Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 132947,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/132947/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 318,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "August 19, 2009 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 2743 Mr. Mbadi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Thank you very much, Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to also contribute to this Motion. I want to support this Motion and congratulate my friend, hon. Wamalwa, for bringing it. When the Finance Bill was passed with this particular rule in 2006, I was one of the people who were really very critical about it, only that I could not find a platform to air my opposition to it. Since today I have got that opportunity, I want to support the thinking of the hon. Member for Saboti; that it is not wise for us to lock the funds or contributions made by employers to these schemes, on behalf of an employee, if that employee leaves employment below the age of 50 years. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, I was looking at, probably, the reason this particular rule was put in place. One, it could have been to provide some discipline on the part of an individual leaving employment, with an assumption that if one accesses money before the age of 50, he will be irresponsible. What is the magic of age 50? What if one leaves employment at the age of 50? Does that increase responsibility on the part of that particular individual? To me, the answer is no! An individual is the same, whether he leaves the job at the age of 40 or 50. If one can be irresponsible with something then that person can be more irresponsible with nothing. If you leave employment before the age of 50, you will not access the contributions from your employer. If you have no other job, then it means that you are being confined to poverty until, God willing, you reach the age of 50 years. Suppose you do not reach it because you have no money to take care of yourself. To me, this was not the right rule to introduce. The other reason which I find more reasonable is that the Government wanted to lock up the funds because, probably, it was struggling to meet the expenditure on pensions. But then, why do we have to punish individuals, so that the Government can stay afloat? The timing of the introduction of this rule is also a bit curious. This rule was introduced when Kenya was just approaching elections. Did the Government want to retain some money to finance elections? I want to believe that was the case. I want to believe that, probably, there was a reason behind this. I want to persuade my colleagues to support this Motion. Most of people now leave employment below the age of 50 years compulsorily because maybe the company or organization is not doing well or the Government is retrenching excess staff. Then that person should be allowed to withdraw the contribution that the employer had made together with the investment income so that the person can have somewhere to lean on or a have a base from which to start. Otherwise if you quit employment and you have nothing to fall back to then you are being confined to poverty and at the same time it is like being forced to your grave because you have nothing. You were used to some income but all of a sudden you have nothing. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, the Mover of the Motion also talked about life expectancy. We all know that life expectancy in Kenya is decreasing yet we are putting more stringent rules even to push accessibility to retirement to a higher age. What the Government needs to do is to allow people to transfer pension to other schemes when,"
}