A wiser blogger had used various criteria like:
(my opinions in green)
1. Was the act non-consensual? Most unlike not as no evidences or force seem evident
2. Was it under duress e.g. pressure and threats to keep one's job, or to secure one's livelihood or security? I don' know the answer as I don't know who or what was involved
3. Was it a form of inducement e.g. in an employer-employee relationship which would result in benefits and advantages; or for political favours like good seat allocation, contracts, commissions etc.? I don' know the answer as I don't know who or what was involved
4. Did the Minister used his job privileges e.g. to get a free or discounted hotel room, used ministerial facilities e.g. official car, or dug deep into the public coffers to pay for that hotel suite? I don' know the answer as I don't know who or what was involved
Seem like it is hard to tell, so I think it is better to comment out what had been earlier been published. The only think I can see is one should not say one thing and do another.
Content below commented out unless some there are some compelling new developments that may cause me to reverse my decision.