Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1105650,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1105650/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 332,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Wajir East, WDM-K",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Rashid Kassim",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13504,
        "legal_name": "Rashid Kassim Amin",
        "slug": "rashid-kassim-amin-2"
    },
    "content": "This Fund has for the first time, for the last two years it has been working, been able to provide for vulnerable groups like those who have lost their livelihoods either basically to drought or basically to lack of employment or as a result of the abject poverty they have had over the years. It was able to provide social network even for those families that are widowed. The fact that this money was initially meant for social protection of those vulnerable groups, taking it back in terms of even targeting, it is properly targeted when it is within an institution, an entity, like an Act of its own. I find taking it back to the National Treasury and Planning absurd. We cannot agree on those things. One observation we have made and even during the early years of Independence, we have had a country of 10 millionaires and 10 million beggars. Today, we still have a country of 40 million beggars and people who are still living in abject poverty. The economy has not been able to thrive. As a result of poor governance that we have observed over the years, this has been responsible for abject poverty. Many Kenyans cannot access basic rights like food. Even then, His Excellency Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta, has even anchored his legacy on certain pillars like food security, health and housing. Those perspectives that we have been observing have even been reversed. Today, we do not know where we have left those visions that we have had for Kenyans. The Constitution envisaged supporting the needy groups and we cannot take this function back to the National Treasury. We will not achieve anything. Those who are envisaging repealing the Act are making us go back. They are making us not to achieve the basic human rights which are enshrined in the Constitution. I truly oppose those who think that way and want to take us back to the dark days when we did not consider support to our needy persons in our society. Culturally, we have a social network system which existed over the years. Urbanisation and education have just affected the social networks that existed within the community. The networks have been overridden by civilisation. The fact that the Government has already taken responsibility of providing for the needy persons, providing social network systems, food, school feeding programmes, the needy, orphans and disadvantaged family members, this is an obligation that was envisaged early in the Act. But, if we today reverse those gains which we have done, I consider it absurd and retrogressive. We do not need to uphold and agree, as Members of Parliament, on anything that is retrogressive or something that is going to take us back. I oppose, and I oppose totally, the repealing of the Social Assistance Act. Thank you, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker."
}