• 
• 

Last Monday, I wrote about the investment of the Financial While researching my last article, I noticed a disturbing fact in the list of members of the selection committee appointed under the amended Bank of Thailand Act. It appears that two of the over 60-year-old men whom I mentioned in my last article are also members of the selection committee. Further fact-finding shows that the finance minister also nominated these two persons to important positions on the board of the Stock Exchange of Thailand. The reputations of these two persons are notorious among securities companies and commercial banks. People in the financial sector are really worried about these movements and have started to ask, "What is going to happen in our financial world?"

Optimistically, I believe that the two persons in question would not possibly be able to influence the committee of as many as seven members. Further fact-finding makes me feel even more disturbed as the appointment of the seven members of the selection committee was quite questionable. But before all, I would like to clarify that I am not criticising the qualifications of the remaining five members but the abnormality of such appointments.

Clause 28/1 of the amended Bank of Thailand Act empowers the finance minister to appoint the selection committee, comprising seven members from those who have previously served in one of the following positions: permanent secretary of finance, permanent secretary of commerce, permanent secretary of industry, director-general of the Budget Bureau, secretary-general of the Council of State, secretary-general of the Office of National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), secretary-general of the Fiscal Policy Office, governor of the Bank of Thailand, or secretary of the SEC. It also states that the committee member must not hold a political position and must not have a conflict of interest.

Among the seven members appointed, one is now an adviser to the finance minister. Isn't this a political position? I don't mean only from a legal point of view, but also from an ethical point of view. Besides, two other members of the committee are now directors of commercial banks. Isn't this a conflict of interest?

Even more disturbing is the fact that the appointments this time were made by making use of the loopholes in the wording of the law. The seven members were appointed from only four positions: one was permanent secretary of finance and one was permanent secretary of industry, which looks normal, but three were directors-general of the Fiscal Policy Office and two were governors of the Bank of Thailand, which in my view is an unnecessary concentration of people with the same background, as the law allowed for as wide a field as nine positions to choose from.

I still remember the intention of this clause. Originally, the intention was to select one member from each position of the proposed seven positions. Along the process of drafting, two more positions were added making a total of nine positions to be selected from, but the wording was not clearly spelled out to assure a good distribution of selected members. As a consequence, there are loopholes that make abuse of the distribution of positions possible. I am not arguing that the appointments this time were against the law. Under normal circumstances, and unmotivated by any hidden agenda, any minister who reads the wording of this clause would normally be inclined to select committee members from as many positions as possible, since it would attract a variety of experience which would be more useful in the selection process.

There is a notable absence on the selection committee of any ex-secretary-generals of the NESDB, ex-permanent secretaries of Commerce, and ex-secretary-generals of the Council of State, all of whom once sat on the Bank of Thailand's board of directors and know quite well the qualifications needed to be a member of that board. I am convinced that people like Snoh Unakul, Bhisit Paksasem, Sumet Tantivejkul, Bajr Israsena, Jare Jutharatanakul, Akaratorn Juraratna, and Maitree Tantemsapya, to name a few, are well qualified for this job and would definitely contribute well in this capacity.

Instead of making use of these respectable people to ensure a variety of experience, the finance minister opted to make the selection from only a few positions, as mentioned earlier. It just happens to be that these appointed members of the committee are somewhat connected to the minister himself. Some are still working in the finance ministry, and they would find it difficult not to respond to a request of the minister. Some are close aides or advisers. Some depend on the minister due to pending legal cases. Such an appointment of the selection committee cannot be interpreted as being driven by an intention other than to streamline the selection result to the preference of the minister or a group of people surrounding him.

I am writing this article to fight for righteousness. I do not want to see both the SEC and the Bank of Thailand dominated only by a handful of people, one active member of which is still involved in a financial lawsuit. I do not want securities companies and banks to be under the influence of such a group of people. We have spent years to improve governance in the financial system to the point at which it is now internationally accepted. I do not like to see our country turning back the wheel of this governance issue. I, however, still have hopes. I hope that this article of mine will unveil certain unknown facts to the finance minister and I believe that he is decent enough to finally make a change in this appointment, as certain changes are needed to replace two members who are now directors of commercial banks, which is obviously a conflict of interest.