada pernyataan Menteri Pertahanan, Purnomo Yusgiantoro, usai menerima kunjungan Menhan sekaligus Perdana Menteri Timor Leste, Xanana Gusmao pada 10 Februari 2014.
Saat itu, Purnomo mengatakan, ketika tiba di Indonesia, KRI Usman-Harun hanya akan beroperasi di perairan RI. Kepada VIVAnews, Selasa, 18 Februari 2014, Sisriadi mengatakan tidak ada alasan juga untuk KRI Usman-Harun melintasi perairan Singapura.
"Untuk apa KRI Usman-Harun melintasi perairan Singapura? Kapal-kapal perang RI tidak akan ke negara lain apabila tidak ada permintaan dari negara yang bersangkutan," kata Sisriadi.
Seperti latihan militer bersama yang pernah digelar angkatan bersenjata Singapura (SAF) dengan ABRI pada 1974 dengan kode sandi "elang". Itu pun terjadi karena adanya nota kesepahaman yang ditandatangani pada waktu itu.
"Lagipula, kapal itu kan kita beli untuk melindungi kedaulatan Indonesia," imbuh Sisriadi.
Hal itu, kata Sisriadi, sesuai dengan sistem pertahanan RI, yakni defensif aktif. RI tidak akan pernah melakukan agresi ke negara lain. "Itu kan juga sesuai dengan kebijakan luar negeri Indonesia yang bebas aktif," kata dia.
Sebelumnya, Menhan Singapura, Ng Eng Hen, di hadapan Parlemen Selasa ini, mengeluarkan dua larangan, yakni melarang KRI Usman-Harun melintasi perairan Negeri Singa dan tentara SAF tidak boleh berlatih militer dengan kapal buatan Inggris tersebut.
AKARTA - Larangan yang dikeluarkan Singapura agar KRI Usman Harun tak bisa melintasi perairan ataupun bersandar di pelabuhan negeri pulau itu dianggap sebagai hal berlebihan. Meski demikian, Indonesia sebaiknya tak usah terlalu menggubris langkah Singapura.
ReplyDeleteMenurut mantan Kepala Staf TNI Angkatan Darat, Jenderal (purn) Pramono Edhie Wibowo, Singapura justru akan rugi sendiri jika sampai berani melarang kapal-kapal perang Indonesia melintasi perairan di negeri yang terletak di sebelah utara Pulau Batam itu. Sebab, jika Indonesia membalas dengan langkah serupa maka kapal-kapal Singapura akan kesulitan beroperasi.
"Laut Singapura kecil. Sepanjang pengetahuan saya, jarang sekali kapal perang kita mengarungi wilayah laut Singapura. Justru kapal perang mereka yang sering memasuki wilayah laut Indonesia," kata Pramono di Jakarta, Rabu (19/2) saat dimintai tanggapan tentang ancaman Singapura atas KRI Usman Harun.
Sebelumnya, Menteri Pertahanan Singapura, Ng Eng Hen menyatakan bahwa pihaknya bersama Angkatan Bersenjata Singapura (Singapore Armed Force) akan melarang KRI Usman Harun memasuki perairan negeri pecahan Malaysia itu. Militer Singapura juga tak akan mau berlayar ataupun berlatih bersama KRI Usman Harun selama Indonesia tak menggubris protes agar nama untuk kapal perang milik TNI AL yang diambil dari dua marinir pelaku pemboman di Orchard Road itu.
Terkait hal itu, Pramono yang kini tercatat sebagai peserta konvensi calon presiden di Partai Demokrat itu mengatakan, penamaan KRI merupakan kewenangan dan hak Indonesia sepenuhnya. Karenanya, langkah pemerintah Indonesia untuk mempertahankan nama KRI Usman Harun sudah tepat.
Pria yang lebih senang dipanggil dengan nama Mas Edhie itu bahkan mengingatkan Singapura agar tak merecoki urusan dalam negei Indonesia. "Penamaan tersebut adalah bentuk penghormatan Indonesia kepada pahlawan yang diabadikan dalam penamaan objek tertentu yang tidak boleh diintervensi oleh negara lain,” pungkasnya. (jpnn)
"as long as a country has a huge economy and a larger population, they can be asses to their smaller neighbours?" - not exactly. Idealism aside, in this world, the very world that we live in, size matters. Using my common sense, if I'm Indonesia, a country much larger and significant than Singapore, why would I have to consult with other countries, ESPECIALLY Singapore before I name my ship? Perhaps you don't even realize how little the Indonesian government think of Singapore. (let me emphasize on that - "government". Not people. I know for a fact that many, many Indonesians think fondly of Singapore, always saying that Singapore is a model of a successful governance and development, which I won't argue about). But as far as the government is concerned, nah, Singapore barely registers on their radar.
ReplyDeleteYou can call Indonesia's move a dickish one (I personally don't think so and I'll elaborate on that later), but I can also call Singapore's 'displeasure' an immature move. Seriously, this whole thing is just like child's play. Oooh you hurt my feelings, now I won't invite you to my party, boo hoo. See what I mean?
Even the great Lee Kuan Yew, father of modern Singapore didn't dare to piss Indonesia off and that's EXACTLY why he scattered flower petals on the grave of these two "terrorists". If that's not burying the hatchet, I don't know what is. In fact, scattering flower petals on a grave of military personnel during an OFFICIAL VISIT by a head of government is a clear-cut sign of paying respect. Now are you one of those Singaporeans who love to "lick what you have spitted"? To take back what you have preached?
The way I see it, Singapore government displayed 2 types of blunders. Firstly, they 'retracted' their respect for the two ex-marines which was established by MM Lee. Secondly, they revoked an official invitation to top Indonesian military officers. I don't know how much you know about ethics, politics, and international relations - but that's as inappropriate as it gets when it comes to relations. Indonesia has every right to be offended, I can assure you. YOU NEVER, EVER, WITHDRAW AN OFFICIAL INVITATION. It's a sign of ill-will and definitely more 'dickish' than Indonesia naming a warship after some ex-marines whom your leader had DEFINITELY paid his respects to.
So you've got a "dickish" neighbor. Everybody has one. You just have to be smart about it. Besides, what can you do? Ban Indonesian products? Your loss. Attack Indonesia? You won't win. Offend Indonesia? No effect (they have no shame anyway). Go report this to UN? Do you think they'll play mommy and make the boo-boo go away? Ban Singaporeans from traveling to Indonesia? The ah-peks will complain because they can no longer get cheap seafood and prostitutes in Bintan anymore. Ban all Indonesians from going to Singapore? then they'll go to Malaysia instead! (Not to mention that they could pull out all their tourist money, investment money, corrupted billions etc out of Singapore...which is what, like, 60% of Singapore economy?)
@ Anon.6.29 You might want to tell your mates the same thing on their comments about us.
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, not all Indonesians seem to adopt the position taken by anonymous posters here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thejakartaglobe.com/opinion/when-terrorists-in-one-country-are-freedom-fighting-icons-in-another/
@ Anon. February 20, 2014 at 7:13 AM - Singapore could always freeze the Singapore bank accounts of Indonesians... ;)
David,
ReplyDeleteYou said "Our defence budget is capped at 6%of GDP".
Officially that may be so but the government owns lots of defence industries so off-books defence spending could be channelled through those entities. So potentially it might be bigger.
For example, ST has been churning out lots of rifles but how much of that is actually driven by the market. How much is that driven by off books funding?
Dear Anon above,
ReplyDeleteIf what you claim is true, I wouldn't want to be an ST Engineering shareholder. Just for the record, am not. I used to be around 1998 after the merger but lost faith with their growth story... :)
re: The rifle analogy. Someone would have to pay for those rifles. And that money would have to come from somewhere.
Weigh the risk-reward ratio. Pull this stunt and risk a whistle-blower emerging out of the woodwork? What for, when the ruling party has an overwhelming majority in Parliament and can pass any bill they want.
In any case, the defence industries (ST Engg and its subsidiaries) are SGX-listed and have their accounts independently audited by reputable firms and quarterly results examined by a small army of pretty smart stock analysts.
Go speak to SAF units. Activity-based budgeting is the order of the day. If we had a blank cheque or if we could creatively shuttle funds here and there, do you think the Navy would have settled for just six Seahawks with all the attendant operational issues that penny-wise decision has spawned today?
Will elaborate more but can we hold that thought till tomorrow's comments on the Budget 2014 please? This post is on Indonesia-Singapore defence relations. TY.
Best regards,
David
http://www.tremeritus.com/2014/02/19/dr-ng-condemns-tis-defence-spending-rating-for-sg/
ReplyDeleteLehman Brothers was also a publicly audited and look what happens when.
At this stage who really knows about the state of defence spending anyway.
Ha Ha Ha David. You make off budget funding sound so sinister. It is normal practice.
ReplyDeletePolitically it sounds nice to have a ceiling but in practice this is often not what happens in reality.
Take the UK for example, their Nuclear submarine funding comes from Ministry of Finance not from the Ministry of Defence. They also have a string of off budget mechanism such as PPI like the funding of the Warthog did not come from Ministry of Defence but through BAE systems via PPI.
Off budget funding could also be indirect for example, R&D credit, etc to seemingly "private" company.
Don't get so work up about it. The 6 percent is for politics, which is necessary, just like US debt ceiling.
The real issue with off budget funding is whether you have visibility. Take Spain, Iceland and Ireland, before the crisis the governments were so prudent that these countries hardly had any debt. In fact compared to Singapore public debt they were the good boys.
But what these countries was not aware off were the banks and in Spain regional government where the combined debt was bigger than the public finance. The debt of these "private" entities was so much bigger than their welfare spending.
Personally I won't be alarm on face value if "official" defence spending is not "capped" at 6%. Nor am I necessarily worried that it could be more than 6% if you took into account other accounting methods. The real question is whatever the level is it sustainable. What that level is anybody's guess.
Singapore calls off 2014
ReplyDeletePatkor Indosin
Fadli, The Jakarta Post, Batam | World | Thu, February 20 2014, 10:05 PM
The Singaporean navy has called off a coordinated patrol that should have started on Monday, an Indonesian Navy officer said on Thursday.
“The Singaporean navy, under the coordination of the Singapore Maritime Security Task Force [MSTF] has requested the 2014 Patkor Indosin be rescheduled to March,” the Indonesian Navy’s Western Fleet Maritime Security Task Force (Guskamla) chief Cmdr. Harjo Susmoro told The Jakarta Post on Thursday.
“We cannot fulfill the request because we have the 2014 Komodo Exercise in March.”
Harjo said the Navy would still carry on with the patrol despite the absence of Singapore.
He said usually the Patkor Indosin took place in the Singapore Strait and Philips Strait and involved four Indonesian warships and two from the Singaporean side.
“The coordinated patrol is very effective to handle transnational crimes,” he said.
The coordinated patrol started in 1992 with Harjo saying that in addition to the patrol, the MSTF and Guskamla also usually held a social activity.
Harjo did want to speculate whether Singapore's pullout was related to the naming of the KRI Usman-Harun, which has sparked protests from Singapore. (nvn)
Lol anon 7.13am. When Sgreans think of Indonesia, the first thing that comes to our minds are maids, corruption and Balis naked beaches.im sure that is the same for many countries. Indonesia is still an under developed country. As for your big country chip on the shoulder, we did not accede to Suhartos request to not hang the terrorists. We did not accede to your extradiction request unless you first oblige to our demanda in the dca. Youre funny. Going to war over a name? If we go to war, we will be seen as the offending party.We merely want to punish you by shaming you. Yup..lil red dot teaching you a lesson in manners. Also, to follow your logic on big countries, you should withdraw from nam, asean and un. You funny lah pak.
ReplyDeleteI know all Singaporeans are so proud with their wealth and look down upon others in the region.
ReplyDeleteBut we will still use the "Usman Harun" name. Both marines are honored for their steadfastness to obey order. I'm sure many Indonesians prefer that they attacked military targets during their mission, instead of a bank. But I assure you, we are not celebrating the death of Singaporean citizens. We are seeing their sacrifice and their willingness to give their lives for the country.
As it is our right to point out that these two chaps are nothing more than terrorists as per international law. In invading the Federation, Indonesia is no different then Japan or Germany. Your acts of naming a ship after terrorists and waging a war must be made known to the world.
ReplyDeletehe!he! Indonesian are proud of their military might just like the japanese in following orders. And we know that the soldiers blind obedience cause untold misery. Thus these soldiers have no humanity/soul in them. This says a lot about indonesians in general if they cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Why does anyone want to be friends with them?
ReplyDeleteNo need to be friend with Indonesian.
ReplyDeleteYou can cancelled all joint military, stop gas supply from Natuna, Food stocks & Fruit supply, Sands, granite, banned man power, sailor, Investor from Indonesia.
Singapore so good no need other country.
How childish..if we are that immature, we would have pulled out our investments in indonesia causing hundreds of thousands or more job loses. Singapore has been the no.1 or no.2 top investor in Indonesia for years. No more billions from Natuna deal, tens of thousands of maids sent home with no income for their families, no more possibility of agreement on extradition policy, Batam collapses economically, etc. So yeah. We are not so evil. But the Indonesian government knows the possible losses.
ReplyDeleteYup just do it quickly dude.
ReplyDeleteIndonesia eagerly kickout Temasek Investment in telco and banking.
The same like Thailand kick Thaksin because selling Shin Corp to Singapore.
Yup just do it quickly dude.
ReplyDeleteIndonesia eagerly kickout Temasek Investment in telco and banking.
The same like Thailand kick Thaksin because selling Shin Corp to Singapore.
Telkom Prioritizes Telkomsel Buyback, Aims To Make it 100% Indonesian
ReplyDeleteelkom is still aiming to get its 35 percent share back from Singapore Telecom (SingTel). The company has made it a priority over its other plans, including acquiring Indosat StarOne.
This buyback issue goes all the way back to 2008. But the pressure is recently getting stronger since government mandated it in a general meeting of Telkom shareholders in May. It encouraged the company, as Telkomsel’s holding company, to complete its share ownership and make it a 100 percent Indonesian cellular company.
The company’s CEO, Rinaldi Firmansyah, was quoted by Bisnis Indonesia as saying that the Telkom will prioritize buyback within the year. He also said that management had informally communicated the buyback plan with SingTel.
This subsequently resulted in the stalling of Telkom’s plan to acquire Indosat StarOne. Even though it aspired to consolidate StarOne with Telkom Flexi, it seems they don’t want to lose the opportunity to boost Telkomsel’s business through a buyback.
Telkom is still waiting for Indosat to follow up on its proposal.
For Natuna will be the best if Singapore stop buying.
ReplyDeleteThere is huge demand from Indonesia market. The Gas selling below market price. So it will be very good if this gas only selling for Indonesia market instead of selling discount to YAYA Papaya Silly-poor.
The Upstream Oil and Gas Regulator (SKK Migas) said Singapore buyers would stop importing gas via pipelines from Indonesia after the import contracts expire.
ReplyDelete"They would not seek extension of contracts as Singapore already has the floating storage and regasification unit (FSRU) facility," acting chief of the SKK Migas J Widjonarko said.
With the FSRU facility gas supply via pipelines to Singapore would be stopped, Widjonarko said here on Wednesday before a meeting with the lawmakers.
Currently Indonesia exports gas to Singapore via pipelines of PT Trans Gas Indonesia from Natuna islands of Riau and South Sumatra across the Malacca strait.
Exports include 300 MMSFD from the Koridor block in South Sumatra operated by ConocoPhillips and 100 MMSFD from Natuna Sea block in the Natuna islands operated by Premier Oil BV.
The gas buyers in Singapore are Sembawang Corporation and Gas Singapore Pvt Ltd (GSPL).
Widjonarko said SKK Migas is ready to implement the government regulation on National Energy Policy (KEN) that calls for stoppage of gas exports.
"We are ready with the plan to build gas infrastructure. When the infrastructure has been available, gas export is no longer needed," he said.
Currently a number of gas infrastructure projects are under construction such as Gresik-Semarang-Cirebon-Jakarta and Arun-Belawan, Lampung, Central Java, Banten, and Cilacap gas pipelines.
Widjanarko said there are not many gas export contracts left other than export via pipeline contracts with Singapore and Malaysia.
"There are only ones with Chinas Fujian, Japan and South Korea which would expire this year," he said.
Commercial deputy of SKK Migas Widhyawan Prawiraatmadja said gas exports could be stopped under "interruptable" contract.
"When the domestic buyers need the gas the exports could be stopped," he said.
The regulation on National Energy Policy requires the government to stop exports of gas and coal to guarantee domestic supply.
The House of Representatives has approved the regulation drafted by the National Energy Council for the 2013-2050 period.
The regulation says national energy requirement is fulfilled such as by cutting or stopping exports.
There has been calls for cutting or stopping exports of gas and coal to meet growing domestic demand for alternative energy amid soaring oil prices.
Source: Antara News
For the maid, no worries...
ReplyDeleteYou can ask auntie or your mother to take care your child. or maybe you prefer bangladeshi, pinay, or Myanmar. I knew you prefer PRC but your wife would not be allowed ;p
Indonesian prefer their fellow citizen not work at Singapore, and tortured like mostly uncivilized singaporean did with their maid.
http://singaporeseen.stomp.com.sg/singaporeseen/this-urban-jungle/maid-felt-like-dying-after-being-kicked-repeatedly-by-boss
http://domesticworkerabuse.pbworks.com/w/page/18056687/FrontPage
David February 19, 2014 at 9:58 PM
ReplyDeleteDon't you think the troll posts are a small number of unemployed bums on each "side"? Is this really a basis for serious study of "cyber world reaction"?
Anon February 24, 2014 at 10:03 PM
ReplyDeletePRC maid? No thanks. Never wanted and never should be allowed! You don't know Singapore. We are not blindly race oriented.
Why should never allowed PRC maid? Than it just really show how racist you are. We are human should never judge others by their profession, skins, and social status.. we all just the same and should treat equally and look down to one another.
DeleteRacist... or intolerant of bad behaviour? That's why I say you don't understand Singapore. Any Singaporean would know why I don't want PRC maids.
ReplyDeleteI won't deny racism exists in Singapore. But to say hire PRC maids just because they are Chinese, no, Singaporeans are not blindly race oriented. Do we look up to mainland China? Also no. I'm sure even from over there, you can see we are not happy with the mass immigration of PRCs.
There have been some killings by Indonesian maids over the years. I will say some of these employers provoked it. With PRC maids instead, we can only speculate what the numbers would have been.
http://www.youtube.com/user/LouisGoodHK/videos
Why Chinese nationals and S'poreans don't always get along
ReplyDeleteShort answer: Two Kiasu BUAY GAM
Long answer:
What might be behind the perceived rudeness or ‘country bumpkin’ image of some Chinese immigrants in Singapore? And can the tension between the Chinese and Singaporeans be explained as a kind of ‘sibling rivalry’ as some people seem to suggest?
In dealing with such a topic, some degree of generalisation is unavoidable. I am aware of the pitfalls of essentialism and Orientalism, but that does not mean we cannot speak of certain socio-culturally shaped behaviours and subjectivities. Statements like “the Chinese are such and such…” or “the Singaporeans are such and such…” are inherently problematic, but have to be used from time to time if one is to talk about these issues at all.
So I crave the readers’ indulgence in bearing with me, while recognising—and recognising that I do recognise too—that social facts are always complicated and nuanced. Again, in my following discussion, I shall be primarily concerned with the Chinese Singaporeans when I refer to ‘Singaporeans’. This, I hope, will not be taken as not acknowledging the complexity of the Singaporean society; instead, it’s because my limited experiences and insights do not allow me to speak on things which I do not know well.
Just a‘PRC rude bumpkin’ or is there something deeper to it…?
At the level of daily contact and interaction, many Singaporeans complain of some Chinese nationals’ coarseness, lack of etiquette, and rude behaviour; others are upset by the perceived aggressiveness or greediness.
While for many keyboard warriors, these stereotypical perceptions of the Chinese have become the basis for their quasi-racist bashings, I notice that Singaporean commentators/scholars often refrain from even touching on these perceptions, presumably because of a fear that the mere mention of them would put them in line with those who are maliciously fixated on negatively stereotyping the "other". Thus, we lose an opportunity to look for a socio-cultural interpretation of these perceptions.
First of all, as I suggested in my previous article, a lot of this has to do with class. In the case of the less privileged Chinese nationals in Singapore such as guest workers, the disdain felt towards them is essentially class-based: The (relatively-speaking) affluent Singaporeans find their behaviour "uncultivated" and "desperate", but sometimes forget that they may indeed be desperate to change their life fortunes through venturing abroad as immigrant labour. This is why disdain is rarely felt towards foreigners from developed countries, many of whom also carry the privileged racial marker (i.e. whiteness). Privileged foreigners in Singapore also tend to be relatively hidden from the public view, as they seldom use public transport or public housing; less contact reduces the chance of developing negative perceptions.
But class is not all, because I think there is a more general sense among many Singaporeans that the Chinese (not necessarily just the less privileged ones but more broadly) don’t like to follow rules, and seem overly aggressive in obtaining or protecting their own interests. Trying to bargain when bargaining is not accepted, not willing to "lose out" in the slightest, disregard of the public interest in order to suit private interests, etc. are perhaps some of the examples that cause Singaporeans to regard Chinese as "uncivilised" or even "disgusting".
Why Chinese nationals and S'poreans don't always get along
ReplyDeleteShort answer: Two Kiasu BUAY GAM
Long answer:
What might be behind the perceived rudeness or ‘country bumpkin’ image of some Chinese immigrants in Singapore? And can the tension between the Chinese and Singaporeans be explained as a kind of ‘sibling rivalry’ as some people seem to suggest?
In dealing with such a topic, some degree of generalisation is unavoidable. I am aware of the pitfalls of essentialism and Orientalism, but that does not mean we cannot speak of certain socio-culturally shaped behaviours and subjectivities. Statements like “the Chinese are such and such…” or “the Singaporeans are such and such…” are inherently problematic, but have to be used from time to time if one is to talk about these issues at all.
So I crave the readers’ indulgence in bearing with me, while recognising—and recognising that I do recognise too—that social facts are always complicated and nuanced. Again, in my following discussion, I shall be primarily concerned with the Chinese Singaporeans when I refer to ‘Singaporeans’. This, I hope, will not be taken as not acknowledging the complexity of the Singaporean society; instead, it’s because my limited experiences and insights do not allow me to speak on things which I do not know well.
Just a‘PRC rude bumpkin’ or is there something deeper to it…?
At the level of daily contact and interaction, many Singaporeans complain of some Chinese nationals’ coarseness, lack of etiquette, and rude behaviour; others are upset by the perceived aggressiveness or greediness.
While for many keyboard warriors, these stereotypical perceptions of the Chinese have become the basis for their quasi-racist bashings, I notice that Singaporean commentators/scholars often refrain from even touching on these perceptions, presumably because of a fear that the mere mention of them would put them in line with those who are maliciously fixated on negatively stereotyping the "other". Thus, we lose an opportunity to look for a socio-cultural interpretation of these perceptions.
First of all, as I suggested in my previous article, a lot of this has to do with class. In the case of the less privileged Chinese nationals in Singapore such as guest workers, the disdain felt towards them is essentially class-based: The (relatively-speaking) affluent Singaporeans find their behaviour "uncultivated" and "desperate", but sometimes forget that they may indeed be desperate to change their life fortunes through venturing abroad as immigrant labour. This is why disdain is rarely felt towards foreigners from developed countries, many of whom also carry the privileged racial marker (i.e. whiteness). Privileged foreigners in Singapore also tend to be relatively hidden from the public view, as they seldom use public transport or public housing; less contact reduces the chance of developing negative perceptions.
But class is not all, because I think there is a more general sense among many Singaporeans that the Chinese (not necessarily just the less privileged ones but more broadly) don’t like to follow rules, and seem overly aggressive in obtaining or protecting their own interests. Trying to bargain when bargaining is not accepted, not willing to "lose out" in the slightest, disregard of the public interest in order to suit private interests, etc. are perhaps some of the examples that cause Singaporeans to regard Chinese as "uncivilised" or even "disgusting".
The reason for such perceived behaviour of the Chinese - insofar as there is some basis in such observations - is socio-historical as well as politico-economic. The 20th Century has been one of extreme turbulence and upheavals for China and its people: from the republic revolution to foreign invasion to civil war to communist revolution to the Cultural Revolution and finally to the post-socialist reform. In the course of this tortuous and turbulent century, the Chinese people have fought foreigners, but have more often fought amongst themselves. Chinese of different localities, ethnicities and ideological beliefs have fought against each other; and, worst of all, in the Cultural Revolution, sometimes family members and close friends and colleagues had had to fight each other in the name of ‘Revolution’. These fights are not just in the metaphorical sense of the word; sometimes they were real blood and tooth fights.
ReplyDeleteIf this "century of fighting" has left some marks on the contemporary Chinese psyche, that aspect of the psyche may involve a belief in fighting in order to survive and achieve goals, instead of placing one’s hope or trust in a system or government. One either has to fight and win, or lose out big time. The PRC’s founder Mao Zedong himself was a stern believer in life as constant revolution and constant fighting.
Note, this is of course not to say that in China, everybody treats everybody else like enemies; if anything, compared to societies with more liberal individualistic values (including Singapore), the Chinese place even more emphasis on interpersonal cordiality, face (mianzi), and guanxi. But at the level of society at large, the abstract and impersonal trust is in deficit: Everybody else is potentially an enemy that one has to either fight or convert into one’s own ally in order to fight somebody else.
At the level of grand politics, we may turn to China’s relatively assertive stance in international relations to get a clue about this belief in conflict and "might is right". At the level of popular culture, we only need to look at the recent Chinese TV drama series Empresses in the Palace (Hougong Zhenhuan Zhuan) and its staggering popularity in China to have a glimpse into this conflict-based life philosophy and practical world-view among many Chinese.
In the post-Mao Chinese society, this ‘philosophy of fighting’ continues to shape the broad contours of social interaction and public culture, albeit in a period of ideological pragmatism and increasing economic prosperity and liberty. Fighting for oneself is still essential, firstly because many Chinese don’t believe rules or laws can sufficiently protect them, secondly because they believe that everybody else is also fighting so one must not be weak. But this time, the ultimate goal of fighting comprises primarily material interests.
Dishonest sellers and manufacturers of daily consumer goods and their immoral business behaviour convince many ordinary Chinese that they need to fight for their own food safety and other consumer rights; government actions that don’t always pay sufficient regard to human rights or other lawful interests convince many ordinary Chinese citizens that they must be able to fight so that they are not ‘run over’. This is quite literally the case in the enforced demolishment of properties (chai qian) that has been controversial in many places all over China in this age of massive modernisation; some private property owners would lie down in the road so the bulldozer cannot proceed to demolish their house.
It is very important to note that the topography of the ‘fighting mentality’ among the Chinese is highly complex: the privileged might find it unnecessary to fight, while the underprivileged have to fight fiercely because life is stacked against them; different people also have different ways of ‘fighting’ - for aspiring students, studying ferociously could be their kind of ‘fight’.
If this "century of fighting" has left some marks on the contemporary Chinese psyche, that aspect of the psyche may involve a belief in fighting in order to survive and achieve goals, instead of placing one’s hope or trust in a system or government. One either has to fight and win, or lose out big time. The PRC’s founder Mao Zedong himself was a stern believer in life as constant revolution and constant fighting.
ReplyDeleteNote, this is of course not to say that in China, everybody treats everybody else like enemies; if anything, compared to societies with more liberal individualistic values (including Singapore), the Chinese place even more emphasis on interpersonal cordiality, face (mianzi), and guanxi. But at the level of society at large, the abstract and impersonal trust is in deficit: Everybody else is potentially an enemy that one has to either fight or convert into one’s own ally in order to fight somebody else.
At the level of grand politics, we may turn to China’s relatively assertive stance in international relations to get a clue about this belief in conflict and "might is right". At the level of popular culture, we only need to look at the recent Chinese TV drama series Empresses in the Palace (Hougong Zhenhuan Zhuan) and its staggering popularity in China to have a glimpse into this conflict-based life philosophy and practical world-view among many Chinese.
In the post-Mao Chinese society, this ‘philosophy of fighting’ continues to shape the broad contours of social interaction and public culture, albeit in a period of ideological pragmatism and increasing economic prosperity and liberty. Fighting for oneself is still essential, firstly because many Chinese don’t believe rules or laws can sufficiently protect them, secondly because they believe that everybody else is also fighting so one must not be weak. But this time, the ultimate goal of fighting comprises primarily material interests.
Dishonest sellers and manufacturers of daily consumer goods and their immoral business behaviour convince many ordinary Chinese that they need to fight for their own food safety and other consumer rights; government actions that don’t always pay sufficient regard to human rights or other lawful interests convince many ordinary Chinese citizens that they must be able to fight so that they are not ‘run over’. This is quite literally the case in the enforced demolishment of properties (chai qian) that has been controversial in many places all over China in this age of massive modernisation; some private property owners would lie down in the road so the bulldozer cannot proceed to demolish their house.
It is very important to note that the topography of the ‘fighting mentality’ among the Chinese is highly complex: the privileged might find it unnecessary to fight, while the underprivileged have to fight fiercely because life is stacked against them; different people also have different ways of ‘fighting’ - for aspiring students, studying ferociously could be their kind of ‘fight’.
And fighting, of course, works — at least sometimes. Since rules and laws seem ultimately man-made and bendable, a lot then depends on one’s own fighting and aggressiveness. So, we hear of the Chinese visitor some time ago who arrived in Singapore without proper immigration papers, but who resisted deportation by "making a scene" at the airport. "Making a scene" in some life situations in China is the expected thing to do, because not doing it means weakness and foolishness.
Arriving in Singapore with the notion that Singapore is a society governed by rules and laws (fazhi shehui, as opposed to China, which is seen as governed by people, renzhi), some Chinese may find their readiness to fight obsolete - this is usually the case with the more privileged and highly-skilled ones; while the less privileged ones may believe that in a more regulated society like Singapore, ‘fighting’ would work even more effectively. Thus, we have the Chinese construction workers who climbed onto cranes as a protest and the SMRT bus drivers who went on a strike.
ReplyDeleteI need to stress here, as people probably already know, that the rules in Singapore outlawing certain forms of industrial actions have their own historical backgrounds and philosophical reasoning; but this is a separate topic altogether which I shall not deal with. I do not want to pass judgment over the Chinese workers’ strikes as right or wrong, but merely seek to explain, from a cultural point of view, their actions to those Singaporeans who were/are apparently disturbed or offended by their actions.
When the "air-conditioned" (borrowing a phrase from scholar Cherian George) Singaporeans, who have mostly relied on an efficient government and a well-regulated social system for their well-being, encounter the immigrant Chinese who, in sharp contrast, have survived big and small things in life through a readiness to fight, it is perhaps small wonder that some Singaporeans feel threatened or even feel themselves outmaneuvered/marginalised; neither of these scenarios, in my opinion, is likely to be objectively true, now or in the future.
This cultural specificity pertaining to the Chinese may also, to some extent, explain why Singaporeans seem less threatened or bothered by immigrants from some other developing nation backgrounds. This is of course not the only reason;
Speaking generally, both the Chinese and the Singaporeans have been constituted as subjects embodying very intensive materialistic desires, although the respective trajectories leading to such desirousness are different. It is commonly agreed that Singapore is a very success-oriented/obsessed society, and Singaporeans often mock themselves for being too kiasu. The problem is, however, that the Chinese come across as even more kiasu, if my previous section on the ‘fighting mentality’ makes some sense. What many Singaporeans are annoyed about the Chinese is precisely the latter’s (perceived) excessive or "disgusting" level of kiasu-ness.
ReplyDeleteWhen two kiasu peoples come face-to-face, competition and tension occur by definition. While Singaporeans often look down on the coarse and underprivileged Chinese guest workers and lowly immigrants, they may also become a tad uncomfortable with those who are doing too well. In the school campus, this may be the ‘PRC scholars’ who seem to grab all the scholarships and ‘A’s; otherwise, for example, the Ferrari driven by Ma Chi cannot be said to have played no role in the society’s reaction to his case.
But more interestingly, in the encounter between two kiasu subjects, there may arise a form of denial and willful misrecognition, which seems to be at the core of the tension and mutual prejudice between the Chinese and Singaporeans in today’s situation. While the Singaporeans are previously quite relaxed with using a bit of kiasu-related self-deprecation - that is to say they are previously willing to half-jokingly call themselves kiasu - when now, confronted by an exaggerated and ‘over-the-top’ version of kiasu-ness, which they see as embodied by the ‘PRCs’, they instead feel horrified, and react by wanting to keep as clear from this horrible figure as possible. The embarrassment or guilt about being kiasu that is felt consciously or unconsciously by Singaporeans make them tend to focus on exactly the kiasu aspects of the Chinese immigrants, so that, by showing there is someone even more grotesquely kiasu, the previous embarrassment or guilt may be relieved or absolved. (In psychoanalysis, this is a process called "projective identification", made famous by Melanie Klein.)
Thus, one of the things that young Chinese Singaporeans seem most keen to avoid when traveling abroad is being mistaken for mainland Chinese. The need to disassociate from ‘PRC-ness’ is so urgent, precisely because the danger of being mistaken always seems so imminent. (By the way, this anxiety over being mistaken does not apply to just the Singaporeans, but often equally applies to Chinese who consider themselves more cosmopolitan, better educated or otherwise superior to the ‘PRC country bumpkins’.)
Some while ago, I observed a Singaporean girl talking about her traveling experience in Europe, and she recalled her experience of being mistaken as ‘from China’ with both amusement and emphatic irritation. Interestingly, this diametrically contrasts with former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew’s evocative account about a very similar experience when he was young, which he recounted in his memoir My Lifelong Challenge: Singapore's Bilingual Journey. In Mr Lee’s case, he regarded being labeled ‘from China’ as an epiphany moment about his cultural-ethnically Chinese identity.
While the contrast between the perspectives of Mr Lee and an ordinary Singaporean girl of today is telling of the journey Singapore has traveled, perhaps it remains the case that the anxiety or danger of being misrecognised as ‘Chinese’ lies at the heart of Singapore’s insecurity and struggle with identity. And this is one more reason why Singaporeans and the Chinese don’t always get along.
PS: anyway if you go to Geylang I bet you still choose PRC ;p