Sub-committee says selection process for National Broadcasting Commission did not follow legal requirements

Bangkok PostWednesday, June 22, 2005
By Mongkol Bangprapa

A senate sub-committee has found the selection process for broadcasting regulators to be at fault, some of the 14 shortlisted candidates unqualified and the credibility of the selection panel itself to be in doubt, a high-level Senate source said.
The Senate must now decide whether to go ahead and vote seven of the 14 finalists onto the National Broadcasting Commission (NBC) or reject the list of nominees to force an entirely new, transparent selection, the source said.
A cloud of suspicion hangs over the selection process, the candidates’ qualifications and some of the 17 selection panel members who have suspect business connections. It has held up the NBC’s establishment for more than five years.
The NBC is an independent body charged with managing broadcasting frequencies, issuing business licences for radio and television stations and allocating frequencies for public, private and community radio operators.
In its report, the nine-member sub-committee vetting the selection process for the NBC said yesterday it found the selection panel did not follow the legal requirement that it give more weight to the expertise and experience of candidates over other qualifications and also failed to produce clear proof that the finalists were a cut above those who were rejected.
”That resulted in candidates who are not qualified enough to be on the NBC getting nominated,” the source said.
The report said the selection panel itself was also no longer valid after the Supreme Administrative Court nullified its first selection two years ago because the process lacked transparency since some members had close ties with certain candidates.
Six panel members had resigned but four who remained were no longer representatives of professional broadcasting associations and thus were not qualified to be panel members, the report said.
The report added the selection process was not credible because the panel had not allowed new applications while there was still a conflict-of-interest problem which had caused the Supreme Administrative Court to reject the nominations.

Date Posted: 6/22/2005