Read more in section
OP-ED Moscow Times opinion: Very little to celebrate Yesterday at 00:42
OP-ED The Trumpet: Wary view of democracy in Eastern bloc Two days ago at 09:59
Editorial Really sick Three days ago at 21:27
Editorial Bad medicine Three days ago at 21:24
OP-ED Prevention missing in health-care remedies Three days ago at 21:22
OP-ED Flu panic stoked by political malpractice Three days ago at 21:12
OP-ED Vox Populi with Kateryna Grushenko Three days ago at 21:07
Letters to the Editor Harvard Crimson letter: Swine flu infecting politics Three days ago at 11:43
OP-ED Jamestown Foundation: Electoral populism in Ukraine prevails over economic wisdom Three days ago at 07:41
Most popular Opinion
Power of Words
January 31, 2008 at 02:09 | EditorialTymoshenko reportedly told a Jan. 23 press conference in order to defend Ukraine’s customs service, tax administration and other state organs, her government “passed a special resolution which gives the freedom and right, on the basis of the Constitution, to deliberately not execute criminal court verdicts” which freed certain businesses from taxes and custom duties.
The vague statement sent a shock through business and legal circles. After all, the hope with Tymoshenko’s return to government was that she would reinforce the rule of law. Now here she was seemingly undermining it by interfering in the judicial branch of government.
At a meeting with business investors the next day, a lawyer asked her to clarify her statement. Though she stated clearly “we will exclusively act within the limits of the Ukrainian Constitution’s legislation,” it remained unclear to those leaving the meeting just how that was going to happen. The prior day, Justice Minister Mykola Onischuk offered clarification on the matter. The tax and customs organs should immediately turn to the appellate courts to file complaints against unjust court rulings, he said.
“No one made a decision to take an evaluation upon themselves on the justness or unjustness of verdicts that took legal authority. Verdicts which took legal authority are supposed to be carried out. Regarding doubts on their execution, then the appropriate means within the state’s processional defense of interests are supposed to be used,” Onischuk said.
Or in plain English, take it to the courts.
The incident is reminiscent of Tymoshenko’s first tenure as prime minister, when she stated “The government is to review the legality of the privatization of more than 3,000 enterprises ...” The statement sparked criticism from tycoons, investors and even President Viktor Yushchenko when he sacked her. They ignored her following sentence, “Nobody today can state the number of properties that will be returned to state ownership.”
Tymoshenko has a tendency to make strong statements that can cause a stir. Political insiders don’t think it’s intentional. It’s just Yulia being Yulia. And while part of her popularity certainly lies in her passion, her close advisors and handlers are best advised to make sure there’s someone nearby to explain the true intentions behind a searing initiative or bellicose statement. Tymoshenko has done a lot to regain investor confidence lost in 2005. It would be a shame for a few words to erode those gains. If Tymoshenko and her staff can’t prepare the wording of sensitive statements, then at least provide adequate explanations.