Not for love of money, but of Humanity. "Greater is he who works for the good of all, then he who works for the good of himself only" ~ Matthew 25:40: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"- (NIV). I live in Singapore where the Emperor must not be disturbed.
Sunday, May 16, 2010
[11May2010]: The book of law should be read in spirit, from front to back and not vice versa
It is also my an expression of my displeasure as to what I believe is SG's shockingly inappropriate application of the VCDR.
On part of Singapore, the Interpol notice based upon a 'cherry picked' article 39.2 of the VCDR , WITHOUT regard to Article31.4, remains purely moot- and thus liable to cause offense to Romania, a partner so essential to bringing Ionescu to justice. The unprecedented, unreasonable and thus inappropriate application of A39.2 without reference to A31.4 is in discordance with the spirit of the VCDR, and as such, a major impediment to the entire negotiatory process- i.e. a spanner in the works of currently good relations/ negotiations thus far.
For the avoidance of doubt, I believe A39.2 (as SG MFA premises it's Interpol notice by) to be merely moot at present. This is because by virtue of its numerical precedence and relevance to the issue at hand, a reference to A31.4 (and by precedence A31.1) is a mandatory consideration prior to any valid execution of A39.2 (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 respect for Romania's wisk to comply with A31.4) is thus inappropriate, and as such, SG 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 woefully unfamiliar with the roles and responsibilities befitting of a Soveriegn 'sending state'- as to the discipline and management and of a wayward diplomat, one who has killed by negligence and then lied; 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' (having been only issued a 'suspension' and thus still under Romanian MFA 'employ')- and thus protected for persecution under SG law/ A39.2; would thus be professionally obligated to continue serving the diplomatic interest of the sovereign (Romania) he so represents the SG accident investigations notwithstanding.
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 adequately 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 various parties mentioned, 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 incompetencies or ulterior motives of parties involved.
The book of law should be read in spirit, from front to back and not vice versa.
Please do not pervert the word of law.
The original article: