ROMANIA Tells Singapore Garment To "GO FUCK YOURSELF". And They Are Correct!

[palden]

Just ask Temasek to buy Romania la. Tomorrow morning they will sing Majulla Singapura. Then we can trial that f er

 

[lianbeng]

Just ask Temasek to buy Romania la. Tomorrow morning they will sing Majulla Singapura. Then we can trial that f er

no use one lah.
wat is a small red dot in their eyes?
our govt dares not break diplomatic ties with them but im quite sure they're ever ready to break it with us anytime.
all chow angmoh same same one lor.

tiu nia seng...:oIo:

 

[streetsmart73]

The Interpol warrant issued, now suspended, is the biggest joke and embarrassment the international diplomatic community has seen for quite a long while.

The Interpol President now is Singapore ex-Police Commisser Khoo Boon Hui, also Deputy Secretary to Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng.

Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo apparently concocted up such a thing as a diplomat for a few hours was acting in personal capacity out of diplomatic immunity, and Interpol accepted the story and issued the warrant, only to have it suspended later when discovered that there's no such law in international diplomacy.

hi there


1. well, apparently sheepishland daft sheep did not enough homework.
2. "cherrypicking" terminology too to its advantage.
3. yes, this is more than a laughing stock man!

 

[Ginchiyo Tachibana]

bump~~~~~~

 

[bic_cherry]

thanks bic_cherry for a clear clarification. ...

Huh, 'ahleebabasingaporethief', U mean U didn't know about these details?!!!, you ought to know before posting, otherwise people will just think of U as a 'hot gas bag', very disgruntled and just out to flame govt for any reason etc,good to do analysis with the objective of peace.

Anyway, would post the following (copy of my post at A1forum) for U to read n digest slowly, replies to be in max font size 2 only please!

Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> Originally Posted by BicCherry, 27-04-2010, 05:29 AM
I 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."... ...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> Originally Posted by Noobcake, 27-04-2010, 03:03 PM
Perhaps, Singapore MFA is too pushy and bossy in their approach with Romania. Respect goes both way.
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
Quote:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> 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?
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
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:
<table width="100%" border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset;"> Originally Posted by Trouser Press
I 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".
...
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>
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'

 

[ahleebabasingaporethief]

Of course I knew our side was in the wrong. Also, the current case of not having an AG is strange, But that is another story altogether.

Thank you once again for all your hard facts that the SCUMS screwed up again. Judging by the day they are now attacking, they will screw up even more. Real mockery for the world to see how these people can be the HIGHEST PAID IN THE WORLD.
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

 

[bic_cherry]

My Reply to 'long2010': "he will be free"

Hi, My usual 'repost'
long2010: "he will be free"
<hr style="" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> http://www.fuckwarezone.com.sg/img/forums/hwz/buttons/viewpost.gif;pv5d92b69bbec6de8d long2010, 30April2010 10:05 PM wrote:

he will be free​

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Hi 'long2010':
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'

 

[bic_cherry]

Singapore should withdraw Interpol Notification, conditional upon Romanian guarantee

Singapore should withdraw Interpol Notification, conditional 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.

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):

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:

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):

- 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.
.

 

[Ramseth]

Re: Singapore should withdraw Interpol Notification, conditional upon Romanian guaran

Too long essay, apologies if I snooze off. The basic thing is, present the findings to Romania and let Romania decide. That's what international diplomatic protocol and immunity is all about. There's nothing to stop the host nation from investigating and arriving at facts and findings of cases under its jurisdiction. However, in international diplomacy, the power of arrest and prosecution is the question. I couldn't believe George Yeo issued an Interpol warrant against Silviu Ionescu. Perhaps he's now also puzzled why the warrant is suspended now. Why don't he just go visit some poor African countries and say something like economic growth can improve living standards? Oh, qualifying for World Cup is not improving living standards.

 

[halsey02]

Thanks bic_cherry for a clear clarification.

Just goes to show Singapore is really flyweight when it comes to the LAW OF THE WORLD. Everything also try to kelong and try to get away with it.

It only goes to show that even when there is NO CASE unless Romania decides to send him back here; THE SCUMS will pretend they have a case and conduct their USUAL WAYANG FOR SINGAPOREANS to consume.

The REAL QUESTION here is would they have gone through all this WAYANG if the person killed is a SINGAPOREAN and not a FT? Or would the answer be "What to do it happened, let's move on"?

all();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

That is why pinkie mee siam mai hum, wanted to bring the Malaysian Government under Dr.M, pull the plug off Malaysian CLOB counters; by changing the KLSE rules..to The International Court Of Justice...still have not done so!..

 

[bic_cherry]

AP: 'Romanian former diplomat to Singapore detained over allegation of hit and run d

AP: 'Romanian former diplomat to Singapore detained over allegation of hit and run death'
<hr style="" size="1"> <!-- / icon and title --> <!-- message --> <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote --> Quote:

Romanian former diplomat to Singapore detained over allegation of hit and run death
By The Associated Press (CP) – 8May2010
BUCHAREST, Romania — A former Romanian diplomat has been detained in Bucharest on charges that he killed a person in a hit-and-run accident while on duty in Singapore.
A Bucharest court will rule on whether Silviu Ionescu, a former attache at the Romanian Embassy in Singapore will be held for 29 days pending trial.
Authorities in Singapore have accused Ionescu of killing one person and injuring two others in December. Ionescu claimed he was not driving and that the embassy vehicle had been stolen. He returned to Romania shortly after the accident. He has been relieved of his diplomatic post.
An investigation was launched in January, and Romanian prosecutors questioned Ionescu on Friday. Singapore is seeking his extradition.
Copyright © 2010 The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.​

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->Ha ha Gotcha Dr Ionescu, with your detention in Bucharest for "29days", U don't need to go the the "European Court for Human Rights" anymore cos it won't make any difference cos U safe in Romanian govt custody for the next "29days", the Interpol notice has been suspended anyway since/ prior to 18April2010.
But seriously, SG should work things out with Romania ASAP, beginning with the withdrawal of the Interpol notice as I alluded to before.

 

[garlic]

Re: AP: 'Romanian former diplomat to Singapore detained over allegation of hit and ru

if they cant even get a "convicted" criminal back for trial.. they are not worth my vote...

 

[chobolan]

b-u-m-p.........

 

[bic_cherry]

Re: AP: 'Romanian former diplomat to Singapore detained over allegation of hit and ru

if they cant even get a "convicted" criminal back for trial.. they are not worth my vote...

Hello 'garlic' as I said, by prior agreement, with the exception of any alterations to the contrary (which I've heard of none thus far), Singapore cannot, according to VCDR Article31.1, make any currently valid legal demand, that Ionescu be returned to SG for trial, until and unless they have proven Romania's refusal/ failure to reciprocate by prosecution in accordance with Article31.4.

Minister G Yeo is wrong to have stated the contrary from his 'cherry picked' version of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.

U have thus been deceived, please read my article at the thread: 'Romanian diplomat's car in hit-and-run: cover up?' for details.

It would be good for you to clear up your misconceptions before the elections, and not swallow everything U hear 'hook, line and sinker'.
Thank you
Rgds,
B.C.

 

[diversifyx2]

Is Yeo still going fishing today??

 

[bic_cherry]

'Romanian High Court rejects Ionescu appeal'

Romanian High Court rejects Ionescu appeal
By Mustafa Shafawi | Posted: 13 May 2010 1358 hrs
SINGAPORE: Former Romanian charge d' affaires to Singapore, Silviu Ionescu, has failed in his appeal to have his international arrest warrant annulled.
Romanian media, Nine O' Clock, said the appeal was rejected after the Romanian High Court "realised that it cannot rule on documents or requests issued by states with which Romania does not have judiciary collaboration agreements."
The ruling by the High Court of Cassation and Justice is final.
This means the international arrest warrant issued by Singapore against Dr Ionescu remains valid.
His lawyer, Maria Vasi, told the court that she did not rule out that the accident was staged by the Singapore authorities so that they could subsequently force the Romanian diplomat to reveal intelligence.
Dr Ionescu was found by a Coroner's Inquiry in Singapore to be the driver behind the wheel of a Black Audi which was involved in two hit-and-run accidents in December last year.
One person subsequently died of his injuries.
- CNA/jy
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/1056299/1/.html

Still think SG should withdraw the Interpol warrant to remove all this confusion, and then the 2 can talk nicely together...


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

 

[bic_cherry]

'The principle of diplomatic immunity is sound'

'TODAYonline', 14May2010: 'The principle of diplomatic immunity is sound'- But it requires reciprocal respect by both sides for it to work the way it's meant to [by Richard Hartung]:
... "On duty or off duty, Singapore's diplomats and their families are protected.
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. ...

That's why SG should withdraw the Interpol warrant ASAP, remove the source of all this confusion, and then the 2 can cooperate nicely with each other ...


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

 

[bic_cherry]

'TDY' 18May: 'Immunity should only go so far'

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/EDC100518-0000051/Immunity-should-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/instruments/english/conventions/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?'
- "România and Singapore established on 30 May 1967, diplomatic relations..": [Bucharestherald.ro: 8April2010]: 'International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu'

 

[lianbeng]

Re: 'TDY' 18May: 'Immunity should only go so far'

still NATO - No Action Talk Only!
now talking in parliament.

 

[bic_cherry]

'Progress being made in Ionescu prosecution'

If Mr G Yeo indeed 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 plan 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 updating reports.
What we are just waiting to hear is: "Our officers are doing their job and both Mr Teodor Baconschi and myself are monitoring the progress on this Ionescu issue"
Otherwise, the rest is just wayang show, including props like
- Interpol red notice, put on then take off, thanks to Interpol 'rubber stamp services ltd'.
- Ionescu appealing to 'wrong court' against a 'suspended' Interpol notice.
- Ionescu making wild allegations to press until his getting '29days detention', with possible need for extension (to keep him from the press maybe).
- Romanian Investigator invitations, getting "clearance 'on their side'"etc
- Envoy from Singapore scheduled visits.
Are all just a 'wayang' and waste of time if there is no one really coordinating- and mutually embarrassing.
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' whose 'honorable status' was cause of the delay which resulted in the miraculous meeting between ministers, resulting in bounds being made in the cause of justice.

No wonder Mother Teresa said, "Do not wait for leaders; do it alone, person to person".
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.

"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

References:
- Mother Teresa Quotes: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...er_teresa.html
- [TDYonline23April2010]: 'A chance meeting at the Vatican'
- 11May2010 [forum article]: 'The book of law should be read in spirit, from front to back and not vice versa'
- [Bucharestherald.ro: 8April2010]: 'International search warrant for Romanian diplomat Silviu Ionescu': "România and Singapore established on 30 May 1967, diplomatic relations..":

'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/EDC100519-0000056/Progress-being-made-in-Ionescu-prosecution