Silviu Ionescu continues to enjoy diplomatic immunity

[Bic_cherry]

Well in this case it's different.It's drink-driving for this ex-Romanian Diplomat.

And he further implied what he had run over was a dog.

Utter humuliation to ordinary folks of Spore.

Hi 'Csnewbie' I believe that regardless of the humiliation we receive, we should not waiver from due protocol because in doing so, we loose our focus. As it currently is, Ionescu seems to be using every excuse he can find in the book to stymie mutual relations.

 

As I had earlier pointed out, Article31.4 of the 'Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations' 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."

 

Which amply provides for the resolution of the current case, if only Singapore would comply with the spirit and terms of the said pre-existing agreement.

 

The details of which i have already mentioned in my earlier post or below for my latest edited version of 'The book of law should be read from front to back and not vice versa'.

 

Ex diplomat, Richard Hartung and currently a consultant who has lived in Singapore since 1992, wrote an interesting article that does contain an important message which Singapore would be wise not to overlook, the core of which I append:

'TODAYonline', 14May2010: 'The principle of diplomatic immunity is sound'...

For diplomatic immunity to work, it requires reciprocal respect by both sides. If one country arrests or prosecutes a diplomat who is supposed to have immunity, then that country's own diplomats could become subject to the same tit-for-tat treatment overseas.

Singapore can ask another country to waive immunity for a diplomat, but can only prosecute him or her only if that country agrees. ...

It is thus the true spirit of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations that I hope both Singapore and Romania abide by, one best appreciated not by 'cherry-picking' articles of preference, but by quiet appreciation of the full text of the VCDR.

 

 

'The book of law should be read from front to back and not vice versa' is appendedas follows:

The key point of my opinion being the fact that the current issue at hand is essentially mutual and linked directly to the incompetencies of both states in handling what is a problem occurring within the context of an existing mutual contract.

 

It is also my an expression of my displeasure as to what I believe are incompetencies committed by various parties, namely SG's shockingly inappropriate application of the VCDR.

 

On part of Singapore, the use of a 'cherry picked' VCDR article 39.2, without reference to Article31.4, remains purely moot- and thus liable to cause offense to Romania, a partner so essential tobringing Ionescu to justice. The unprecedented unreasonable inappropriate application of A39.2 without reference to A31.4 remains in discordance with the spirit of the VCDR, and as such, a serious risk of derailing the entire negotiatory process- i.e. a spanner in the works of currently good relations/ negotiations.

For the avoidance of doubt, I believe A39.2 (as SG MFA defends it's Interpol notice by) to be merely moot at present. This is because by virtue of its numerical precedence and relevance to Article39.2, a reference to A31.4 (and by precedence A31.1) is a mandatory consideration prior to any execution of A39.2 to be valid (which our current SG case sorely lacks).

Article31.4 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."

 

Singapore's 'cherry picked' and unjustified application of A39.2 (without due reference to A31.4) is thus inappropriate, and as such, she currently owes the Romanian MFA EITHER

a) an apology (and immediate retraction of the Interpol notice) for her unqualified application of A39.2 of the VCDR, OR

b) a qualification to justify use of A39.2.

 

Romania on the other hand, seems unfamiliar with the roles and responsibilities befitting of a 'sending state'- as to the discipline of a wayward diplomat, who should have from much early on been silenced from making any further disparaging remarks which might compromise Romanian reputation and by extension, mutual relations- which paradoxically, was the original purpose he (Ionescu) was meant to serve. A severe warning and/ or arrest would have been warranted to limit his misleading and aggravating comments to the press (both Singapore and Romanian)- given the fact that he was still enjoying 'diplomatic status' (and thus protected for persecution under SG law/ A39.2, himself having only been issued a 'suspension' from work)- and would thus be professionally obligated to serve the interest of the sovereign (Romania) he so represents before any of his own.

 

That said, this current 'saga' also reflects poorly on the system by which Interpol is run and the appreciation by Interpol for Diplomatic Laws. Rather than being merely portrayed as a 'rubber-stamp' organisation, Interpol should have queried the basis upon which Singapore's request for the red notice was made for a 'diplomat'- specifically the evidence that A31.4 (or other applicable articles) had been considered in precedence to A39.2 being executed.

 

I have thus far found myself disappointed with the overall handling of the Ionescu case by the many parties involved, wherein their interpretation of the VCDR seems rather lacking if not self-serving.

I thus hope that Justice would be served in its true spirit without corruption by either the incompetencies or ulterior motives of parties involved.

 

The book of law should be read from front to back and not vice versa.

Please do not pervert the word of law.

[Bic_cherry]

Immunity should only go so far

Letter from Terence Lim Eu Seng

05:55 AM May 18, 2010

I refer to the commentary "The principle of diplomatic immunity is sound" (May 14).

I do not dispute the necessity of diplomatic immunity per se but it should not cover universally and obviously heinous crimes. Ambiguous legal practices or local laws in different countries may of course contribute to fear of imprisonment or retribution.

However, it would be ludicrous to suggest that diplomats need immunity from even atrocities such as rape or causing death in order to do their job well.

The rules should be amended to push diplomats to also fulfil their duty of reciprocating respect, rather than just letting immunity take precedence unconditionally.

http://www.todayonline.com/Voices/EDC10051...-only-go-so-far

I believe that in making this comment, Mr Terrence Lim omits the vital fact that the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Article 31.4 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."

The fault with Mr Lim's article thus lies in his severely lacking, if not misleading definition of 'diplomatic-immunity'.

The omission of this vital fact thus throws Mr Lim's entire argument off kilter since the existing clause within the agreement does indeed provide for the prosecution of crimes, committed under the 'guise' of 'diplomatic-duty', so effectively there should not be any 'immunity'.

 

The VCDR, as I understand, was written in the spirit of improving relations between Sovereigns. Why else would there be clauses defending the privileges regarding the acceptance and rejection of diplomats by the receiving state, not to mention emphasis upon the mutuality of diplomatic relations?

 

In all fairness, adherence to the original terms of the VCDR (just 16 pages long (normal font size) as the internet version may be), requires a high degree of mutual commitment for adherence- and thus is perhaps ill suited for all and sundry.

WHY ELSE would the persecution for crimes committed within the territory of the 'receiving state' be persecuted by the 'sending state', but for the presence of a deep sense of trust and cooperation that exists, with certainty that justice would eventually be served.

 

Singapore and Romania are poor examples in this regard, where despite after almost 43 years of mutual relations, there is yet nothing much to show for in this regard as the contracting state(s)'s infantile interpretations of the VCDR deliver embarrassing public results, and that with the flip-flop involvement of the 'Interpol' no less.

 

Unless prepared for the high and lofty points of agreements contained within the VCDR, young and 'less developed' states are perhaps best suited to mutually accept 'abridged' versions of the VCDR- e.g. excluding certain unfulfillable articles earlier on, with a view to further additions later on as the relationship improves.

What's left for now remains the judicious adherence to the mutual terms of lofty VCDR agreement between the contracting sovereigns themselves- that would ultimately "push diplomats to also fulfil their duty of reciprocating respect".

 

Your assumptions are in keeping with the typical misinformed, misguided citizenry.

 

In the spirit of public edification and thus active participation in the process of establishing good relations, may I invite your interest with an involved perusal of the 'original-version' of the VCDR 1961, 16pages, normal font (cover-page, preamble inclusive) at: http://untreaty.un.org/ilc/texts/instrumen...ns/9_1_1961.pdf

 

In the hope for better International Relations,

With Love and God bless,

Bic_Cherry.

- - - - - -

Reference(s):

- 11May2010: 'The book of law should be read in spirit, from front to back and not vice versa'

- 'TODAYonline'-May 14, 2010: 'The principle of diplomatic immunity is sound'

- 18April2010: 'Ionescu Interpol Notice withdrawn?'

- "Rom

Edited May 18, 2010 by Bic_cherry

[Bic_cherry]

'Progress being made in Ionescu prosecution'

Romania has started criminal action: Yeo

by Esther Ng

05:55 AM May 19, 2010

SINGAPORE - The wheels of justice in the prosecution of former Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu are grinding forward, Foreign Affairs Minister George Yeo said in Parliament yesterday.

On May 7, the Romanian prosecutor's office announced that it had initiated the "next phase in criminal proceedings" against Dr Ionescu.

"We understand that this phase, known in Romanian law as criminal action, means that the prosecutor has sufficient basis to link Dr Ionescu to the offences being investigated. Dr Ionescu has been formally identified as a defendant," said Mr Yeo.

In addition, the prosecutor has placed Dr Ionescu under arrest and has obtained a court order to have Dr Ionescu remanded for an initial period of 29 days.

"Dr Ionescu's appeal against this has been dismissed and the 29-day detention remains enforced. We understand that it's possible for the prosecutor to seek an extension when the 29 days are up," said Mr Yeo.

"It would be wrong to conclude that there's no progress in the prosecution of former Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu."

 

Mr Yeo was responding to questions from Members of Parliament Michael Palmer and Irene Ng.

To understand Romania's legal system better, Singapore's special envoy and officials from the Attorney-General's Chambers will be visiting Romania.

However, Mr Yeo stressed that the appointment of Singapore's special envoy to visit Bucharest is "not a substitute" for a visit to Singapore by the Romanian team in the Joint Technical Working Group.

Noting that Romania has yet to send its legal experts to Singapore to review the evidence, Ms Ng wondered whether the Romanian authorities did not see this as a "necessity" and lacked "urgency".

Mr Yeo told the House that the Romanian authorities had to get clearance "on their side" before they could send their legal team to Singapore and that they had processes to follow.

By this week, however, the Singapore party will be in Romania, he said. "Whether that constitutes a first meeting of the technical committee remains to be seen, but (Romania) has been very helpful in facilitating this visit," Mr Yeo said.

The case against Dr Ionescu is "strictly" a bilateral matter between the Republic and Romania, but as Romania is a member state of the European Union, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has "periodically" been updating the EU Ambassador to Singapore - the Spanish ambassador to Singapore due to Spain's EU presidency - on developments of the case.

"If justice is not done and seen to be done, bilateral relations are bound to be affected. We have the usual range of diplomatic options at our disposal, but it would not be appropriate at this stage for me to discuss them in detail," said Mr Yeo.

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC10...scu-prosecution

My comments are in the next post.

[Bic_cherry]

My comments are in the next post.

My response to [TDYonline19May2010]: 'Progress being made in Ionescu prosecution'

If Mr G Yeo really wants to speed things up, he'd just pick up the phone and give his Romanian counterpart, Mr Teodor Baconschi a telephone call/ email and the 2 settle how to bring Ionescu to justice.

Tell or dun tell us everything about the 'secret plan' never mind, as we trust Mr Yeo and will all be able to see 'progress' through regularly updating news reports.

What we are just waiting to hear is some sense of ownership by a Minister, "Our officers are doing their job and both Mr Teodor Baconschi and myself are monitoring the progress of the Ionescu issue"

Otherwise, the rest is just wayang show, including 'original scenes' like:

- Romanian 'love letters' dated 11Feb, received only 8March2010 by SG MFA- [TDYonline10Apr2010] 'Romania's MFA gives its account'

- Interpol red notice, put on then take off, thanks to Interpol 'rubber stamp courier services ltd' due to SG's 'undiplomatic' use of A39.2.

- Ionescu appealing to 'wrong court' against a 'suspended' Interpol notice- see 7May: 'Bid to stop arrest fails'.

- Ionescu making wild allegations to press until his getting '29days detention', (to keep him from helping the press sell newspapers maybe).

- Romanian Investigators having 'waited their turn' for possibly>100days- till after SG coroner ceremoniously pronounced Ionescu as responsible for the accidents along with envoy-from-Singapore's scheduled visit- [sT16May2010]: 'Romania welcomes envoy'.

- The (Romanian) investigators now being delayed in getting "clearance 'on their side'"etc- [TDYonline19May2010]: 'Progress being made in Ionescu prosecution

 

Are all just a 'wayang' just a waste of time if there is no one really coordinating- and mutually embarrassing publicly.

After almost 43 years of mutual relations, our Ministers cannot 'face' each other except by 'coincidence' whilst waiting waiting for an audience with Pope Benedict at St Peter's Square in 21Apr2010?

 

Please lah, the only person around enjoying all this 'attention' must be Ionescu himself as he seeks more loopholes in the mutual effort of the Sovereigns to make his appeals to various courts.

 

And maybe the 'Pope' himself whose 'great demand' was cause of the 'delay' - which resulted in the miraculous meeting between ministers- without which the 2 might have never met nor spoken.

 

Please read my [11May2010] forum article: 'The book of law should be read in spirit, from front to back and not vice versa'

And other posts in this thread.

 

I agree,

"If you want a love message to be heard, it has got to be sent out.

To keep a lamp burning, we have to keep putting oil in it"~ Mother Teresa

Love

Bic Cherry

 

References:

- Mother Teresa Quotes: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...er_teresa.html

- [TDYonline10Apr2010] 'Romania's MFA gives its account': "(Romanian ) Minister of Justice put in a request on Feb 11 for an "international rogatory commission"... to look into the details of the case, Singapore's MFA said the proposal was only conveyed to Singapore on March 8"

- [bucharestherald.ro,8April2010]: 'International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu': "Rom

Edited May 20, 2010 by Bic_cherry

[Agentwilson]

 

because the victim is malaysian, and he is chinese.

boleh land dun fark care chinese.

they r ketuanan melayu

 

this is the sad fact of life for chinese in msia.

though the own majority of the fortunes & businesses & economy in msia, they are still second class.

other than some major msian places w chinese majority like penang

 

 

 

 

Understand that the victim is not Sinagporean. Didnt anyone heard about anything from his country of orgin comment or action taken? Why so quite? Take an example, if our local Singaporean work oversea and get kill due to similar incident, I believe the local here will protest as well, right?

 

[Bic_cherry]

Called to manage the Ionescu case only after >100days after the accident [link], no wonder that Mr Nayar says: "Obviously, more work needs to be done to make sure that this momentum may sustain, to make sure that there are no problems that crop up not just in terms of the case and investigations, but also in terms of the bilateral relationship."

 

U bet there wasn't any mutually coordinated pathway to resolution settled upon from the beginning.

Just lots of delayed 'love letters'.

And SG all along must have though 'we hit jackpot' after discovering VCDR A39.2 'in-our-favor' (thus the almost immediate Interpol notice after the coroner's findings were announced), but this was not to be as it was soon suspended after Romania's protests [link]. Its sad that despite 43 yrs worth of relationship [link] one-upmanship still rules the day.

 

No doubt, one of the first steps towards resolution would be SG's withdrawal of their unjustified and very 'undiplomatic' use of A39.2 [link]- before any meaningful talks can proceed.

 

The 'haloed' VCDR is not longer revered as a 'road-map' to harmony, but tool of conquest and contempt.

 

Sad, Sad.

 

May 21, 2010

Bukit Panjang Road hit and run case

Romania 'doing its part'

 

By Teh Joo Lin

 

Mr Nayar (above) was sent to the country to help speed up Romania's investigations into Ionescu. -- PHOTO: AP

 

SINGAPORE'S special envoy to Romania has ended his visit to the country, and is convinced that its officials are doing their bit to ensure that suspended diplomat Silviu Ionescu is brought to book.

Mr Anil Kumar Nayar, Singapore's Ambassador to the European Union, arrived in Romania with other officials from the Republic's Attorney-General's Chambers on Tuesday.

Over the past four days, the team met key people in Romania handling the case, including prosecutors and officials from the Foreign and Justice ministries. It also expressed Singapore's serious intent to see justice served in the case.

Mr Nayar was sent to the country to help speed up Romania's investigations into Ionescu, the country's former charge d'affaires in Singapore who was found by a court here to be responsible for a hit-and-run accident that killed one and injured two along Bukit Panjang Road on Dec 15.

Speaking by phone from Romania, he told The Straits Times on Friday: 'So far, our own sense is that the Romanian officials dealing with this case are indeed trying their best to move the case forward towards an outcome whereby justice is served. That was the overall sense that we got from our discussions here.'

He added: 'Obviously, more work needs to be done to make sure that this momentum may sustain, to make sure that there are no problems that crop up not just in terms of the case and investigations, but also in terms of the bilateral relationship.'

Read the full report in Saturday's edition of The Straits Times.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/S...ory_529753.html

Ref:

- Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR)

- [8April2010,Bucharestherald]: 'International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu': "Rom

[Csnewbie]

 

 

The 'haloed' VCDR is not longer revered as a 'road-map' to harmony, but tool of conquest and contempt.

 

Sad, Sad.

 

 

Just personal opinion ah: VCDR was set by human-beings,a guide only and not perfect.

 

Thus should be able to be fine-tuned, perceived-upon on special cases, just in case somebody

 

abuses it.

 

As for ROMANIA-SINGAPORE relationship,I think S'pore would be willing to further deepen

 

if chances are possible. Romania,north of Turkey & around 75X size of Spore,& Spore being

 

relatively advanced,I think there will be chances of further cooperations.