Democrats Call On Yingluck To Explain Four Seasons Meeting

[ThaiOats]

Here are the bullets for the Democrats to claim that there was a conflict of interest:

1) The stories between the businessmen didn't match therefore they were lying.

2) The footage/evidence disappears within a week or is unavailable.

3) It was on a day in which Parliament was in session but she opts to have another meeting with high profile business people.

What does the government have to counter these facts? Can they provide facts or will it just be people claiming "it was appropriate and nothing wrong".

Edited June 20, 2012 by ThaiOats

[whybother]

i'd say there will be no conflict of interest ever proven in regards to this incident, and the sexual thing was just a petty, childish, ridiculous attempt to sling mud at her reputation.

it seems the claims are just being laughed at by the ptp.

also if this was such a shady meeting, i'd suggest they would have picked a less conspicuous place.

though with the lack of evidence so far to prove that it wasn't a conflict of interest i still certainly don't rule it out.

but let us not forget the way this first came to attention... the allegations and hints from an anti-thaksin, pyramid schemer businessman that yingluck ordered her security to beat him up!

sad, sad, sad.

This was a shady meeting, otherwise we would all know exactly what the meeting was about.

Sent from my shoe phone

[ThaiOats]

After all the angry emotional accusations about how I and others are trying to smear Yingluck for insignificant and uninteresting sex-crimes has died down, I will point out what I consider the actual crime again and why it is a crime regardless of how you see it.

There is three as I can see basic facts which are all extremely serious and unavoidable. The first is the most serious.

One. Did she abuse her position as Prime Minister of Thailand in secret business deals of *any* type during those meetings. That is a simple Q&A process.

Question : would these real-estate oligarchs want to hold a business-meeting about land (or politics or banking or anything) with Yingluck if she was not Prime Minister? She is a housewife with basic normal education same as millions of other Thai ladies, she has no professional career to speak of and is not a prominent real-estate broker for example. Would they arrange a meeting with her for this business-transaction if she was not Prime Minister. If the answer is "no they would not have met with her unless she was PM" then that is immediately a crime of abusing the prime-ministerial office. Which is very serious crime. She was only attending this secret meeting because she holds the office of PM, and yet she is not attending it officially as PM and has not registered it as an official meeting and has not even told anybody about it, and yet she is there because of her powerful government position. That is abuse of authority at the highest level in politics. Prison-cell time.

Two. Why did she not declare this PM business-meeting beforehand if it was innocent personal business. Why did she go during parliamentary hours, when all her 'co-workers' in parliament were busy at work doing their jobs for the electorate of Thailand. Why does she not conduct personal business during personal time. How many of her hundreds of other 'away from parliament' days were spent in similar hotel-rooms holding secret meetings with other conflicting business-interests. Are we to believe this was a one-off? If so, why is she so consistenly absent from parliament.

Three. Why did they change their official story after the event, actions which can only be seen as deeply incriminating.

I don't think anyone can refute your reasoning. If someone does take up to the task, they have better provide good reasons.

[animatic]

The definitions of rooms in a hotel seem to be open to some non-agreeing interpretations.

But what goes on in them is likely much more cut and dried,

and then will still be parsed for interpretations partisanily.

I may be wrong but I don't think the Four Seasons is of the "rent by the hour" persuasion.

"But what goes on in them is likely much more cut and dried",

Pray tell what goes on in hotel rooms that is so "cut and dried". Do they use some kind of pheremone that makes people want to have sex and nothing else when they go into a hotel room?

"parsed for interpretations partisanily" - Do you speak like that in real life, I mean, really?.

Perhaps we should look at this incessant hounding of Yingluck as, how would you put it, mmm,

"Looks like a kangaroo court show with a sleeping kangaroo, but a loud carny barker out front selling the punters on a non-existant show"

Real life. Interesting to compare TVF with real life.

Using good words in real life? Well that really depends on who I am speaking with.

If I think they can follow less simplistic, but more direct words, I will use them.

Not every conversation must be a 6th grade level to have value.

[jackspratt]

After all the angry emotional accusations about how I and others are trying to smear Yingluck for insignificant and uninteresting sex-crimes has died down, I will point out what I consider the actual crime again and why it is a crime regardless of how you see it.

There is three as I can see basic facts which are all extremely serious and unavoidable. The first is the most serious.

One. Did she abuse her position as Prime Minister of Thailand in secret business deals of *any* type during those meetings. That is a simple Q&A process.

Question : would these real-estate oligarchs want to hold a business-meeting about land (or politics or banking or anything) with Yingluck if she was not Prime Minister? She is a housewife with basic normal education same as millions of other Thai ladies, she has no professional career to speak of and is not a prominent real-estate broker for example. Would they arrange a meeting with her for this business-transaction if she was not Prime Minister. If the answer is "no they would not have met with her unless she was PM" then that is immediately a crime of abusing the prime-ministerial office. Which is very serious crime. She was only attending this secret meeting because she holds the office of PM, and yet she is not attending it officially as PM and has not registered it as an official meeting and has not even told anybody about it, and yet she is there because of her powerful government position. That is abuse of authority at the highest level in politics. Prison-cell time.

Two. Why did she not declare this PM business-meeting beforehand if it was innocent personal business. Why did she go during parliamentary hours, when all her 'co-workers' in parliament were busy at work doing their jobs for the electorate of Thailand. Why does she not conduct personal business during personal time. How many of her hundreds of other 'away from parliament' days were spent in similar hotel-rooms holding secret meetings with other conflicting business-interests. Are we to believe this was a one-off? If so, why is she so consistenly absent from parliament.

Three. Why did they change their official story after the event, actions which can only be seen as deeply incriminating.

I don't think anyone can refute your reasoning. If someone does take up to the task, they have better provide good reasons.

No need to refute it - given that most of it appears to be speculation and baseless assumptions.

1. Does Thailand have an official "Register" of meetings between the PM/Cabinet Ministers/MPs and businessmen?

2. Does anyone actually believe that the PM/Premier of any democracy actually spends their entire time in the Chamber when parliament is meeting?

3. How does our resident rhetoric queen Yunla know what was discussed at the Four Seasons meeting, let alone being in a position to describe it as "treason"?

I am far from a supporter of Yingluck (and even less of her evil brother), and the events of the Four Seasons meeting deserve, and require, to be exposed to public scrutiny. But the speculation, innuendo, sexism, bush lawyering and plain bullsh1t on this thread just defy logical description. (Which, unfortunately, is very much the norm these days on many TV threads).

[bigbamboo]

Enough. The story's out and you can see why it was kept quiet.

Yingluck was secretly meeting a group of IT experts to see if there was a way to get any of those Chinese computer tablets to actually work.

[rubl]

begin removed

3. How does our resident rhetoric queen Yunla know what was discussed at the Four Seasons meeting, let alone being in a position to describe it as "treason"?

I am far from a supporter of Yingluck (and even less of her evil brother), and the events of the Four Seasons meeting deserve, and require, to be exposed to public scrutiny. But the speculation, innuendo, sexism, bush lawyering and plain bullsh1t on this thread just defy logical description. (Which, unfortunately, is very much the norm these days on many TV threads).

Member Yunla didn't say to know what was discussed, only elaborated on possibilities depending on what actually happened. May I remind you of the various and contradicting statements from government and Pheu Thai party people, all of which only encouraged speculation.

I'm far from a supporter of PM Yingluck (and even less of her evil brother), bla bla, bla blabla

Edited June 20, 2012 by rubl

[Yunla]

I don't think this is about Abhisit but I would sincerely wonder why it is that a woman PM has to face these questions when a male PM would not given similar circumstances. I may dislike Ying and all she stands for but I dislike this kind of sexism even more.

Re; the man/woman thing.

In England, which has a functioning and modern parliamentary democracy, if Tony Blair had been caught in a private hotel-suite holding a secret unscheduled meeting with undeclared private business interests, had tried to deny it then admit it afterwards, he would have been kicked out of Number 10 in weeks, and faced serious legal proceedings with banishment from politics and fines and jailtime. They would have kicked him up the hill, and down the hill, like the grand old Duke of York.

Him pleading "but I'm a man" would not have saved him. They take ethics-violations seriously in England and that is why it is a functioning democracy and not a tinpot mafia dictatorship for example.

In the US the Constitution forbids members of Congress from meeting elsewhere. Ethics violations are also serious crimes in US. Secret meetings to discuss matters relating to a person's position in government is a crime internationally. Men would be prosecuted just as hard as women.

These laws are failsafes, they are the security mechanism of democratic government to stop "prime minister Yingluck" from abusing her post and from raiding the vault like her brother did (accused of giving 30% of Thai state funds to family businesses while he was in office).

Democratic government is for the normal working people, that is what democracy means, it is literally 'rule of the people'. Yingluck was elected on a goodwill vote for change, by an optimistic and hopeful system of democracy, but she is no longer PM in a democracy, she is ruling by totalitarian autocracy. She is setting the clock back by decades and centuries.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Yunla

[Yunla]

3. How does our resident rhetoric queen Yunla know what was discussed at the Four Seasons meeting, let alone being in a position to describe it as "treason"?

I pointed out at the start that ethics violations mean that she should not be meeting in secret in hotels, for any reason and as such I do not need to know what was discussed. The OP says that one of the men is a real-estate heavyhitter, so I would guess land is playing a part. Either way, it is the fact that an elected Prime Minister is holding secret meetings in hotels, denying then admitting to the meetings afterwards, which is the crime here.

The reason we have conflict of interest laws and ethics code laws is to prevent people from abusing their power. That is to benefit the poorest people in society. Yingluck is one of the richest people in society, meeting in secret hotelrooms with other super-rich powerful corporate interests, while millions around the country are in desperate poverty. That is a moral crime in itself, however it is also a crime under law because to be prime minister means to serve the electorate and not to serve individual businessmen.

Democratic parliament and those who are employed therein is kept seperate from other interest groups such as business and religion, for a reason. To use your parliamentary office in any non-parliamentary business deals is most certainly a crime regardless of "what was discussed".

Also Yingluck has several secretaries and keeps an official schedule which she often uses to avoid going to parliament, that schedule should include an entry on that day saying "important government meeting with Mr. So and Mr So in 4Seasons Hotel, to discuss such and such, which I will report the details and outcome of my hotel meeting back to parliament after the meeting and allow the Opposition to raise their concerns in a free and open debate." Sadly, you will find no such entry, because she is not a prime minister, she is an overlord.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Yunla