Romanian diplomat's car in hit-and-run: cover up?
-
Singapore issued Interpol warrant WITHDRAWN?
Screen shot Dtd 18April2010
Circa13April2010:
But dun worry lah, Romania will do the final honours I'm sure...
Always thought it right according to the mutually agreed, though high and lofty ideals of the - Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that Romania should be the one to persecute Ionescu, in accordance to the complaints by Singapore, to keep Singapore updated about the progress of such and compensate for all damages caused.
So with Ionescu now off the Interpol list, I hope that we are making mutual progress in resolving this issue now.
Why start a war over the "non-capital" offenses of a drunken diplomat?
Also see:
(Ionescu saga)- Singapore behaving in the likes of a woman scorned.[PG] -
to think abt it.
It's a tricky sitaution. It's like a underaged go murder someone, u can't be waiting till he's 18 to charge him and hang him.
But in any case, his behaviour is good enough to be a big disgrace
-
Originally posted by bic_cherry:
off topic: these things are called "unworthy self-links" in other forums
anyway, back to the topic...
-
Possible consequences on Singapore-Romania relations: analysts
SINGAPORE: Political analysts have floated measures like downgrading diplomatic representation as some steps Singapore could take against Romania if it doesn't bring former diplomat Dr Silviu Ionescu to justice.
Singapore's Foreign Ministry has said there would inevitably be consequences for bilateral relations if justice is not served.
Since Singapore is an open economy dependent on trade, political analysts said it's unlikely to impose economic sanctions on Romanian goods.
However, they pointed out that Singapore's move to remind Romania of the possible consequences on bilateral ties is a timely reminder.
Associate Professor Simon Tay, chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs, said: "I think the statement is important to remind the Romanians that this is not just a government to government issue. This is a people-to-people issue. I think that our attitude should be one of trying to foster co-operation.
“Quite honestly, Singapore is a small country and while economically quite rich, there aren't that many sanctions or sticks that we can really try to hit Romania with."
There are more severe measures a government can take like breaking off diplomatic relations.
But political analysts said this is unlikely to happen.
Still, Singapore could try to lobby support from the European Union of which Romania is a member of.
Associate Professor Alan Chong, S Rajaratnam School of International Studies, said: "These little incidents do add up over time to establish or to brand a country's diplomatic image even among friends like fellow European Union members and so on.
“And certainly if Romania does hope to someday successfully attain the chair of the presidency of the EU, it will have to demonstrate some degree of impeccable credentials or at least be seen to follow the letter of International Law. So I think there's something to be said about Romania's internal calculations."
Last month, the Coroner's Inquiry ruled that Dr Ionescu was the driver of the car that hit three pedestrians on 15 December 2009.
A Joint Commission Meeting between Singapore and Romanian prosecutors is expected to be held by next month. - CNA/vm -
Foreign Ministers of Singapore & Romania discuss Ionescu case
SINGAPORE : Singapore Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo has had a discussion on the Silviu Ionescu case with his Romanian counterpart.
The Foreign Affairs Ministry said the chance opportunity arose as both Mr Yeo and Mr Teodor Baconschi were waiting for their audience with Pope Benedict at St Peter's Square on Wednesday.
MFA in a statement said Mr Yeo expressed the anguish which Singaporeans felt on the case and emphasised the importance of justice being done.
Mr Baconschi replied that he was sympathetic to the feelings of Singaporeans and informed Mr Yeo that the matter was being given the highest attention by the Romanian authorities.
He added that Romania was pursuing the full legal course.
He assured Mr Yeo that justice would be done.
MFA said both Ministers committed themselves to good bilateral relations.
Mr Baconschi then extended an invitation to Mr Yeo to visit Bucharest.
The Singapore Court has ruled that former Romanian diplomat, Dr Silviu Ionescu, was indeed the driver of a car involved in a hit-and-run accident on 15th December last year.
The accident resulted in the death of 30-year-old Singapore permanent resident, Tong Kok Wai, and injured two others.
Dr Ionescu left Singapore on 18 December 2009, three days after the accident.
- CMA/il -
Originally posted by the Bear:
off topic: these things are called "unworthy self-links" in other forumsanyway, back to the topic...
Hi Bear, think it's better to post related links rather then the whole message for the ease of discussion.
-
The gist of my reply to 'Trousers' at A1 forums: 'Ex-envoy (Doctor of Dispicable Crimes) Ionescu not protected by immunity'Quote:Originally Posted by Trouser Press
I ask BicCherry with head buried into sand and clay, whether Ionescu, as a Diplomat, is:
(a) More powerful than an Admiral, General or Air Marshal of respective forces; or
(b) Less powerful.
If Ionescu is more powerful, then the Air Marshals in charge of the Vulcan Bombers, the Admirals in charge of the Nuclear Fleets, and the Generals in Russia in charge of locomotives housing Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles, are below Ionescu, in a sense.
Yes I am being facetious (BicCherry will think that I, an obscure pub-goer from the Bukit Timah area, am the most powerful and likely to start a war if I don't state that I am being facetious).
But as you are the expert on the VCDR, please enlighten me, BiccyBoy. Or go away and find out pls.Sorry about my absence, have been preoccupied with something else.
Tired of your taunting and hyperbolic examples too.
About myself being a Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 'expert', no lah, only use 'Wikipedia' regularly as reference.
So I shall quote about 'Diplomatic immunity' which I have cause to believe, is the stumbling block in relations between BOTH Romania and Singapore thus resulting in this fracas- the 'lack' of 'diplomacy' between the both countries resulting in Ionescu's continued verbiage to the press AND Singapore's abrasive effort at placing Ionescu on the Interpol wanted list (been taken down).Quote:Diplomatic immunity is a form of legal immunity and a policy held between governments, which ensures that diplomats are given safe passage and are considered not susceptible to lawsuit or prosecution under the host country's laws (although they can be expelled). It was agreed as international law in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (1961), though the concept and custom have a much longer history. Many principles of diplomatic immunity are now considered to be customary law. Diplomatic immunity as an institution developed to allow for the maintenance of government relations, including during periods of difficulties and even armed conflict. When receiving diplomats — who are, formally, representatives of the sovereign— the receiving head of state grants certain privileges and immunities to ensure that they may effectively carry out their duties, on the understanding that these will be provided on a reciprocal basis. The red and enlarged font print, to which I highlight, the lack of understanding of, is I believe, the source of all this misunderstanding thus far; the suspicion of the other party notwithstanding.
Key facts I note so far:
1) Romania hasn't withdrawn Ionescu's diplomatic immunity whilst emphasizing it's wishes to abide by convention (he's only 'suspended' apparently).
2) Article 31(4) of the mutually acceded to VCDR, making the specific provision for cases such as this: "The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State."
Regarding Ionescu's verbiage to the press, Singapore need only express dissatisfaction, as well as demand apologies from the Romanian government as, in so far that Romania maintains Ionescu's status as a Romanian Diplomat (for which Singapore respects the Romanian stance), then the Romanian government is diplomatically obliged to ensure his good behavior, as reflective of his status as a 'representative of the Sovereign', his 'freedom' notwithstanding- perhaps a simple SG MFA reminder to the Romain MFA about this matter would simply resolve this problem, (Romania can always comply then to Singapore's use of VCDR article39.2 if Ionescu proves recalcitrant). What for the reporting of Ionescu's comments in both newspapers but to drum up social discord? Not to mention the seeming 'backfire' (~18April2010) of Singapore's Interpol request which has seeming passed without notice.
For writing about the withdrawal of the Interpol notice and my 'marriage satire', I've already been banned and censured at a related forum with little in explanation but "You have been banned from The ******* ***** ********** *****, following previous violations of our rules and regulations. You can no longer post any comments. You are still allowed, however, to browse the forum", perhaps the moderators there, like 'Trousers' are quite suspicious and cynical of differing view points, to this end, I believe our monolithic leadership has well succeeded.
References:
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- Interpol.int
- 18April2010: Ionescu Interpol Notice withdrawn?
- [13Jan2010] Quiet diplomacy not a sign of weakness
Regards
B.C. -
Ionescu still has 'immunity'
ROMANIA sent Singapore a diplomatic note last Friday asserting that former charge d'affaires Silviu Ionescu continues to enjoy diplomatic immunity for the hit-and-run case of Dec 15.
This is puzzling, said Foreign Minister George Yeo, as 'it seems to imply that Romania is now claiming that Dr Ionescu was engaged in official duties at the time of the accident and we do not understand how this can possibly be the case'.
On the other hand, Romanian media reports suggest that the Romanian police may be preparing to arrest the suspended diplomat. The police there have told Interpol that they have the competence to prosecute him and they have started criminal proceedings against him.
'With these conflicting accounts, the sooner the Romanian legal experts visit us to clarify the situation, exchange views and review the evidence with our legal experts, the better,' said Mr Yeo.
He was speaking in Parliament on Monday in response to a question from MP Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) who asked for about the case.
A Coroner's Court had found that Ionescu was behind the wheel of a car that hit three pedestrians along Bukit Panjang Road on Dec 15. One of them later died. Following this, Singapore issued an arrest warrant for Ionescu, and Interpol issued a red notice against him. The notice requests all Interpol member states to look out for him and arrest him, with a view to his extradition.
The Government had also said that based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Rights, Ionescu was not protected by diplomatic immunity for his deeds. Based on Article 39(2), a diplomat loses immunity for private acts once he leaves his post in the host country.
On Monday, Mr Yeo told Parliament that the red notice has been suspended because of the disagreement over the intepretation of the article. In his speech, Mr Yeo also noted that other diplomats in Singapore have told the Government that Dr Ionescu has disgraced the entire diplomatic corps.
'Romania is a member state of the European Union which prides itself on its reputation as a community of values. Bucharest understands that more than Romania's own reputation is at stake and that it must live up to the EU's high standards,' added Mr Yeo.
-- ST
-
Interpol red notice of arrest against Silviu Ionescu suspended
SINGAPORE: Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo said Monday Interpol's Red Notice of arrest against Silviu Ionescu has been suspended.
This is due to disagreement between the two countries as to whether the Romanian diplomat had immunity at the time of accident last December.
During question time, Mr Yeo revealed that the Romanian Foreign Ministry sent Singapore a Third Party Note on Friday, asserting that Dr Ionescu's diplomatic immunity continues.
"We are puzzled as it seems to imply that Romania is now claiming that Dr Ionescu was engaged in official duties at the time of the accident and we do not understand how this can possibly be the case," Mr Yeo explained.
"On the other hand, reports in the Romanian media suggest that some of Dr Ionescu's assets had been seized and the Romanian police may be preparing to arrest him. We have not been unable to confirm these reports.
"But the Romanian Police has informed Interpol that the competence to prosecute Dr Ionescu remains with Romania and the criminal proceedings against him have started in Romania for crimes committed in Singapore."
Nonetheless, Mr Yeo, who met his Romanian counterpart at the Vatican a few days ago, said the Romanian government has been acting properly in Dr Silveo Ionescu's case.
He said Singapore has to allow them time to go through their own internal procedures.
"I believe the Romanian Government understands this and would not see the entire country's name tarnished by the actions of one rogue diplomat," Mr Yeo said. "Romania is a member state of the EU, which prides itself on its reputation as a community of values.
"Despite the impatience that we feel, we must however be disciplined and carefully observe due process. We are a country that respects the law and this reputation is an invaluable asset we must preserve by handling the case calmly in accordance with our legal system and international legal obligations.
"Now that the Romanian Authorities have begun their criminal investigations aginst Dr Ionescu we must give them time to complete these investigations and not prejudge the outcome."
Mr Yeo said he hopes officials and legal experts from both sides could meet soon, under a joint working group that has been formed for this purpose.
Singapore is also engaging a lawyer to hold a watching brief in Romania.
- CNA/yb -
I think that the key pt here is that Romania is arguing based upon Article 31(1) and (4), for which I believe that they are amply correct at this point of time.Quote:
Interpol Red Notice of arrest against Silviu Ionescu suspended
By S Ramesh |Posted: 26 April 2010 1631 hrs
SINGAPORE: Singapore Foreign Minister George Yeo said Monday Interpol's Red Notice of arrest against Silviu Ionescu has been suspended.
This is due to disagreement between the two countries as to whether the Romanian diplomat had immunity at the time of accident last December.
During question time, Mr Yeo revealed that the Romanian Foreign Ministry sent Singapore a Third Party Note on Friday, asserting that Dr Ionescu's diplomatic immunity continues.
A31.1 states: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ..."
A31.4 states: "The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State."
I must add however, that I think the key to solving this problem is in the understanding the spirit in which the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) (please click on the link, the preamble is contained in the first few sentences, sentence 2 and 3 being the most important).
So since Ionescu was indeed a 'diplomat' at time of the accident, and with Article 31.1 stating in clear English: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ...", why is our Minister accusing the Romanian Gov of classifying Ionescu's drunken night out as "official duties"? As far as I know, Ionescu, committing the offense whilst serving as a diplomat is immune to SG laws by agreement, period.Quote:"We are puzzled as it seems to imply that Romania is now claiming that Dr Ionescu was engaged in official duties at the time of the accident and we do not understand how this can possibly be the case," Mr Yeo explained.
Article 31.4 provides recourse to that, and Romania, now salvaging its pride, should be rightfully be allowed to uphold it's side of the bargain according to the prior agreement.
Hath our own Minister lapsed in his appreciation of the spirit of the VCDR as mentioned in the short preamble paragraph: ".... the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations concerning the sovereign equality of States, the maintenance of international peace and security, and the promotion of friendly relations among nations,..."?
So if in the first place, if Singapore indeed accepts Romania as a "sovereign state", and through the VCDR accepted the validity of Romanian laws and persecution system as applicable to its diplomats, then in accordance to VCDR Article 31.4, shouldn't Singapore should allow Romania opportunity to perform its rightful part in solving this problem?
Singapore's back peddling and insinuations about the credibility of the Romanian Government are thus inappropriate and insulting.
Romania's time-line of case, published by TODAY newspaper (10Apr2010) is viewable here. I think that the Romanians are doing all that is reasonable in cooperating with the Singapore investigations/ persecution. Singapore should learn to cooperate better with the Romanian effort.Quote:"On the other hand, reports in the Romanian media suggest that some of Dr Ionescu's assets had been seized and the Romanian police may be preparing to arrest him. We have not been unable(sic) to confirm these reports.
Ditto explained as above. Singaporean politicians, as usual, never give any others a chance to speak.Quote:"But the Romanian Police has informed Interpol that the competence to prosecute Dr Ionescu remains with Romania and the criminal proceedings against him have started in Romania for crimes committed in Singapore."
Wayang show... diplomacy by coincidence... Romanian ambassador to Singapore n their current 'chargé d'affaires' already should be contactable by phone 24/7 n the Minister must make a big report out of a chance meeting, as announcement of our Minister's great luck and commitment to this cause har?Quote:Nonetheless, Mr Yeo, who met his Romanian counterpart at the Vatican a few days ago, said the Romanian government has been acting properly in Dr Silveo Ionescu's case.
From 'Romania's MFA gives its account': "Feb 11 Romania’s Justice Minister asks Singapore to set up a joint commission on the case. Singapore says the proposal was made in letter dated Feb 24 and conveyed to the Republic only on March 8."..."Singapore's MFA explained to Mr Neagu on Friday(9April) that it was not possible to have formed the JTWG, which will collate such details, sooner than March 31 - which was when the Coroner gave his findings." ... quite a circus the way these 2 MFAs communicate... even after almost '43 years of diplomatic relations'- (quote: 8April report-'International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu').Quote:He said Singapore has to allow them time to go through their own internal procedures.
Yes, n Singapore too should start reading about Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations front to back and not the reverse, so as to avoid 'putting the cart before the horse', and thus offending others unwittingly. Calling upon the police to solve a 'problem amongst neighbors', only to have the 'arrest request' suspended; to think that this still happens after almost 43years of mutual relations is telling upon the finesse, or lack of, in which Singapore deals with its foreign relations.Quote:"I believe the Romanian Government understands this and would not see the entire country's name tarnished by the actions of one rogue diplomat," Mr Yeo said. "Romania is a member state of the EU, which prides itself on its reputation as a community of values.
"Despite the impatience that we feel, we must however be disciplined and carefully observe due process. We are a country that respects the law and this reputation is an invaluable asset we must preserve by handling the case calmly in accordance with our legal system and international legal obligations.
"Now that the Romanian Authorities have begun their criminal investigations against Dr Ionescu we must give them time to complete these investigations and not prejudge the outcome."
So please, can the both countries please stick with prior agreements, stop all this stupid public posturing, and show some commitment to our commitments and mutual agreements, for once, because 43 years is a long standing relationship; and I'm sure that the citizens of both countries are expecting some positive results soon.Quote:Mr Yeo said he hopes officials and legal experts from both sides could meet soon, under a joint working group that has been formed for this purpose.
Singapore is also engaging a lawyer to hold a watching brief in Romania.
- CNA/yb
We have wasted enough time on this drunken and noisy clown, anyone game now for the real work of diplomacy?
References:
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- INTERPOL Notices & Diffusions
- [13Jan2010] Quiet diplomacy not a sign of weakness
- [MyPaper 23Feb2010] Let Romania deal with diplomat
- "România and Singapore established on 30 May 1967, diplomatic relations between the embassies according to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."(8April2010: Bucharestherald.ro) International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu
- 18April2010: Ionescu Interpol Notice withdrawn? -
Romanian envoy summoned
SINGAPORE has summoned Romanian ambassador Aurelian Neagu to a meeting here later this week to clarify comments by his government that former charge d'affaires Silviu Ionescu continues to enjoy diplomatic immunity.
The comments were made in a third party diplomatic note to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) last Friday.
Disclosing this in Parliament yesterday when updating Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC) on the latest developments, Foreign Minister George Yeo said: 'We are puzzled as it seems to imply that Romania is now claiming that Dr Ionescu was engaged in official duties at the time of the accident and we do not understand how this can possibly be the case.'
Romania cited Article 39(2) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to back its contention.
But Mr Yeo pointed out that the Vienna Convention recognises the difference in the privileges and immunity that diplomats have during their posting to a country, and after they leave the country at the end of their posting.
Article 39(2) says immunity usually ends after a diplomat leaves his posting, except for acts performed 'as a member of the mission'.
-- ST
-
all this is just wayang for the people. if it was LL's grandson that got killed wat do you think will happen instead?
-
Romanian envoy to meet MFA
ROMANIAN ambassador Aurelian Neagu is expected to turn up at the Foreign Affairs Ministry here on Thursday to clarify his government's comment that former charge d'affaires Silviu Ionescu continues to enjoy diplomatic immunity.
The confirmation of the meeting came in a statement from the MFA on Wednesday.
Singapore summoned Mr Neagu, who is based in Japan, earlier this week after it received a diplomatic note from the Romanian Foreign Ministry that the Dr Ionescu's diplomatic immunity 'continues to subsist'.
This differed from Singapore's interpretation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
In Parliament on Monday, Foreign Minister George Yeo said he was 'puzzled' as Romania's message implied that Dr Ionescu was on official duty at the time of the accident on Dec 15, when three pedestrians were hit by the Romanian embassy's Audi A6 car along Bukit Panjang Road.
One of them died later from his injuries.
-- ST
-
What Romania is saying is that they intend to protect their diplomatic corps and not hang them out to dry when they get into trouble. They will not compromise their sovereignty, which is in this case to decide not to arrest a member who was once part of their foreign office, just because another country demands them to.
"Justice" will be done, assures Romania. But Justice is not an equal concept. It is also about knowing one's position in the international system. As long as Singapore is not willing to exert any leverage on Romania, they aren't inclined to respond to our interpretation of "Justice."
We missed our opportunity to nail him when he was in our country. Chances of us dragging his sorry ass back here to trial him for manslaughter, drunk driving etc is virtually zero. Hinting at the EU's views on Romania because of this incident was a nice but futile play. Gotta try harder.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
What Romania is saying is that they intend to protect their diplomatic corps and not hang them out to dry when they get into trouble. They will not compromise their sovereignty, which is in this case to decide not to arrest a member who was once part of their foreign office, just because another country demands them to.
They will arrest, but subject to their own Jurisdiction according to VCDR agreement.
Originally posted by Shotgun:"Justice" will be done, assures Romania. But Justice is not an equal concept. It is also about knowing one's position in the international system. As long as Singapore is not willing to exert any leverage on Romania, they aren't inclined to respond to our interpretation of "Justice."
Equal/ not equal, they are our 'guests', we may not break agreements, but we can keep sharp eye and make sure Romania carry out it's side of the responsibilities to the full extent of Romanian laws.
Originally posted by Shotgun:We missed our opportunity to nail him when he was in our country. Chances of us dragging his sorry ass back here to trial him for manslaughter, drunk driving etc is virtually zero. Hinting at the EU's views on Romania because of this incident was a nice but futile play. Gotta try harder.
Pls see my next post for details to a/m issue, which has to be answered by articles of the VCDR. Tks.
-
FYI, my response on 30Apr2010 to 'icemanV' on the A1 forums:Quote:Originally Posted by BicCherry, 27-04-2010, 05:29 AMI think that the key pt here is that Romania is arguing based upon Article 31(1) and (4) of the VCDR, for which I believe that they are amply correct at this point of time.
A31.1 states: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ..."
A31.4 states: "The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State."... ...Quote:Originally Posted by Noobcake, 27-04-2010, 03:03 PMPerhaps, Singapore MFA is too pushy and bossy in their approach
with Romania. Respect goes both way.Quote:Originally Posted by icemanV (27-04-2010, 04:05 PM )Enough pressure on MFA? Why don't you tell that to the parents, wife and relatives of the dead. To lick boots on the expense of the dead. Who can go lower than that?Hi 'icemanV', whilst I'm inclined to agree with 'Noobcake'- that "(SG) MFA is too pushy and bossy in their approach"- Romanian MFA isn't without fault either. All in, I was just shocked and saddened that SG actually decided to put Ionescu on the Interpol wanted list, which I felt was just an unnecessary knee jerk reaction, apt to cause surprise and offense to our other relations; and as I had earlier described in my last response- to me a confirmation that even after almost 43 years of mutual Diplomatic relations, our mutual relations haven't much improved . Other then warning the world of Ionescu's misdeeds, I felt that we were simply using the wrong forum in our 'desperate' quest for Justice- one that despite our 'connections', promptly 'backfired' as the case currently turns out.
This is not to say that Singapore's use of Article 39.2 is without recourse, however, I feel that this is certainly not yet the time for it, and as is evidently the case currently, the use of A39.2 has made clowns out of both of us, with SG now 'taunting' Romanian Ambassador Neagu with difficult and unnecessary questions, "... He was asked three times by Singapore if he or the Romanian government would consider attending the birthday party of a hostess in a karaoke lounge as being part of official diplomatic functions.", "The ambassador failed to answer the question".
Needless to say, I accept A31.4 (as a/m appended) to be the mutually agreed and pre-determined standing agreement by which such incursions should be resolved; in other words, Ionescu's persecution for offenses here ought be by the Romanian Justice system.
Now everyone is watching the outcome of this case and how these 2 relatively 'young' countries resolve their 'problem', keeping in mind the internationally accepted sanctity of diplomatic relations.
To deviate from pre-agreed contract requires mutual consent and it is this deviation by both parties that I view with suspicion and scorn.
I apologize for any misunderstanding caused thus far if you were given to thinking that I might be excessively biased towards Romanian MFA, however, to list a diplomat through unilateral decision on the Interpol wanted list is quite an outlandish and destabilizing motion don't you think?
To grant another sovereign's representatives diplomatic status under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations is a sign of respect for the diplomat and by proxy, the sovereign he represents- that the diplomat's home rule of law be considered as acceptable, at least for the regulation and thus 'convenience' of the host endorsed diplomats- such is the privilege enjoyed by 'diplomats', historically an important profession integral in its contribution to the good relations between two countries- premised upon the ideal that negotiations and dealings between sovereigns should be conducted on 'equal' terms.
Singapore having agreed to the 'lofty' terms of the VCDR without overt exception, is thus now ill advised to nit-pick over the terms of the VCDR but abide graciously with it in its full spirit and form, with Romania expected to respond in its part by charging Ionescu for his crimes. With article 31(4) predefining the jurisdiction under which persecution should occur as that of the Romanian Justice System.
Romania is our guest in this case, as honorable host, we are obliged to commence our negotiations granting them some allowance, without undue pressure, to perform their due response in abidance to a mutual pre-agreed 'contract'- and I repeat, prosecute Ionescu for his crimes under Romanian law. Disregard for such (like prematurely ratting to the Interpol) is a definite deviation from a mutually pre-agreed 'contract' and implies disrespect for the mutual ideals by which the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations was acceded to; not to mention, Singapore's implicit/ explicit endorsement of Ionescu's activities through failure by Article 9(1), to at 'pleasure', expel Ionescu prior to the accident occurring, thus implicitly 'permitting' his less then honorable behaviors as described thus far.
A9(1) states: "The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State."
Given to the fact that Article 2, the first condition under the VCDR states: "The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent."
It is thus without doubt, that the resolution of the a/m said problem ought be resolved by the pre-existing mutual agreement, and not by unilateral dissent.Quote:Originally Posted by Trouser PressI think it's quite clear that the guy who keeps writing walls of words pretty much is on the side of Romania and has an amazing faith in their competency.
He's either a local puff with a Romanian boyfriend or has some motivation behind loving a country which has no impact on Singapore apart from the export of some seriously crap diplomats.
He has to be mildly puffy to have his "Romania First" policy, and barely mention the vics, suffice to say he wants them to have "compensation".
...Ditto the response above...
Will respond to questions, not taunting dear.
References:
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- INTERPOL Notices & Diffusions
- [13Jan2010] Quiet diplomacy not a sign of weakness
- [MyPaper 23Feb2010] Let Romania deal with diplomat
- "România and Singapore established on 30 May 1967, diplomatic relations between the embassies according to the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs."(8April2010: Bucharestherald.ro) International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu
- CNA29April2010: "... was asked three times by Singapore if he or the Romanian government would consider attending the birthday party of a hostess in a karaoke lounge as being part of official diplomatic functions."- 'Romanian ambassador says full legal action will be taken against Ionescu if needed' -
My own opinion:
No matter what shield or laws you have or it happened while on duty or not when you hit a person with a car you are driving, drink drunk and drive like an irresponsible person, failing to even stop and help a person on the verge of death who knows maybe rushing the people to hospitals ER instead can change the course of action and made you a hero.
Singaporeans were also found commiting offences in other countries, so does people of other nationalities with gobalisation people move around and travel much often to trade and communicate.
Singapore did our part with our side of the investigation. We are now pointing our facts to the driver and murderer being the diplomat. The diplomat or responsible party should in the right course of action send a representatiive group, investigators or lawyers over for investigation to prove that the diplomat was not the driver.
Fcuk international law. If we don't do this what's there to stop the diplomats from other countries doing the same thing next time? Why then did the diplomats from other countries not do any hit and run? Why then did the current diplomats from Romanian not do any hit and run? Why then do you think those people who did not do any hit and run not do it? Think and the answer is quite clear.
I believe Romanians and Singaporeans are civilized and well behaved people. Its not worth keeping any national pride just for one black sheep bad hat. To start with its more about humanity and doing what is right. Humanity God preaches and Law in the right hand covers.
-
S'pore envoy to hasten probe
A SPECIAL envoy has been appointed to help speed up investigations by Romanian officials into its former charge d'affaires to Singapore, Silviu Ionescu.
The task of safeguarding the Republic's interest has been entrusted to Singapore's Ambassador in Brussels, Mr Anil Kumar Nayar, said the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) yesterday.
It issued a statement following a meeting with the Romanian Ambassador, Mr Aurelian Neagu, during which the delay in a visit to Singapore by Romanian officials was discussed.
Three weeks ago, Singapore invited Romania to confirm dates for when its investigators would arrive to study the evidence against Ionescu.
Romanian prosecutors had said they were investigating the former diplomat for hitting three pedestrians along Bukit Panjang Road in a fatal hit-and-run accident last December.
It can only decide whether to prosecute Ionescu after the review.
-- ST
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
My own opinion: ...
Fcuk international law. If we don't do this what's there to stop the diplomats from other countries doing the same thing next time? Why then did the diplomats from other countries not do any hit and run? Why then did the current diplomats from Romanian not do any hit and run? Why then do you think those people who did not do any hit and run not do it? Think and the answer is quite clear.Hi TM2005, U might be interested in the following reply I made at an adjacent forum as 'international law' is the current means by which Romania and SG are resolving the current problem:-
long2010: "he will be free"
Hi 'long2010':
long2010, 30April2010 10:05 PM wrote: he will be free
Article 31(4) of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic RelationsA31.4 states: "The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State."... ...
Thus if what Ionescu did, if under Romanian law is considered a crime, den he should be penalized under the Romanian Justice system for that crime, dat is why I've been saying tt SG must cooperate with Romanian efforts to persecute ionescu and not practice brinkmanship, nit-pick VCDR and try to "do it ourselves". That just cannot be.
Interpol notice gives Romania no choice but to 'protect' Ionescu because by the VCDR 'contract', Ionescu is first and foremost their diplomat and by A31.1: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ..."
The management of the Ionescu offense is based upon the VCDR which bestows upon Romania the responsibility of persecution, so long as Ionescu committed the crimes whilst under 'diplomatic status'; thus Singapore's utilization of utilization of Article 39.2 is premature to say the least, and this has caused unnecessary offense at this early point of time in the mutual effort of resolving the Ionescu problem.
This is because whilst A39.2 might seem applicable, it remains subservient to A31.1. Both are appended for convenience as follows:
- Article31.1 states: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ..."
- Article 39.2: "When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country..."
I believe it to be the case that A31.1 takes precedence over A39.2. I.e. A39.2 being only as a recourse to the failure of A31.4, itself being recourse to A31.1. The simple reason, one must appreciate the spirit of the VCDR in essence contained within the 'preamble' (first paragraph) and for the simple reason that A31.1 precedes A31.4 and then A39.2- sequentially.
Common sense dictates that one reads any document front to back and not vice versa.
So really, the premature use of A39.2 is an insult to the intelligence of the Romanian govt, insinuating their incompetence, its application clearly implying Singapore's distrust in the Romanian effort at upholding Justice- that Romania would not persecute Ionescu despite Romania's clear statements thus far that they DO wish to pursue the Ionescu case. So Romania will of course vehemently defend itself against Singapore's brinkmanship maneuvers and, for better or worse, show that they too CAN and will handle case- so Interpol notice has since been suspended- more time wasted, not to mention Singapore being 'pwned' in this process.
Worse still is SG still trying desperately trying to 'prove its point' with insulting and stupid 'trick' qns to Romanian ambassador, like [see ref: CNA29April2010] "... He was asked three times by Singapore if he or the Romanian government would consider attending the birthday party of a hostess in a karaoke lounge as being part of official diplomatic functions."
I say, they should just mutually cooperate and bring Ionescu to justice in a quick, fast, efficient and transparent manner, but to invoke A39.2 now is to put the 'cart before the horse' an unwise action that is ought to rouse suspicion and refute, delaying the entire judicial process not to mention derailing the entire resolution process into no more then a mutual circus act, much to gee of Ionescu but the detriment of Sovereign reputations with Ionescu possibly getting away scot free in this instance.
Right now all I see is just obviously egoistical political posturing, Singapore being the aggressor, with both sides now just wasting time and resource on ceremonies like 'summons' and plane rides when in this day and age of hand phones, emails and video conferencing, diplomats and the MFAs should have been working together efficiently, quietly achieving much progress behind the scenes.
The only benefactor thus far seems to be Ionescu, his evil ideals and SPH et al which profits from the selling of newspapers reporting scandalous news.
--------------------------
About Ionescu's blabbering mouth,
SG papers should just STOP interviewing him ASAP, Romanian govt has already 'dissociated' itself from Ionescu's comments after clarification and Singapore newspapers should be supportive of Singapore's diplomatic efforts in this respect.
Indeed Singapore might be well placed to advise Romania given its expertise I'm sure- on the 'Laws on sedition', which Romania might have overlooked, that it would be in Romania's (not to forget mutual) benefit that Romania silence that weasel diplomat of theirs that so long as he holds 'diplomatic position', then he ought to behave the part and obey Romanian MFA instructions not to make any further unofficial comments/ press interviews related to the accident, his work as a diplomat or any other matter that might impede SG-Romanian discussions and relations. Should Ionescu fail to comply, Romania can then consider its anti-sedition laws to further prosecute Ionescu for his blatant dereliction of his commitment to uphold mutual good relations between the sovereigns as a serving Romanian Diplomat, via contravening of instruction not to rouse animosities between Romania and its relations through unsanctioned interviews with newspapers, notwithstanding the fact that Ionescu would have been offered ample opportunity to state his case/ defend himself in both the SG Coroners court as well as the Romanian criminal courts respectively- the authorized forums on occasion.
Worse come worse, Romania can prosecute Ionescu under "internal security act", and hold him without trial 'indefinitely' for blatantly subverting the interest of his Country and Government.
Only with proof of blatant Romanian Govt subversion of Justice can Singapore invoke Article 39.2 and as such, only with proof that 1) Ionescu is no longer a diplomat by either Romanian MFA assent, or 2) Singapore has informed Romania that Ionescu is a ' persona non grata' (in accordance with Article 9.1) and that the outcome of negotiations between Romania and SG have met abject and total failure, should Interpol reconsider publishing Singapore's notice of arrest for Ionescu.
In this regard, with the close cooperation between Singapore and Romania, as is the expected outcome of our mutually close relations after almost 43years of diplomacy, Ionescu would indeed be brought to Justice.
With our commitment, shall the VCDR be invoked 'to the t'; may we not fail in our relations as we await Romania's honorable response.
May God help us both.
Just my 2c, thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
Quotes and References:
- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations
- INTERPOL Notices & Diffusions
- [13Jan2010] Quiet diplomacy not a sign of weakness
- [MyPaper 23Feb2010] Let Romania deal with diplomat
- "România and Singapore established on 30 May 1967, diplomatic relations between the embassies... ."(8April2010: Bucharestherald.ro) International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu
- ST,Apr 27, 2010: "Yesterday, Ionescu told The Straits Times he had gone to a Romanian court last Friday to seek ..."- ''Immunity' for Ionescu to be clarified'
- CNA29April2010: "(Romanian Ambassador Neagu)... was asked three times by Singapore if he or the Romanian government would consider attending the birthday party of a hostess in a karaoke lounge as being part of official diplomatic functions."- 'Romanian ambassador says full legal action will be taken against Ionescu if needed' -
Thanks for the information. Very concise with quotes from various sources. Next time i see any emabssy cars or cars with flag, bypass any countries' embassy i will be careful, very careful when dealing with these people.
Also a note to anyone who like me may not be familiar with international laws and certain (shitty) rights in another way given to ambassies. Better to stay out of the way of them.
Also i think any countries' governemnt should also note and review the behaviour of representative of foreign ambassies and constantly or periodically update their country on anyone found not beahaving right or has been constantly breaking the laws of the country he or she maight have been stationed in. If the person has been a repeat offended is there any law to request the country to have him or her replaced or reviewed or warned?
-
Originally posted by troublemaker2005:
Thanks for the information. Very concise with quotes from various sources. Next time i see any emabssy cars or cars with flag, bypass any countries' embassy i will be careful, very careful when dealing with these people.
Also a note to anyone who like me may not be familiar with international laws and certain (shitty) rights in another way given to ambassies. Better to stay out of the way of them.
Also i think any countries' governemnt should also note and review the behaviour of representative of foreign ambassies and constantly or periodically update their country on anyone found not beahaving right or has been constantly breaking the laws of the country he or she maight have been stationed in. If the person has been a repeat offended is there any law to request the country to have him or her replaced or reviewed or warned?Hi 'TM2005', thanks for your response,
In accordance to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR), which both countries quote and abide by,
Article 9(1),states as follows:
"The receiving State may at any time and without having to explain its decision, notify the sending State that the head of the mission or any member of the diplomatic staff of the mission is persona non grata or that any other member of the staff of the mission is not acceptable. In any such case, the sending State shall, as appropriate, either recall the person concerned or terminate his functions with the mission. A person may be declared non grata or not acceptable before arriving in the territory of the receiving State."
Thus U can see that the VCDR which is a mutual agreement, allows the 'receiving' state a significant if not absolute control over who is acceptable and granted 'diplomatic immunity' and who isn't.
Singapore must thus be careful in the first place about whom if accepts as 'diplomats' and under what conditions they should operate. In our current instance, Singapore DOES NOT seem to have a reciprocal embassy in Romania and this could be why SG is so eager to hurl Ionescu back under A39.2 which is evidently inappropriate as at present.
Thus given the mutual troubles with resolution that we are currently going through at present, Singapore would be well placed to better screen and monitor both existing as well as diplomats it agrees to receive. A reciprocal arrangement in evfery case would be good. Otherwise, my suggestion would be to just allow them to operate an admin office here without diplomatic status- whatevers appropriate- and trade shouldn't be the principle consideration in the establishment of diplomatic relations.
BUT as for the current case, Singapore having earlier issued the 'blank check' on immunity locally, shouldn't now renege, by improperly cherry picking VCDR A39.2 (instead of the proper sequence of A31.1- A31.4- A39.2 in my opinion as my last post esplained) much to the dismay of the Romanian Authorities, and thus behaving like a 'woman scorned' as I'd alluded to before (pg 6 this thread or updated here)- how then do U then expect Romania to respond!!!???.
That said, I'm happy thus far that NTUC Income, being the designated insurer for the embassy car, will be able to cover for all damages payable to the victims as a result of the accident caused. (Ionescu later negotiating whatever liability should NTUC later argue the case to be).
I really do hope that the both countries can continue to cooperate willingly and efficiently in the true spirit of the VCDR and bring Ionescu to Justice as he deserves. The brinkmanship I see thus far brings no favors to the rest of us, as all this confusion only serves to create more conflict and confusion amongst us all, much to the gee of Ionescu and the likes of him.
Rgds,
B.C.
-
Romanian court rejects Ionescu request to cancel arrest warrant
SINGAPORE: Former Romanian Charge d'Affaires to Singapore, Silviu Ionescu, has failed in his attempt to get the arrest warrant issued against him cancelled.
The Bucharest Court of Appeal rejected the request on Thursday saying it was "out of the question, Romanian media Nine O'clock reported on its website.
Prosecutors had earlier called on the courts to reject the request describing it as unacceptable.
However, the ruling may be appealed at the High Court.
Dr Ionescu had claimed that his rights were impaired, as the warrant prevented him from leaving the country.
He's wanted in connection with two hit-and-run accidents in Singapore last December that left one person dead.
A coroner's inquiry in Singapore revealed that Dr Ionescu was the driver of the car involved in the accidents.
Singapore issued an arrest warrant against him on April 1.- CNA/vm
-
b.l.o.o.d w.a.s i.n h.i.s h.a.n.d....h.e. m.u.s.t d.i.e
-
Singapore should withdraw Interpol Notification, premised upon Romanian guarantee - Today, 07:09 PM
Singapore should withdraw Interpol Notification, premised upon Romanian guarantee that Ionescu NOT be allowed to leave home AND Romania cooperate fully under the terms of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) to bring Ionescu to justice.
Quote:19:55 | 25/04/2010
Silviu Ionescu sues the state of Singapore
Romania's former attaché in Singapore, Silviu Ionescu filed on Friday, at the Bucharest Court of Appeals, a criminal lawsuit against the state of Singapore, seeking the cancellation of the international arrest warrant issued against him in Singapore, in the case of the accident that led to the death of a Singaporean in December 2009, Mediafax reports.
According to Silviu Ionescu, the authorities of the Asian state knew the warrant is illegal to begin with, and this is why they sent to Romanian authorities the result of the investigation they conducted in Singapore, which demonstrates that they acknowledge the competence of Romanian Justice to issue a verdict in this case.
He added that the existence of the arrest warrant, though rejected by Romanian authorities on legal grounds, puts him under stress and damages his image in Romania and abroad, and it was both unnecessary and illegal to issue the warrant at this moment.Yes, sorry to say this, but by my current reading of the VCDR, I believe the Singapore issued Interpol Arrest request for Ionescu is premature, contentious and without further review, risk derailing the entire negotiatory process with Romania.
Ionescu of course, with his cunning, has verily manipulated this unfortunate 'situation of suspense' to his personal advantage, stymieing the entire diplomatic-legal process with his incessant verbiage and antics both in print and in court.
To start, I believe Singapore's use of Article 39.2 (appended forth):Quote:A39.2: "When the functions of a person enjoying privileges and immunities have come to an end, such privileges and immunities shall normally cease at the moment when he leaves the country..." to be premature and inappropriate.
The most important part of the VCDR, the preamble is contained in the document's very first paragraph. Likewise, I accept the validity of every subsequent article, only as hinging upon the consideration of those aforementioned (in the spirit of the law of course- there is an order to every written law).
For example, Article 2, the very first and a 'foundational' article states:Quote:A2: "The establishment of diplomatic relations between States, and of permanent diplomatic missions, takes place by mutual consent." Likewise, without the satisfaction of A2, little if any recourse, nor reference, to the terms of agreement via the VCDR can be established (pre-determined mutual agreements of the contrary excepted).
Given the following ('all encompassing') articles of precedence- Articles 31.1 and 31.4 (appended as follows):Quote:- A31.1 states: "A diplomatic agent shall enjoy immunity from the criminal jurisdiction of the receiving State. ..."
- A31.4 states: "The immunity of a diplomatic agent from the jurisdiction of the receiving State does not exempt him from the jurisdiction of the sending State."(A31.4 itself being recourse to A31.1)
I consider A39.2 to be applicable only as a recourse, conditional upon the failure of the sending state, to perform its side of the deal in upholding justice as defined in the mutual agreements in accordance to the spirit of the VCDR A31.4.
The application of A39.2 is thus only appropriate with adequate evidence to the contrary of A31.4 being fulfilled and Singapore in its haste, has failed in this respect.
The ill-conceived and premature raising of the Interpol warrant of arrest is presumptuous and thus accusatory of Romanian refusal to perform its responsibilities in accordance to A31.4, a suggestion much liable to cause offense and confusion at diplomatic levels of discourse.
That said, Singapore should put forward the following requests to Romania whilst retracting the Interpol warrant of arrest AND ensure the following:
1) Romania distance itself from all ionescu press comments thus far.
2) That Romania WARN Ionescu that in so far as he maintains his status as a Romanian diplomat (as thus protection from extradition to Singapore in accordance to Article39.2), he should 'behave the part' becoming of a 'diplomat' i.e. NOT doing anything to harm the mutual relations between 2 countries and abiding by the interests and instructions of the Sovereign whom you are representing NOR interfere in any way, in person or proxy with the accident investigations. Any aggravated exceptions to this instruction may be tantamount to a grave dereliction of diplomatic duties/ even sedition and would be taken into consideration during prosecution for a strong deterrent sentences the crimes a fore committed.
3) That Romania take adequate measures to ensure the custody of Ionescu prior to his sentencing and make adequate measures to ensure that justice is served.
May the Interpol warrant of arrest NOT remain a hindrance to our mutual relations. May Ionescu see the Justice he so deserves.
May God help us all.
Your queries and comments are welcomed.
May God bless and do have a nice day.
. -
Today Silviu Ionescu was arrested and he is in police cusody, the Romanian judges. I hope in the end to pay for his bad and repair Romania's image in Singapore.