Banks interested in bidding for bridging loan to pay Thai rice farmers

[rubl]

The facts? You mean like Suthep dropping the effort to stop banks from granting loans to a caretaker government which didn't have the authority to seek those loans? The desperate search for money in State Banks, Pension Funds, anywhere where the caretaker government thought it might influence? Still ignoring that the Yingluck administration had said to need 270 billion Baht for the 2013/2014 RPPS and to have the funding. Months before dissolving the House bills weren't paid already and the caretaker government suddenly wanted to borrow 130 billion.

Those type of facts?

I give up, you did not understand my point, and maybe it's my fault.

I was looking at the fact that for Government mistakes and political obstacles farmer did not get payments for over 9 months...

If I wasn't clear I am sorry and I don't know how to explain further my point of view.

Peace.

Government mistakes? Lying about having the funds for the 270 billion 2013/2014 RPPS, not paying bills for months already and in caretaker mode suddenly needing to borrow 130 billion? "mistake"? Personally I'd only call that criminally negligent being my usual friendly self.

As for 'political obstacles', you seem to refer to the restrictions by LAW which a caretaker government faces. Like the inability to freely borrow when a next government would need to honour those loans.

I think your point of view is in trying your best to absolve the corrupt Yingluck government of lack of transparency, lack of responsibility, criminal negligence, lying, etc., etc.

[Piichai]

Yingluck was a caretaker; Yingluck had not the authority for many things.

Prayuth is not lumbered by being a caretaker.

Piichai I am aware of that, if the EC would have given their ok, I am sure that banks would have given their ok for loans as they do now.

I am not putting it on a political matter, but I am looking it from the farmers perspective. It's a shame that they had to wait so long, as no one gave a damn about them during the caretaker government...

Why would the EC assist Yingluck in breaking the law?

There are some interesting threads with discussions on how Thaksin used the farmers as pawns. But what it all comes down to is that Yingluck could have paid the farmers when the money was due long before PDRC hit the streets, or Yingluck could have provided for the farmers before she dissolved parliament; either would have been legal and the farmers would have been paid. Yingluck chose to do neither, and the farmers and their families suffered as a result.

Shameful indeed. But it's just another snowflake in Thaksin's blizzard of shame.

[Publicus]

Seem now the banks are climbing all over themselves to provide loans to the rice scheme. The infrastructure and the water projects are back on the drawing board. OPEC wants the tablet scheme to continue and the budget is back on track. Looks like pre PDRC days. Except for stopping the amnesty bill, the 6+ months of PDRC really has not achieved anything.

Some have noticed Yingluck and her cronies are no longer in office.

Some don't have much of a choice except to do what Army "asks" them to do.

Please explain yourself. Thanks

It's the old principle a lot of posters here have yet to learn and then to appreciate, that, "Never explain yourself to anyone. Because the person who likes you doesn't need it and the person who dislikes you won't believe it."

To which I would add the request presumes something needs explaining when in fact the post is self evident and stands well by itself.

Such sweet solicitations wai included are anyway no better than those doused with vinegar, and are perhaps worse for being insidious and pernicious.

Martial law, rubl, martial law. If the general asked you to report to him at a certain time on a date specific, would you advise the general you're busy.

(Rhetorical question rubl, rhetorical.)

[newcomer71]

The facts? You mean like Suthep dropping the effort to stop banks from granting loans to a caretaker government which didn't have the authority to seek those loans? The desperate search for money in State Banks, Pension Funds, anywhere where the caretaker government thought it might influence? Still ignoring that the Yingluck administration had said to need 270 billion Baht for the 2013/2014 RPPS and to have the funding. Months before dissolving the House bills weren't paid already and the caretaker government suddenly wanted to borrow 130 billion.

Those type of facts?

I give up, you did not understand my point, and maybe it's my fault.

I was looking at the fact that for Government mistakes and political obstacles farmer did not get payments for over 9 months...

If I wasn't clear I am sorry and I don't know how to explain further my point of view.

Peace.

Government mistakes? Lying about having the funds for the 270 billion 2013/2014 RPPS, not paying bills for months already and in caretaker mode suddenly needing to borrow 130 billion? "mistake"? Personally I'd only call that criminally negligent being my usual friendly self.

As for 'political obstacles', you seem to refer to the restrictions by LAW which a caretaker government faces. Like the inability to freely borrow when a next government would need to honour those loans.

I think your point of view is in trying your best to absolve the corrupt Yingluck government of lack of transparency, lack of responsibility, criminal negligence, lying, etc., etc.

Lol you better relax... I told you what was the matter of my post, then if you want to think I am a Red Shirt like all extremists here, be my guest.

[rubl]

Some don't have much of a choice except to do what Army "asks" them to do.

Please explain yourself. Thanks

It's the old principle a lot of posters here have yet to learn and then to appreciate, that, "Never explain yourself to anyone. Because the person who likes you doesn't need it and the person who dislikes you won't believe it."

To which I would add the request presumes something needs explaining when in fact the post is self evident and stands well by itself.

Such sweet solicitations wai included are anyway no better than those doused with vinegar, and are perhaps worse for being insidious and pernicious.

Martial law, rubl, martial law. If the general asked you to report to him at a certain time on a date specific, would you advise the general you're busy.

(Rhetorical question rubl, rhetorical.)

Your explanation makes clear why I have a problem discussion things with you as you already assume a lot and dismiss the need to explain because you believe you will not be able to sufficiently to make me believe your explanation or even just accept it.

Not now of the replies till now explain why an invitation by the MoF to bid should be seen an request ny the Military which no one in his right mind would dare to refuse. You and our newcomer are just trying to 'suggest' a lot against the NCPO without being able to even give a shred of evidence.

BTW your last question is not just rhetorical, also dumb, IMHO.

[newcomer71]

Yingluck was a caretaker; Yingluck had not the authority for many things.

Prayuth is not lumbered by being a caretaker.

Piichai I am aware of that, if the EC would have given their ok, I am sure that banks would have given their ok for loans as they do now.

I am not putting it on a political matter, but I am looking it from the farmers perspective. It's a shame that they had to wait so long, as no one gave a damn about them during the caretaker government...

Why would the EC assist Yingluck in breaking the law?

There are some interesting threads with discussions on how Thaksin used the farmers as pawns. But what it all comes down to is that Yingluck could have paid the farmers when the money was due long before PDRC hit the streets, or Yingluck could have provided for the farmers before she dissolved parliament; either would have been legal and the farmers would have been paid. Yingluck chose to do neither, and the farmers and their families suffered as a result.

Shameful indeed. But it's just another snowflake in Thaksin's blizzard of shame.

I still don't make myself clear. If that would have broken the law, it was in any case an emergency to pay the farmers.

Or the main scope was just kick out government and who cares the farmer?

The government already showed total incompetence in manage the rice subsidy, why let the farmer suffer? Qui prodest?

I want to emphasize again: I don't defend ex-government, it was a disgrace to itself. But there's no hero...

[rubl]

The facts? You mean like Suthep dropping the effort to stop banks from granting loans to a caretaker government which didn't have the authority to seek those loans? The desperate search for money in State Banks, Pension Funds, anywhere where the caretaker government thought it might influence? Still ignoring that the Yingluck administration had said to need 270 billion Baht for the 2013/2014 RPPS and to have the funding. Months before dissolving the House bills weren't paid already and the caretaker government suddenly wanted to borrow 130 billion.

Those type of facts?

I give up, you did not understand my point, and maybe it's my fault.

I was looking at the fact that for Government mistakes and political obstacles farmer did not get payments for over 9 months...

If I wasn't clear I am sorry and I don't know how to explain further my point of view.

Peace.

Government mistakes? Lying about having the funds for the 270 billion 2013/2014 RPPS, not paying bills for months already and in caretaker mode suddenly needing to borrow 130 billion? "mistake"? Personally I'd only call that criminally negligent being my usual friendly self.

As for 'political obstacles', you seem to refer to the restrictions by LAW which a caretaker government faces. Like the inability to freely borrow when a next government would need to honour those loans.

I think your point of view is in trying your best to absolve the corrupt Yingluck government of lack of transparency, lack of responsibility, criminal negligence, lying, etc., etc.

Lol you better relax... I told you what was the matter of my post, then if you want to think I am a Red Shirt like all extremists here, be my guest.

A red-shirt? Why would I think that? I had more in mind something like "yingluck government apologist", but I don't really like to label people, apart from the fact that labels tend to suggest more than may actually be meant.

BTW interesting you seem to suggest my replies may mean I should relax and possible ignore your posts.

[Publicus]

Some don't have much of a choice except to do what Army "asks" them to do.

Please explain yourself. Thanks

It's the old principle a lot of posters here have yet to learn and then to appreciate, that, "Never explain yourself to anyone. Because the person who likes you doesn't need it and the person who dislikes you won't believe it."

To which I would add the request presumes something needs explaining when in fact the post is self evident and stands well by itself.

Such sweet solicitations wai included are anyway no better than those doused with vinegar, and are perhaps worse for being insidious and pernicious.

Martial law, rubl, martial law. If the general asked you to report to him at a certain time on a date specific, would you advise the general you're busy.

(Rhetorical question rubl, rhetorical.)

Your explanation makes clear why I have a problem discussion things with you as you already assume a lot and dismiss the need to explain because you believe you will not be able to sufficiently to make me believe your explanation or even just accept it.

Not now of the replies till now explain why an invitation by the MoF to bid should be seen an request ny the Military which no one in his right mind would dare to refuse. You and our newcomer are just trying to 'suggest' a lot against the NCPO without being able to even give a shred of evidence.

BTW your last question is not just rhetorical, also dumb, IMHO.

I don't ask people to explain themselves.

Nor do I respect such insistences.

They are presumptuous.

It's looking down on someone from up on your high horse.

And given your earlier post to me about defaming the ruling military council and the existence of martial law, I'd have to be dubious at best concerning your motives in (unsuccessfully) trying to lure the poster in your own post to "Explain yourself."

[rubl]

Piichai I am aware of that, if the EC would have given their ok, I am sure that banks would have given their ok for loans as they do now.

I am not putting it on a political matter, but I am looking it from the farmers perspective. It's a shame that they had to wait so long, as no one gave a damn about them during the caretaker government...

Why would the EC assist Yingluck in breaking the law?

There are some interesting threads with discussions on how Thaksin used the farmers as pawns. But what it all comes down to is that Yingluck could have paid the farmers when the money was due long before PDRC hit the streets, or Yingluck could have provided for the farmers before she dissolved parliament; either would have been legal and the farmers would have been paid. Yingluck chose to do neither, and the farmers and their families suffered as a result.

Shameful indeed. But it's just another snowflake in Thaksin's blizzard of shame.

I still don't make myself clear. If that would have broken the law, it was in any case an emergency to pay the farmers.

Or the main scope was just kick out government and who cares the farmer?

The government already showed total incompetence in manage the rice subsidy, why let the farmer suffer? Qui prodest?

I want to emphasize again: I don't defend ex-government, it was a disgrace to itself. But there's no hero...

You make yourself perfectly clear. You like to ignore the fact that the Yingluck government had been criminally negligent and therefor the EC should have been more helpful even to the point of ignoring the law.

[newcomer71]

A red-shirt? Why would I think that? I had more in mind something like "yingluck government apologist", but I don't really like to label people, apart from the fact that labels tend to suggest more than may actually be meant.

BTW interesting you seem to suggest my replies may mean I should relax and possible ignore your posts.

I think your point of view is in trying your best to absolve the corrupt Yingluck government of lack of transparency, lack of responsibility, criminal negligence, lying, etc., etc.

This is quite labeling in my view. If you can go back to my posts and please watch again how many times I said ex-government was incompetent and made a disaster. It makes me a Yingluck apologist? I think you are way out of track...

And yes, please, if you like to spin my thoughts and label me as Yingluck apologist, red shirt, or whatever you like to do as usual, please avoid to reply to my post.

You tried to drag the debate to the dirt, and you won.

Cheers.

[Eric Loh]

Yingluck was a caretaker; Yingluck had not the authority for many things.

Prayuth is not lumbered by being a caretaker.

Piichai I am aware of that, if the EC would have given their ok, I am sure that banks would have given their ok for loans as they do now.

I am not putting it on a political matter, but I am looking it from the farmers perspective. It's a shame that they had to wait so long, as no one gave a damn about them during the caretaker government...

Why would the EC assist Yingluck in breaking the law?

There are some interesting threads with discussions on how Thaksin used the farmers as pawns. But what it all comes down to is that Yingluck could have paid the farmers when the money was due long before PDRC hit the streets, or Yingluck could have provided for the farmers before she dissolved parliament; either would have been legal and the farmers would have been paid. Yingluck chose to do neither, and the farmers and their families suffered as a result.

Shameful indeed. But it's just another snowflake in Thaksin's blizzard of shame.

Paid long before the PDRC hit the street? Amusing. All budget allocation including the rice scheme was concluded in Parlimentary debate in August last year long before the PDRC hit the street. Yes agree that the government did not anticipate the poor market price and the increase in production and the debts ballooned. That is why they have to seek loans from the banks but was unsuccessful because of PDRC intimidation. In August who can crystal ball that the PDRC can be so destructive and ruin the economy. The banks have money and could have lend to ease the farmer plights but the PDRC and their allies EC and courts used this as a pressure point against the government. Look suddenly banks willing to lend now when the PDRC and their allies are rendered harmless.

[fab4]

The facts? You mean like Suthep dropping the effort to stop banks from granting loans to a caretaker government which didn't have the authority to seek those loans? The desperate search for money in State Banks, Pension Funds, anywhere where the caretaker government thought it might influence? Still ignoring that the Yingluck administration had said to need 270 billion Baht for the 2013/2014 RPPS and to have the funding. Months before dissolving the House bills weren't paid already and the caretaker government suddenly wanted to borrow 130 billion.

Those type of facts?

I give up, you did not understand my point, and maybe it's my fault.

I was looking at the fact that for Government mistakes and political obstacles farmer did not get payments for over 9 months...

If I wasn't clear I am sorry and I don't know how to explain further my point of view.

Peace.

It's his M.O.

[newcomer71]

Piichai I am aware of that, if the EC would have given their ok, I am sure that banks would have given their ok for loans as they do now.

I am not putting it on a political matter, but I am looking it from the farmers perspective. It's a shame that they had to wait so long, as no one gave a damn about them during the caretaker government...

Why would the EC assist Yingluck in breaking the law?

There are some interesting threads with discussions on how Thaksin used the farmers as pawns. But what it all comes down to is that Yingluck could have paid the farmers when the money was due long before PDRC hit the streets, or Yingluck could have provided for the farmers before she dissolved parliament; either would have been legal and the farmers would have been paid. Yingluck chose to do neither, and the farmers and their families suffered as a result.

Shameful indeed. But it's just another snowflake in Thaksin's blizzard of shame.

I still don't make myself clear. If that would have broken the law, it was in any case an emergency to pay the farmers.

Or the main scope was just kick out government and who cares the farmer?

The government already showed total incompetence in manage the rice subsidy, why let the farmer suffer? Qui prodest?

I want to emphasize again: I don't defend ex-government, it was a disgrace to itself. But there's no hero...

You make yourself perfectly clear. You like to ignore the fact that the Yingluck government had been criminally negligent and therefor the EC should have been more helpful even to the point of ignoring the law.

Did you at least understand who was the one to be helped? The farmers.

Did you read my opinion about ex-governent? No, you just used my topic to bash ex-government at your use, without even read some posts up where I said fault of the mess was Yingluck government and at least they was incompetent.

In the future I will be sure to not reply to your posts, so I will be sure my reply will be not drag in your spins.

Thanks for your attention. Cheers.

[rubl]

A red-shirt? Why would I think that? I had more in mind something like "yingluck government apologist", but I don't really like to label people, apart from the fact that labels tend to suggest more than may actually be meant.

BTW interesting you seem to suggest my replies may mean I should relax and possible ignore your posts.

I think your point of view is in trying your best to absolve the corrupt Yingluck government of lack of transparency, lack of responsibility, criminal negligence, lying, etc., etc.

This is quite labeling in my view. If you can go back to my posts and please watch again how many times I said ex-government was incompetent and made a disaster. It makes me a Yingluck apologist? I think you are way out of track...

And yes, please, if you like to spin my thoughts and label me as Yingluck apologist, red shirt, or whatever you like to do as usual, please avoid to reply to my post.

You tried to drag the debate to the dirt, and you won.

Cheers.

The truth hurts, you mean?

You wrote before

"Some don't have much of a choice except to do what Army "asks" them to do."

"I meant: Now banks don't have much of a choice. They must execute army "requests". "

"As long as farmers are being paid, at the end of the day that is what's important, and I'm sincerely glad that the mess done by the previous government is going to be fixed somehow"

" I only think how they can evaluate Thailand government situation changed after only just 5 days of coup.

Plus almost every foreign analyst foresee recession"

"I still is a mistery how caretaker government has been obstacled to take on debt with the agreement of EC, and now suddenly there's no problem for banks and Thai economy."

" even if Government solvency did not change, under the Caretaker Government, no effort have been made by other institutions to make even the more little loan to finally pay farmers. And when have been done, they had to cancel because the furious PDRC protests."

Edited May 29, 2014 by rubl

[rubl]

The facts? You mean like Suthep dropping the effort to stop banks from granting loans to a caretaker government which didn't have the authority to seek those loans? The desperate search for money in State Banks, Pension Funds, anywhere where the caretaker government thought it might influence? Still ignoring that the Yingluck administration had said to need 270 billion Baht for the 2013/2014 RPPS and to have the funding. Months before dissolving the House bills weren't paid already and the caretaker government suddenly wanted to borrow 130 billion.

Those type of facts?

I give up, you did not understand my point, and maybe it's my fault.

I was looking at the fact that for Government mistakes and political obstacles farmer did not get payments for over 9 months...

If I wasn't clear I am sorry and I don't know how to explain further my point of view.

Peace.

It's his M.O.

And your opinions.

[newcomer71]

A red-shirt? Why would I think that? I had more in mind something like "yingluck government apologist", but I don't really like to label people, apart from the fact that labels tend to suggest more than may actually be meant.

BTW interesting you seem to suggest my replies may mean I should relax and possible ignore your posts.

I think your point of view is in trying your best to absolve the corrupt Yingluck government of lack of transparency, lack of responsibility, criminal negligence, lying, etc., etc.

This is quite labeling in my view. If you can go back to my posts and please watch again how many times I said ex-government was incompetent and made a disaster. It makes me a Yingluck apologist? I think you are way out of track...

And yes, please, if you like to spin my thoughts and label me as Yingluck apologist, red shirt, or whatever you like to do as usual, please avoid to reply to my post.

You tried to drag the debate to the dirt, and you won.

Cheers.

The truth hurts, you mean?

You wrote before

"Some don't have much of a choice except to do what Army "asks" them to do."

"I meant: Now banks don't have much of a choice. They must execute army "requests". "

"As long as farmers are being paid, at the end of the day that is what's important, and I'm sincerely glad that the mess done by the previous government is going to be fixed somehow"

" I only think how they can evaluate Thailand government situation changed after only just 5 days of coup.

Plus almost every foreign analyst foresee recession"

"I still is a mistery how caretaker government has been obstacled to take on debt with the agreement of EC, and now suddenly there's no problem for banks and Thai economy."

" even if Government solvency did not change, under the Caretaker Government, no effort have been made by other institutions to make even the more little loan to finally pay farmers. And when have been done, they had to cancel because the furious PDRC protests."

Cut just the part you like.

Can you stop now?

You made your idea clear and i think me as well.

Thanks

Sent from my Samsung GT-5500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Piichai]

I still don't make myself clear. If that would have broken the law, it was in any case an emergency to pay the farmers.

Or the main scope was just kick out government and who cares the farmer?

The government already showed total incompetence in manage the rice subsidy, why let the farmer suffer? Qui prodest?

I want to emphasize again: I don't defend ex-government, it was a disgrace to itself. But there's no hero...

PTP was quite willing to break the law, there is no denying that. And although it's a pity the farmers and their families suffered, others were not willing to break the law. Thaksin apologists are quite used to PTP and the Reds treating the law with contempt, and think everyone else should as well. But there are others who disagree. There are others that make decisions that are not popular, but it doesn't make them less right.

It does no good to speculate on what might have happened if the EC agreed to break the law. Your efforts would be better spent thinking about why Yingluck refused to pay the farmers the money due long before PDRC hit the streets, and why Yingluck did not provide for the farmers before dissolving parliament.

And how to ensure this never happens again!

[Publicus]

I still don't make myself clear. If that would have broken the law, it was in any case an emergency to pay the farmers.

Or the main scope was just kick out government and who cares the farmer?

The government already showed total incompetence in manage the rice subsidy, why let the farmer suffer? Qui prodest?

I want to emphasize again: I don't defend ex-government, it was a disgrace to itself. But there's no hero...

PTP was quite willing to break the law, there is no denying that. And although it's a pity the farmers and their families suffered, others were not willing to break the law. Thaksin apologists are quite used to PTP and the Reds treating the law with contempt, and think everyone else should as well. But there are others who disagree. There are others that make decisions that are not popular, but it doesn't make them less right.

It does no good to speculate on what might have happened if the EC agreed to break the law. Your efforts would be better spent thinking about why Yingluck refused to pay the farmers the money due long before PDRC hit the streets, and why Yingluck did not provide for the farmers before dissolving parliament.

And how to ensure this never happens again!

"PTP was quite willing to break the law..."

The military mutiny coup makers casually and arbitrarily threw out the constitution, which means they have completely dismissed the rule of law. There aren't any laws for the coup rulers to break. The coup rulers are the law, martial law. So the banksters get now to swing into action under the rule of martial law.

The new bank loans and payments will occur absent a constitution, absent a democratic government, absent the rule of law, absent any checks or balances and absent any independent accounting.

In short, it could be said the military rulers and the banksters have begun to write their own first free ticket. Hopefully some farmers in some places sooner or later will see some of their payments.

And your statement I quote is both Bangkok urban myth and long time propaganda.

Edited May 29, 2014 by Publicus

[Eric Loh]

I still don't make myself clear. If that would have broken the law, it was in any case an emergency to pay the farmers.

Or the main scope was just kick out government and who cares the farmer?

The government already showed total incompetence in manage the rice subsidy, why let the farmer suffer? Qui prodest?

I want to emphasize again: I don't defend ex-government, it was a disgrace to itself. But there's no hero...

PTP was quite willing to break the law, there is no denying that. And although it's a pity the farmers and their families suffered, others were not willing to break the law. Thaksin apologists are quite used to PTP and the Reds treating the law with contempt, and think everyone else should as well. But there are others who disagree. There are others that make decisions that are not popular, but it doesn't make them less right.

It does no good to speculate on what might have happened if the EC agreed to break the law. Your efforts would be better spent thinking about why Yingluck refused to pay the farmers the money due long before PDRC hit the streets, and why Yingluck did not provide for the farmers before dissolving parliament.

And how to ensure this never happens again!

What laws are broken? If it's the rice scheme, no law was broken; just a poor policy. Similarly the EC didn';t breal any law; just a poor err in judgement. If anyone feel that injustice have been served, why can't they speak out even the UDD.

What is this about providing before the PDRC hit the streets. We are talking about budget allocation done long before the PDRC hit the streets and before the government realized that the price prices have plummet and stock pilling up and more funds are needed to pay the farmers. That's why they need to either sell bond or borrow from the banks which they can't due to political situation. And who knows what the PDRC will do. Harassing banks are not your normal run of the mill protestors activities and so is 6+ months of chaos.

[Piichai]

I still don't make myself clear. If that would have broken the law, it was in any case an emergency to pay the farmers.

Or the main scope was just kick out government and who cares the farmer?

The government already showed total incompetence in manage the rice subsidy, why let the farmer suffer? Qui prodest?

I want to emphasize again: I don't defend ex-government, it was a disgrace to itself. But there's no hero...

PTP was quite willing to break the law, there is no denying that. And although it's a pity the farmers and their families suffered, others were not willing to break the law. Thaksin apologists are quite used to PTP and the Reds treating the law with contempt, and think everyone else should as well. But there are others who disagree. There are others that make decisions that are not popular, but it doesn't make them less right.

It does no good to speculate on what might have happened if the EC agreed to break the law. Your efforts would be better spent thinking about why Yingluck refused to pay the farmers the money due long before PDRC hit the streets, and why Yingluck did not provide for the farmers before dissolving parliament.

And how to ensure this never happens again!

What laws are broken? If it's the rice scheme, no law was broken; just a poor policy. Similarly the EC didn';t breal any law; just a poor err in judgement. If anyone feel that injustice have been served, why can't they speak out even the UDD.

What is this about providing before the PDRC hit the streets. We are talking about budget allocation done long before the PDRC hit the streets and before the government realized that the price prices have plummet and stock pilling up and more funds are needed to pay the farmers. That's why they need to either sell bond or borrow from the banks which they can't due to political situation. And who knows what the PDRC will do. Harassing banks are not your normal run of the mill protestors activities and so is 6+ months of chaos.

Please reread the thread. Newcomer was talking about Yingluck's attempts to secure loans as a caretaker.

Personally, I'm glad that Suthep focused the spotlight on the problem. Had my bank issued a loan, my money would have been out that very same day. I've done well in my life not consorting with crooks, and I see no reason to start now.

[rubl]

I still don't make myself clear. If that would have broken the law, it was in any case an emergency to pay the farmers.

Or the main scope was just kick out government and who cares the farmer?

The government already showed total incompetence in manage the rice subsidy, why let the farmer suffer? Qui prodest?

I want to emphasize again: I don't defend ex-government, it was a disgrace to itself. But there's no hero...

PTP was quite willing to break the law, there is no denying that. And although it's a pity the farmers and their families suffered, others were not willing to break the law. Thaksin apologists are quite used to PTP and the Reds treating the law with contempt, and think everyone else should as well. But there are others who disagree. There are others that make decisions that are not popular, but it doesn't make them less right.

It does no good to speculate on what might have happened if the EC agreed to break the law. Your efforts would be better spent thinking about why Yingluck refused to pay the farmers the money due long before PDRC hit the streets, and why Yingluck did not provide for the farmers before dissolving parliament.

And how to ensure this never happens again!

"PTP was quite willing to break the law..."

The military mutiny coup makers casually and arbitrarily threw out the constitution, which means they have completely dismissed the rule of law. There aren't any laws for the coup rulers to break. The coup rulers are the law, martial law. So the banksters get now to swing into action under the rule of martial law.

The new bank loans and payments will occur absent a constitution, absent a democratic government, absent the rule of law, absent any checks or balances and absent any independent accounting.

In short, it could be said the military rulers and the banksters have begun to write their own first free ticket. Hopefully some farmers in some places sooner or later will see some of their payments.

And your statement I quote is both Bangkok urban myth and long time propaganda.

The coup makers are ruled by Martial Law with most laws still applied as well. Didn't the soldiers bring Suthep to the Criminal Court to be formally charged for 'premeditated murder" ?

BTW no free ticket, thanks to the Yingluck Rice Price Pledging Scam which according to fabs 'only' incurred a loss of 500 billion Thailand will still need a few years to pay back that amount which is only growing what with ongoing payments to farmers who were waiting, interest, losses due to degrading and 'mysteriously diminished' stocks, etc., etc.