Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1024155,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1024155/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 245,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Suba South, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. John Mbadi",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 110,
        "legal_name": "John Mbadi Ng'ong'o",
        "slug": "john-mbadi"
    },
    "content": "cannot give me gratuity yet I contributed without asking where my contribution is. Therefore, we are trying to harmonise these two: That yes, every public officer is entitled to gratuity if you have a defined term of employment like ours of five years. Again, yes, we are also in an existing pension scheme where we are contributing 12.6 per cent of our salaries every month. So, the question we are trying to resolve here should be understood in the context of the fact that Parliament is trying to avoid double awarding of these benefits to Members. You will hear out there that probably, we are trying to give Parliamentarians more. It is far from it. In fact, given the fact that the SRC had already given Members of Parliament gratuity at 31 per cent, we could even insist and demand that we get that and get pension because it is there but, Parliament is trying to clarify it and make it clear that you can only get either/or. This is what this Bill is trying to do. So, if you get gratuity, then you can only get your contribution to the pension scheme together with interest earned but, the Government’s contribution will not come to you. If you chose pension, then you get pension. I think that is what this Bill is saying. I wanted to make that matter very clear because I know how in this country sometimes people are lazy when it comes to trying to analyse and understand what is going on. Having said that, there is this debate about what happens to Members of Parliament who have served one term. This is a debate that you cannot run away from because it could have been that actuaries who calculated it, felt that for this scheme to be sustainable, you must serve for 10 years or more but, it is a kind of argument that cannot hold because why 10 years and not five? That is a question that this House has to debate and talk about. Even if you serve for five years, you have served Parliament. You have been a leader in this Parliament. I do not know anywhere in the world where senior citizens are treated with the kind of disdain that this country treats its own citizens. Members of Parliament are also falling in the category of senior citizens when you retire. So, the way I understand it is let us not look negatively at retirement benefits of an individual, whether that person is a Member of Parliament or not. In fact, we should look at even other public officers and see how to improve. We can talk about our economy but the amount of money we steal in this country, if we left it to be spent wisely on senior citizens, it would be enough. Something that I think we have been avoiding but is more important than even pension is the issue of medicare to people who are retiring and more particularly, Members of Parliament. I am thinking of how we can bring an amendment to this Bill. Even If you leave out issues of pension, but just think about the medical cover for Members who leave the service, that would be fine. This is because as you grow old, you will need more medical attention. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, eight years ago, I could go for two years without coughing or sneezing but nowadays if I take two days without exercise, I will be taken to hospital the following day because the whole body will be paining."
}