| NGOs Express Wishes to Amend Mongolian PRTV Law |
|
|
| By D. Binderiya | |
| Tuesday, 14 November 2006 | |
|
A working group of the Standing Committee on Legal
Affairs will introduce findings about the implementation of the Public Radio
and Television (PRTV) law on Wednesday, stating that political party and private
interests are holding back the development of public broadcasting in Mongolia. The working group report, obtained by MonInfo Monday, states, “The political parties aspire to put their ‘own party’s’ person as an administrative managers of PRTV and the National board. The administrative management of PRTV have not resolved the contradicted issues of PRTV property and revenue issues correctly and mutual confidence between employees and administration.” N. Dashzeveg, Head of the Foundation for protecting Domestic Manufacturers’ rights and interests said, “Let’s make changes and amendments to our Public Radio and Television law. It is losing its meaning to be public radio and television,” he said at a meeting held between NGOs and nine members of the PRTV National Board representing the organization to the public. “All these fifteen members of the board are political appointees and serving to the interests of two political parties in power,” he added. The law on public radio and television states that the national board will be a part-time organization representing public interests and will have 15 members to work for six year terms; four of them are nominated by the President of Mongolia; seven of them are nominated by Parliament and the remaining four are proposed by the Government. “I have a proposal here that we, NGOs and public representatives, will meet once in a month and see if they really are working for the public, because we have not met since the board was established on October 13 last year,” Dashzeveg added. G. Chagnaadorj, Referent of the Standing committee on Legal affairs and a member of the standing committee working group said, “The working group will only introduce about the implementation of the PRTV law. There are some comments and recommendations given to the National board and administrative management of PRTV that they should pursue.” “Neither we, nor the Standing committee has any right or function to monitor or account for responsibility to the National Board,” he added. On the reporting sheet of the working group by the standing committee it is stated in a section called ‘issues to take into account in the future’ that it is required to define the optimal administrative and organizational structure of the organization by considering the opinions of employees about the number of administrative staff increasing. Representatives from Mongolian NGOs at the opinion exchange meeting criticized the National Board for not participating in defining the programming strategy of PRTV. Kh. Naranjargal, Head of Globe International said, “In my views the National Board should have focused on the program policy and direction rather than the issue of re-establishing structure and approving rules and procedures.” “It is recommended by the working group of the standing committee that NPRTV is required to run its activities based on the PRTV law article ‘to get support from the state budget’ and to pay attention to revenue generation, for instance through service fees of television and radio transmission lines” said the working group’s report. Kh. Chilaajav, Chairman of the PRTV National Board said, “One year and one month is not a long enough time to make the television and radio like a public radio and television during this transition period especially since this organization has a governmental status where it relies on the government for more than 70 percent of its budget.” E. Bat-Uul, MP and member of the Standing Committee working group said, “As I know there were 34 people on the list nominated for the National board and 15 members were approved by the President, Government and Parliament and the list of the selected 15 was passed during a Parliamentary session.” “I have not received or heard of any comments and complaints that some of the board members are actually political party appointees,” he added. |
|
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 14 November 2006 ) |







