“I’ve read the recent Kuensel article highlighting growing dissatisfaction over the high rejection rate of Economic Stimulus Programme (ESP) loans. As someone who has personally followed up on many applications from my constituents, I feel it is important to clarify a few points, especially the concern that some individuals may have received loans due to political or personal connections.

As a serving Member of Parliament and a ruling MP, I have visited the BDBL office several times to follow up on behalf of my constituents. Some applicants had their loans approved, not because I requested, but because:

• Their business proposals were strong and realistic

• All required documents were submitted

• Their CIB records and loan histories were clean

Many others were rejected, and in most cases, the reasons were valid:

• Unviable or inflated business proposals

• Poor credit histories or existing loan defaults

• Incomplete documentation

• Some applications lacked a clear or credible business plan

It’s also important to recognize that, because ESP loans are collateral-free, a few applicants may have viewed it as an opportunity to access funds without serious preparation. When such applications are rejected, the story of rejection often spreads faster than the full facts.

From what I’ve seen, and based on the reasons outlined in the article, BDBL has largely acted within its mandate. That said, if there is credible and verifiable evidence that any individuals were unfairly favored, we want to know.

Today, the world is in our palms, and technology connects us all instantly. Please feel free to reach us through many means. So please let us know. As your MP, I assure you: we will follow up, and we will act. Everyone must be treated equally, regardless of connections or background.

We also accept that there are genuine issues in the ESP guidelines. One key example is the categorization of sectors:

•Agriculture and livestock loans are capped at Nu. 1 million. This ceiling is not enough to fund projects like dairy or fishery farms.

•If the project cost exceeds Nu. 1 million, it must be reclassified under Manufacturing and Processing, which involves more complex criteria and often disqualifies rural entrepreneurs. This is a gap that must be addressed.

Another challenge is the issue of Non-Performing Loans (NPLs). Applicants with an existing NPL are generally not eligible for ESP loans. However, they may qualify for the Business Reinvigoration Fund (RGF) if they present a credible and well-structured business revival plan. I believe this is a sensible approach but more public awareness on this distinction is needed.

One thing I’ve noticed is that most loan proponents strongly believe in the viability of their projects. They have confidence, motivation, and support from their communities. However, the banks sometimes have doubts about the sustainability or feasibility of these business models. If I speak honestly, I am 50-50 on this. I support the bank’s responsibility to assess risk, but I also feel that some assessments may lack practical or contextual understanding especially of non-conventional or rural proposals. This is an area we need to improve.

We have also heard concerns that a few established businesses may have received large ESP loans in a single tranche. While we do not yet have full details, I want to assure you that MPs are already working to obtain more information. If any misuse is found, it will be brought to light.

We also acknowledge that ESP did not roll out with clear and consistent guidelines initially, which caused confusion and disappointment for many applicants. That’s a lesson we must carry forward. But at the same time, it is too early to judge the final outcome of the programme. Building viable enterprises and reviving the economy takes time.

To conclude, I’m reminded of a well-known Bhutanese proverb:

“𝘛𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.”

Yes, ESP is generously funded through a grant from the Government of India, and yes, it is a collateral-free loan for our people. But that does not mean it should be distributed casually. Every ngultrum must have impact, and every project must be scrutinised.

That is how we build a fair and results-driven system.

Let’s stay engaged. Let’s stay fair. And let’s continue working together to strengthen public trust through transparency, accountability, and genuine service.” – MP Sonam Tashi, Lamgong Wangcha