Questions :
1. If they claim not to know Su Haijin personally, what steps did they or their offices take to vet the guest list before attending these private dinners, especially given their positions as ministers?
2. How do they explain Su Haijin “happening to be there” at multiple, invitation-only gatherings-do they consider this a coincidence, and what does this suggest about the exclusivity or nature of these events?
3.they state that ministers meet a diverse range of people as part of their duties. How do they differentiate between large public events and small, private dinners in terms of accountability and transparency?
4. Why were the details of the dinners, including the identities of the hosts and other guests, not disclosed in your statements, given public interest and the potential for reputational risk?
5. Do they believe that simply denying personal knowledge of Su Haijin is sufficient to address public concerns about association and judgment, especially after his conviction for money laundering?
6. How do they ensure that participation in private social gatherings does not inadvertently confer legitimacy or access to individuals later found to be involved in criminal activity?
7. Given the repeated presence of Su Haijin at such events, what will they do differently in the future to prevent similar situations and uphold the high standards of integrity you referenced in their statements?