Ombudsmen Asked To Look Into PM Yingluck's Conduct At Bangkok Hotel

[whybother]

On the other hand, the sex-related comments here are rather disturbing and in poor taste, IMO.

Agreed.

Although, I don't think Akeyuth or the people petitioning the ombudsman have suggested that. Just some TV posters, which I'm sure you've learnt to ignore by now.

[pastitche]

Why is she making business deals while she's PM?

By asking this question you are implying that she was making business deals and should not do so. Would you care to explain why you believe that politicians who have business interests should not pursue those interests if there is no conflict with their official duties unless there is a legal requirement not to do so?

I don't believe that politicians should have business interests where they can influence government policy related to that. The PM has extensive business interests in real estate. She was meeting with a real estate developer. She can influence government policy relating to land use and development. That seems like a conflict of interest to me. Do you support that?

In the way that you have put it, no I do not agree. You are behaving like a TV US attorney - sit down for a minute.

It is nothing unusual for a politician to come into politics and still have extensive business interests from previous careers; until the arrival on the scene in recent years of "professional" politicians such as the UK's Blair Brown and Cameron and perhaps your hero, Abhisit, this was the norm. There are rules governing conflict of interest that apply in those areas where they might be able to use their position inappropriately, including the well-meant but ludicrous "blind trust" but more importantly the declaration of interests that is required. There is no reason and no justification for your argument that no politician can be involved in any business that might conceivably in some way have a connection with a government decision, as opposed to withdrawing from any that might involve a personal conflict of interest.

There is no evidence of any inappropriate business having taken place - unless of course you know better.

Now if you had said that "this is Thailand where the rules do not apply to those with sufficient power and I believe that Yingluck is making a Shinawatra type deal to steal the nation's money" I might not have objected since that would not have been an argument on parliamentary accountability as a concept but you ignored the point I made that if there were no conflict with official duties, they should be able to pursue their personal business interests unless there was a requirement not to do so .

[whybother]

In the way that you have put it, no I do not agree. You are behaving like a TV US attorney - sit down for a minute.

It is nothing unusual for a politician to come into politics and still have extensive business interests from previous careers; until the arrival on the scene in recent years of "professional" politicians such as the UK's Blair Brown and Cameron and perhaps your hero, Abhisit, this was the norm. There are rules governing conflict of interest that apply in those areas where they might be able to use their position inappropriately, including the well-meant but ludicrous "blind trust" but more importantly the declaration of interests that is required. There is no reason and no justification for your argument that no politician can be involved in any business that might conceivably in some way have a connection with a government decision, as opposed to withdrawing from any that might involve a personal conflict of interest.

There is no evidence of any inappropriate business having taken place - unless of course you know better.

Now if you had said that "this is Thailand where the rules do not apply to those with sufficient power and I believe that Yingluck is making a Shinawatra type deal to steal the nation's money" I might not have objected since that would not have been an argument on parliamentary accountability as a concept but you ignored the point I made that if there were no conflict with official duties, they should be able to pursue their personal business interests unless there was a requirement not to do so .

I don't know what "deal" Yingluck is making, but I believe there IS a conflict with her official duties as PM.

Given the various court cases over the years regarding conflict of interest of politicians, I would assume that there is "a requirement not to do so". There is certainly an ethical requirement not to do so.

If you're saying that it's OK that the PM makes personal secret business deals when she has an influence over government decisions that potentially relate to that business, then you're supporting corruption.

[pastitche]

In the way that you have put it, no I do not agree. You are behaving like a TV US attorney - sit down for a minute.

It is nothing unusual for a politician to come into politics and still have extensive business interests from previous careers; until the arrival on the scene in recent years of "professional" politicians such as the UK's Blair Brown and Cameron and perhaps your hero, Abhisit, this was the norm. There are rules governing conflict of interest that apply in those areas where they might be able to use their position inappropriately, including the well-meant but ludicrous "blind trust" but more importantly the declaration of interests that is required. There is no reason and no justification for your argument that no politician can be involved in any business that might conceivably in some way have a connection with a government decision, as opposed to withdrawing from any that might involve a personal conflict of interest.

There is no evidence of any inappropriate business having taken place - unless of course you know better.

Now if you had said that "this is Thailand where the rules do not apply to those with sufficient power and I believe that Yingluck is making a Shinawatra type deal to steal the nation's money" I might not have objected since that would not have been an argument on parliamentary accountability as a concept but you ignored the point I made that if there were no conflict with official duties, they should be able to pursue their personal business interests unless there was a requirement not to do so .

I don't know what "deal" Yingluck is making, but I believe there IS a conflict with her official duties as PM.

Given the various court cases over the years regarding conflict of interest of politicians, I would assume that there is "a requirement not to do so". There is certainly an ethical requirement not to do so.

If you're saying that it's OK that the PM makes personal secret business deals when she has an influence over government decisions that potentially relate to that business, then you're supporting corruption.

You are doing it again - making leading statements which are completely unsupported; I have not said that it's OK that the PM makes secret business deals when she has an influence over government decisions that potentially relate to that business; if you were less interested in arguing adversarially, you might have noticed that I said there were rules against conflict of interest - not "ethical", factual rules that I would have expected you to know.

So show me where the evidence is that she has made these unethical and, therefore, illegal deals that you apparently believe have taken place and when you do I will join you in calling for her impeachment.

Until then I suggest that you stop making unsubstantiated claims based on what you "believe" or at least throw them into the forum's dogpit to be snarled over.

[tlansford]

On the other hand, the sex-related comments here are rather disturbing and in poor taste, IMO.

Agreed.

Although, I don't think Akeyuth or the people petitioning the ombudsman have suggested that. Just some TV posters, which I'm sure you've learnt to ignore by now.

yes. I have. But the sheer quantity makes them hard to miss.

[Orac]

There seem to be a lot of attempts to smear the PM here but nobody has said anything about the guy she was meeting.

Is he a PT supporter/donor - if so it would not be unreasonable for him to have access to the major players. He could have been the one who requested the meeting which might explain the reticence in Yingluck saying why she was there other than making it clear she wasn't there on government business.

[udonguy]

In the way that you have put it, no I do not agree. You are behaving like a TV US attorney - sit down for a minute.

It is nothing unusual for a politician to come into politics and still have extensive business interests from previous careers; until the arrival on the scene in recent years of "professional" politicians such as the UK's Blair Brown and Cameron and perhaps your hero, Abhisit, this was the norm. There are rules governing conflict of interest that apply in those areas where they might be able to use their position inappropriately, including the well-meant but ludicrous "blind trust" but more importantly the declaration of interests that is required. There is no reason and no justification for your argument that no politician can be involved in any business that might conceivably in some way have a connection with a government decision, as opposed to withdrawing from any that might involve a personal conflict of interest.

There is no evidence of any inappropriate business having taken place - unless of course you know better.

Now if you had said that "this is Thailand where the rules do not apply to those with sufficient power and I believe that Yingluck is making a Shinawatra type deal to steal the nation's money" I might not have objected since that would not have been an argument on parliamentary accountability as a concept but you ignored the point I made that if there were no conflict with official duties, they should be able to pursue their personal business interests unless there was a requirement not to do so .

I don't know what "deal" Yingluck is making, but I believe there IS a conflict with her official duties as PM.

Given the various court cases over the years regarding conflict of interest of politicians, I would assume that there is "a requirement not to do so". There is certainly an ethical requirement not to do so.

If you're saying that it's OK that the PM makes personal secret business deals when she has an influence over government decisions that potentially relate to that business, then you're supporting corruption.

You are doing it again - making leading statements which are completely unsupported; I have not said that it's OK that the PM makes secret business deals when she has an influence over government decisions that potentially relate to that business; if you were less interested in arguing adversarially, you might have noticed that I said there were rules against conflict of interest - not "ethical", factual rules that I would have expected you to know.

So show me where the evidence is that she has made these unethical and, therefore, illegal deals that you apparently believe have taken place and when you do I will join you in calling for her impeachment.

Until then I suggest that you stop making unsubstantiated claims based on what you "believe" or at least throw them into the forum's dogpit to be snarled over.

yup but we are in yellow country here on TV

[anterian]

Most rich people have businesses, as do their friends. So if one such openly meets a friend in a restaurant why assume that some underhand deal is being planned. Is a PM not allowed to have friends, even business friends? I think the Dems are scratching around in the dirt in the hope of finding a worm. Be careful, you might find a scorpion and get stung.

[z12]

Most rich people have businesses, as do their friends. So if one such openly meets a friend in a restaurant why assume that some underhand deal is being planned. Is a PM not allowed to have friends, even business friends? I think the Dems are scratching around in the dirt in the hope of finding a worm. Be careful, you might find a scorpion and get stung.

Cause she is mr T's clone.

Edited February 15, 2012 by z12

[anterian]

Most rich people have businesses, as do their friends. So if one such openly meets a friend in a restaurant why assume that some underhand deal is being planned. Is a PM not allowed to have friends, even business friends? I think the Dems are scratching around in the dirt in the hope of finding a worm. Be careful, you might find a scorpion and get stung.

Cause she is mr T's clone.

Is that the only justification you can offer?

[z12]

Most rich people have businesses, as do their friends. So if one such openly meets a friend in a restaurant why assume that some underhand deal is being planned. Is a PM not allowed to have friends, even business friends? I think the Dems are scratching around in the dirt in the hope of finding a worm. Be careful, you might find a scorpion and get stung.

Cause she is mr T's clone.

Is that the only justification you can offer?

And mr T's proxy / puppet.

Edited February 15, 2012 by z12

[anterian]

Most rich people have businesses, as do their friends. So if one such openly meets a friend in a restaurant why assume that some underhand deal is being planned. Is a PM not allowed to have friends, even business friends? I think the Dems are scratching around in the dirt in the hope of finding a worm. Be careful, you might find a scorpion and get stung.

Cause she is mr T's clone.

Is that the only justification you can offer?

And mr T's proxy / puppet.

Well your English comprehension is improving, proxy is more correct than clone, but it still is a limited justification.

However, I'm sure if Mr T wanted to arrange some secret deal, an all costs trip to Dubai would have been the normal method.

Thus, If we apply the principle of parsimony, often called Occam's razor, then most people would see this as a simple meeting between friends who happen to have been in the same line of business.

[z12]

Cause she is mr T's clone.

Is that the only justification you can offer?

And mr T's proxy / puppet.

Well your English comprehension is improving, proxy is more correct than clone, but it still is a limited justification.

However, I'm sure if Mr T wanted to arrange some secret deal, an all costs trip to Dubai would have been the normal method.

Thus, If we apply the principle of parsimony, often called Occam's razor, then most people would see this as a simple meeting between friends who happen to have been in the same line of business.

Don't blame me, mr T said she was a clone. It is not much of a stretch to figure there was tea / tea money there.

What part of 'conflict of interest' do you not understand?

What part of 'transparency in gov't' do you not understand?

Edited February 15, 2012 by z12

[anterian]

z12. I fully understand, "conflict of interest", however you have not demonstrated this, merely claimed it as a possibility. Thus your comment is at best rumour mongering, at worst libelous.

[z12]

z12. I fully understand, "conflict of interest", however you have not demonstrated this, merely claimed it as a possibility. Thus your comment is at best rumour mongering, at worst libelous.

PM clone started the rumors with her obfuscating remarks, blame her.

Edited February 15, 2012 by z12

[anterian]

z12. I fully understand, "conflict of interest", however you have not demonstrated this, merely claimed it as a possibility. Thus your comment is at best rumour mongering, at worst libelous.

PM clone started the rumors with her obfuscating remarks, blame her.

well I see from your spelling that you are an American, so perhaps your logic is more sophisticated than mine.

Thinking simplistically I do not see how one can make "obfuscating remarks" about a rumour until a rumour exists to obfuscate.