TRANSCRIPT OF MINISTER
FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS GEORGE YEO'S
REPLY TO THE
PARLIAMENTARY
QUESTION, 22 FEBRUARY 2010
______________________________________________________________
QUESTION:
*1. NMP Calvin Cheng: To ask the
Minister for Foreign Affairs
in light
of the Romanian diplomat's
refusal to return to Singapore to
assist in
investigations regarding his
alleged involvement in a
hit-and-run accident,
what measures will the Government take to ensure
that
investigations will continue.
REPLY:
The Police conducted
a thorough investigation into the two
hit-and-run accidents on 15 December 2009 involving a
vehicle belonging
to the Romanian
Embassy with registration number S3401CD.
The accidents
had led to
the tragic death of Mr Tong Kok Wai and injuries to Mr Bong
Hwee Haw
and Mr Muhammad
Haris Bin Abu
Talib. When the
Police
investigations were completed, the investigation papers were
submitted
to the
Attorney-General’s Chambers
(AGC). We are now proceeding with
the Coroner’s
Inquiry into Mr Tong’s death. The State
Coroner conducted
the first
Mention of this case on 27 January this year. The Coroner’s
Inquiry will be
held from 3 to 10 March this year.
2 The
Police investigations revealed
that the Romanian Embassy
vehicle was not stolen and the driver of the vehicle
at the time of the
two accidents was Dr Silviu Ionescu, who was then
the Chargé d’Affaires
of the
Embassy. Dr Ionescu
left Singapore on
17 December 2009,
ostensibly to
seek medical treatment in Romania.
3 MFA
has been in
touch with the Romanian Embassy
since the
beginning of the Police investigations. We have
stressed to the Embassy
that it should cooperate fully with the
Police. When the Police wanted
to interview the
Embassy’s regular driver, a Romanian, MFA called in the
Chargé d'Affaires to request their cooperation. The Embassy agreed and
the Police
interviewed the driver.
4 On 6 January 2010, the Romanian
Ambassador, Mr Aurelian Neagu,
who is resident
in Tokyo, informed MFA that Dr Ionescu had been recalled
from his post in Singapore with effect from 5
January 2010 and the case
had been
referred to the
Romanian Prosecutor’s Office to conduct an
investigation.
Ambassador Neagu also gave his assurance that Romania was
ready to
cooperate fully. He
subsequently informed MFA
that the
Romanian Foreign Ministry had suspended Dr Ionescu
from his duties with
effect from
4 February 2010,
after the Romanian Prosecutor’s Office
began the criminal investigation of Dr Ionescu on 2
February on charges
of “manslaughter, unauthorised departure from a vehicle
accident site,
and
misrepresentation”. Ambassador Neagu
stated that this was the first
step in their
criminal procedure.
5 After
the dates for
the Coroner’s Inquiry
were set, MFA
summoned Ambassador
Neagu from Tokyo
to the Ministry on 11 February
2010. As
the legal systems in Singapore and Romania are different, we
explained our
system of Coroner’s Inquiries and sought clarifications on
the Romanian
system of investigations and
prosecutions with regard to
the criminal
investigation of Dr Ionescu and the charges brought against
him by the Romanian authorities. We also asked for more information on
the status of
the criminal proceedings in Romania against Dr Ionescu.
6 At
the same meeting, MFA formally requested by a Third Person
Note (TPN)
that Dr Ionescu return to Singapore to attend the Coroner’s
Inquiry. We
pointed out to the Romanian Ambassador that if Dr Ionescu
was, as he had claimed, not the driver, then it
would clearly be in his
own interest to attend or to have a lawyer
represent him at the Inquiry
to present
his version of
the events as
well as to question the
witnesses. At
the same time, MFA also formally requested by TPN the
Embassy to
waive the diplomatic
immunity of the Embassy driver,
Mr
Trusca, so that
he could give evidence at the Coroner’s Inquiry.
7 MFA
has also asked
Ambassador Neagu if Romania could
give
Singapore an
undertaking that Dr Ionescu would be prosecuted for what he
had done
in Singapore, and if found guilty, be sentenced to a criminal
penalty that
is commensurate with
his actions. We were assured by
Ambassador Neagu
that Romania would follow the
full extent of its own
law. The Ambassador also assured us that he
understood our concerns and
that the
Romanian people understood our concerns.
8 The
Romanian Government has not yet responded officially to
these TPNs.
We trust that they will do so without undue delay as
the
Coroner's Inquiry
will begin in
March. There have been some
media
reports which
at first quoted a Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
spokesman as
saying that they
would waive immunity for Mr Trusca to
allow him
to testify at the
Coroner’s Inquiry, but subsequent media
reports quoting
the current Chargé d’Affaires of
the Romanian Embassy
merely stated
that “the decision will be communicated to the Singapore
authorities as
soon as possible”, implying that a decision had not yet
been made.
We are seeking clarification from
the Romanian Embassy on
these apparently
conflicting statements which
in any case
do not
constitute an
official reply to our TPN.
9 The
media, quoting the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs
spokesman, had
also reported that
the Romanian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs had
informed Dr Ionescu of the TPN asking that he attend the
Coroner’s Inquiry
but that it could not compel him
to do so as he had
already been
suspended from the Romanian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
But again we
have yet to hear officially from the Romanian government on
this.
10 In
the meeting with Ambassador Neagu on 11 February, MFA also
sought clarification
on Romanian media reports in which Dr Ionescu had
alleged that
this was a case of a “set-up” by the Singapore Government
because he had
been reporting on political activities in Singapore. We
told Ambassador Neagu that if these media reports
had accurately quoted
Dr Ionescu,
then he had
made very serious allegations against the
integrity of the
Singapore Government which MFA categorically rejected
as lacking
any basis in
fact. These allegations were
also a gross
insult to
the victims of the
two accidents. We gave the Ambassador
facts that
clearly showed Dr Ionescu’s claim that he had been accused of
being the
driver in a hit-and-run accident in 2007 was entirely false.
We made these representations public is an MFA
press statement the same
day.
11 The Romanians responded swiftly. A
Romanian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs spokesperson,
in a written response to The Straits Times of 12
February 2010,
stated that “the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Romania
firmly
dissociates itself from Mr Silviu Ionescu’s statements made after
his employment
contract with the Foreign Ministry was suspended.” The
spokesman was
also reported in the media as dismissing the claim by Dr
Ionescu that
he had been “set up” as “lurid allegations” which “do not
even deserve to be commented upon as they are
devoid of any substance”.
12 The
circumstances of the accidents understandably made many
Singaporeans very angry with Dr
Ionescu. Some criticised the Singapore
Government for
not acting immediately to detain him.
13 Mr
Speaker Sir, I
can fully understand
the outrage many
Singaporeans
feel over the hit-and-run accidents and the tragic death of
Mr Tong.
However, we should never do
anything that is not in keeping
with due
legal process nor descend into trial by media, otherwise we
would weaken
our own case. When Dr Ionescu
left Singapore in December
2009, the
Police had not yet completed their investigations. In any
case, we
could not have
prevented Dr Ionescu from leaving Singapore
because as
a diplomat accredited to Singapore, he enjoyed
diplomatic
immunity and
could not be detained.
14 Diplomats of
all countries are
accorded privileges and
immunities under
the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations to enable
them to carry
out their diplomatic functions. Romania
and Singapore are
parties to
the Vienna Convention. Singapore is legally bound to give
effect to
the Convention. Even
if we were not so bound, it is in
Singapore’s interest
to observe the privileges and immunities accorded
by the Vienna
Convention because our own diplomats enjoy such privileges
and immunities
in foreign countries.
But diplomatic immunity is not
meant to be
abused. MFA has zero tolerance for any abuse of diplomatic
immunity by our
own diplomats, even in such matters as parking fines.
15 The
Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman was also
quoted in the media as saying “The Romanian Ministry
of Foreign Affairs
firmly demands
and expects its diplomats to respect – absolutely and
with no
equivocation - the national laws
of the country to which they
are accredited.”
This means that
the Romanian Government, like the
Singapore
Government, takes the position that diplomatic immunity is not
a licence
to flout the
law. Indeed, as was pointed out
in Straits
Times, in
December 2004, the Romanian government had faced a similar
situation when one of its nationals was killed in a
traffic accident by
a US national
with diplomatic immunity in Romania.
That incident caused
an uproar in Romania. We have left the Romanian government in no
doubt
about the depth
of feelings in Singapore on this matter.
16 What
we do next will depend on the outcome of our
Coroner’s
Inquiry and the Romanian Government’s response to our
requests. We are
closely monitoring
what the Romanian authorities are doing.
We expect
their actions
to match the
words of the Romanian Foreign Ministry
spokesman and the assurances that the Romanian
Ambassador has given us.
But I
must stress that whatever we do in Singapore must always
be in
conformity with our legal system and our international
law obligations.
. .
. . .
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TRANSCRIPT OF MINISTER
FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS GEORGE YEO'S
REPLIES TO
SUPPLEMENTARY
QUESTIONS, 22 FEBRUARY 2010
NMP Calvin
Cheng: Thank you Minister for your comprehensive reply. One
supplementary question - if
push comes to shove, would the Ministry
consider
extradition procedures against Dr Ionescu?
Minister: Mr
Speaker Sir, there
is no extradition treaty or any
alternative
extradition arrangements with the Romanian government.
MP Mr
Sin Boon Ann:
Thank you Speaker.
I just want Minister's
clarifications on what
are the steps the Ministry is considering in
seeking waiver
of diplomatic immunity with regards to Dr Ionescu, if
indeed he
is found culpable in this
incident. Also, what assurances
have the
Romanian Ministry given
to our government as to the full
extent in
which he would be prosecuted if he indeed, is suspected or
found
suspicious of criminal conduct?
Minister: Mr
Speaker Sir, what the Romanian Foreign Ministry as well
as what
the Romanian Ambassador
have assured us, had already been
stated earlier.
On the Coroner's Inquiry, the
State Coroner has not
issued a witness summons to Dr Ionescu as he is not
in Singapore. The
question of
immunity from the
witness summons therefore does
not
arise. MFA
has instead sought the assistance of the Romanian Embassy
to request Dr Ionescu to return to Singapore to
attend the Inquiry as
an “interested person”. The State Coroner has
the discretion to allow
“interested
persons” – i.e., persons who have a legitimate interest in
the death of the deceased – to take part in a
Coroner’s Inquiry, such
as by making a
statement or by putting questions to the witnesses.
We do not
know whether Dr Ionescu will return to Singapore to attend
the Inquiry,
and we cannot force him. The Inquiry will take place with
or without
Dr Ionescu. But
as MFA pointed
out to the Romanian
Ambassador, if Dr
Ionescu was not the driver as he claimed, then it
would be in
his own interest to attend the Inquiry to give his account
of the events and pose questions to the
witnesses. As to what happens
after the
Coroner's Inquiry, we would have
to take it one step at a
time.
Mr Speaker:
Last question.
MP Irene Ng:
Mr Speaker, I am puzzled by the Minister's statement that
the Romanian
Foreign Ministry has said that
they cannot "compel" Dr
Ionescu to
come to our Coroner's proceedings
because he has already
been suspended from service, as well as the
comment that the Romanian
Foreign Ministry
"disassociates itself" from comments made after his
suspension. Surely the Romanian
Government should take responsibility
for the
behaviour of its
diplomats, especially when he has cast a
serious slur
against the Singaporean
government. Can I ask
the
Minister if
such comments by the Romanian Government indicate a lack
of sincerity
on whether the government will
undertake the necessary
procedures to
make sure that he faces up to his charges?
Minister: Mr
Speaker Sir, the
Romanian Government, through
its
Ambassador and
through its spokesman, has clearly disassociated itself
from the
allegations made by
Dr Ionescu. I think this is not in
doubt. If he
is charged and if we were to ask for him to be sent to
Singapore,
then the Romanian government would have to act according to
its own
law. I have no doubt that this matter would appear
in the
Romanian courts.
The Interpol Bucharest
(in response to queries
raised by
our AGC) has
responded that according to the Romanian
Criminal Code,
"Criminal law shall apply to offences committed outside
Romanian borders
if the perpetrator is a Romanian citizen". Interpol
Bucharest added
that the Romanian
court "is conducting
penal
proceedings against Ionescu
for homicide by
negligence, corporal
injury by
negligence, left from the scene of the accident and forged
declarations". So there
is due process in Singapore, there is due
process in
Romania. Let us
take this one step at a time and not
speculate, because acting
in haste or
over-speculating may be
injurious to
our own case itself.
Recent Comments