The Parliamentary Committee on Political Development believes Dr. Sorn has powerful backers after the committee used its authority to summon him for clarification three times, but he did not appear. The committee warned that continued disregard could constitute a criminal offense. Meanwhile, representatives from the People's Network criticized state agencies for their lack of cooperation in this matter.
On 9 July 2026 at the Parliament, Ms. Chalnat Koykul, a Bangkok MP from the Prachachon Party and spokesperson for the Parliamentary Committee on Political Development, Mass Communication, and Public Participation, stated after the committee meeting that this was the third session reviewing the disqualifying qualifications of Dr. Sorn Boonbaichaiyapruck, chairman of the National Broadcasting and Telecommunications Commission (NBTC). Recently, the committee summoned Mr. Supachai Patumanakul, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Higher Education, Science, Research and Innovation, using legal summons powers. However, he sent a representative instead and provided no additional information. Documents remained unclear, prompting questions within the committee, with Ms. Phakamon Noon-anant, list MP from the Prachachon Party and chair of the committee, asking whether there was a concerted effort to protect Dr. Sorn.
Ms. Chalnat continued that despite abundant evidence of disqualifications, it appeared that various agencies or organizations were systematically protecting Dr. Sorn. Those summoned failed to appear in person, including responsible officials who did not provide information. A key question raised was who Dr. Sorn really is and why there is such systematic protection. Previously, there were reports that Mahidol University stated Dr. Sorn was disqualified, but attempts to identify the source failed, raising doubts about the credibility of the report. She emphasized that discussing public complaints in committee meetings was conducted in good faith, focusing on facts rather than passing judgment, and calling relevant parties for information without bias. Yet, the committee faced accusations of partiality, which she saw as a coordinated attack.
Meanwhile, Mr. Metha Maskhaw, secretary-general of the People's Network and representative of the Consumer Organizations Council, said they received no cooperation from state agencies in providing evidence. The facts have been clear since the 2024 ICT committee of the Senate. Today, although all agencies were invited to provide information, none respected the parliamentary oversight process, including Dr. Sorn, who reportedly traveled to Malaysia. The evidence provided was outdated, and documents clearly showed Dr. Sorn lacked the required qualifications. Therefore, they await the recruitment committee's assessment of whether the evidence is sufficient. The refusal to clarify facts likely stems from lacking proof to demonstrate innocence or to contest the established facts.
He added that he had submitted further petitions to the committee regarding parties with interests in telecommunications spectrum, including the Secretary-General and the President of the Senate, especially the Prime Minister. If the chairman is found disqualified, he must be removed from office. Since 2024, the People's Network has requested the removal of the NBTC chairman and all Prime Ministers involved, but legal action has been delayed. They urge the Parliamentary Committee on Political Development to investigate the Prime Minister for dereliction of duty under Section 157 and for willfully violating serious ethical standards by delaying the case to assist the accused, as the factual evidence remains undisputed.
Therefore, if the recruitment committee finds the Prime Minister guilty of dereliction of duty, it cannot be denied. They hope the Parliamentary Committee on Political Development will forward the matter to the Speaker of Parliament to refer it to the National Anti-Corruption Commission for submission to the Supreme Court's Criminal Division for Political Office Holders. If the case involves willful serious ethical violations, committee MPs can propose one of ten members to petition the Constitutional Court to adjudicate, as it constitutes a serious offense.
Ms. Chalnat further stated that although the committee has summoned Dr. Sorn using legal powers, and shorthand minutes with legal effect were taken at the meeting, if he continues to ignore summonses, it would not only breach the summons law but could also become a criminal case. Officials providing false or misleading information or concealing facts will face legal consequences. She affirmed the committee works based on neutrality, examining all information on factual grounds, and will not stop until all involved are summoned to explain directly.
When asked if any letters explaining absences had been received, Ms. Chalnat said the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Higher Education claimed Dr. Sorn had travel duties in Malaysia. However, the person who signed for the documents should have appeared but did not. There is a clear attempt to evade, as Dr. Sorn was summoned three times, citing prior commitments each time and failing to appear. The question remains: a person managing national resources worth hundreds of billions holding such a crucial position, when questioned, why are so many parties seemingly cooperating to avoid providing information? This raises further questions about who Dr. Sorn is and why he is so thoroughly protected.
It was discussed that this is a personal matter, but the Parliamentary Committee on Political Development has tried to frame it politically. Based on evidence, there is a clear effort by multiple parties to support and shield Dr. Sorn by avoiding information disclosure. It cannot be denied that this is definitely a political issue, with strong backing involved.
Ms. Chalnat concluded that a person responsible for managing national resources worth hundreds of billions, with the power to decide on significant matters, has disqualifying qualifications to hold office. After being questioned, he has continuously evaded responsibility, demonstrating clearly that he is unfit for the position.