MFA Press Release: Transcripts of Minister for Foreign Affairs George Yeo's replies to the Parliamentary Question and Supplementary Questions, 22 Feb 2010

To view the video of Minister George Yeo giving the parliamentary reply, click here ↗ (opens in new tab).

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 in a 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 always over-speculating may be injurious to our own case itself.

. . . . .

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
SINGAPORE
22 FEBRUARY 2010