GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1211550/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1211550,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1211550/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 260,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kericho County, UDA",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Beatrice Kemei",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "that he never mentioned NGAAF, the National Government Affirmative Action Fund. But I appreciate the Members who have spoken to it. When we were in Mombasa, we realised that we did not have a distinction among the majority, minority and the Government. All of us spoke to these very important funds. Even now, back in the counties and constituencies, we have children who, while others have gone to school, they are waiting for the bursaries. When the President proposed that it be anchored in the Constitution, it means that we will not be having people going to court against it; we will not be having people speaking against it and with this knowledge that NG-CDF and NGAAF, Members of Parliament just oversee it. I wish Hon. Oundo was here so that I can let him know that Women Representatives are also Members of Parliament. He talked of Members of Parliament and Women Representatives. We are also Members of Parliament. NG-CDF and NGAAF have done so much. The only difference is that the Women Representatives are given slightly less than Ksh7 million NGAAF per constituency, while the Members representing single constituencies are given over Ksh130 million, I believe. But even with the Ksh7 million, it has done so much. We take care of widows, single mothers, orphans, elderly and even children. We also fight gender-based violence which not only affects women and girls, but also affects boys and men. So, I support that NG-CDF and NGAAF should actually be anchored in the Constitution. Same to the Senate Oversight Fund. I support it. Why am I saying so? If we look keenly, we will realise that people who go to Senate from what I hear from the village, are people who are already satisfied. They already have what they need. They say that there is no money in the Senate, but they do so much oversight. So, I also support that. On the two-thirds gender rule, we waited in the 12th Parliament for Members of Parliament to pass it. The unfortunate part of it is that it was not passed. This time, I have been listening to Members but others are not sure of what the President’s proposal on the two-thirds gender rule means. From what I understand, of course, I know it will still come to the House. It is not that we will have many Members to fill the space, but we shall not have extra Members. That is why some Members were saying that they do not want to have 10 billion. It is not that, if we have 47 Members, the top up from nomination should come from the gender which has less representation in the House. And this does not mean that it is only women. I do not know why there is this misunderstanding that when we talk about the two-thirds gender rule, it is talking about women and we are not lesser. It is only that, from the past, people did not understand women and their abilities. I appreciate that we have women Cabinet Secretaries, Principal Secretaries and the many Members of the National Assembly and Senators. With time, people will understand. It is very interesting that, even back in our constituencies and counties, people say: “Let us have a seat for women - which is the Women Representative seat - and then the other seats are for men. Let people understand that women also are leaders. I will appreciate when this is anchored in the Constitution. It will give women strength. Do not forget that we have also been speaking and talking about the boy child. At the moment, as Members - including myself have said - I know girls are working very hard in schools. When results come out, girls are doing well. We have boys who need to be mentored and encouraged. We, in future, do not know which gender is supposed to be assisted. That is the more reason this two-thirds gender rule should be upheld in the Constitution."
}