Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 132955,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/132955/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 326,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "other East African countries are at that age. True, to them, they do not have enough labour force or professionals. They even train them in Kenya and we can understand why they would push the retirement age in their countries to 60 years or even 70 years. But in Kenya we have professionals who are lying idle; graduates who ought to be working but they are not having jobs. Why do they not have jobs? Because those of who are over 55 years old are still in office! For heaven sake, I think while pushing for this, the Ministry should also not push upwards the retirement age to 60 years from 55 years. If anything, they should make it optional. I do not see why we need to have a District Commissioner (DC) who is 60 years old should go to inspect projects when ideally that job can be done by someone who is 40 years old. I do not see why we need to recruit a policeman to stay in office up to 60 years when he cannot chase a small young man who maybe a criminal. We need to look at it from the broader perspective. If it is a professional who deserves to be in office like a doctor or a related career, then we have a shortage of professional staff and those are the people who should stick in employment. But for those who are doing duties which are of a general nature, we do not need to retain them beyond 55 years. We do not need to have a commissioner of police who is 60 years old when we expect him to be waking up at 5.00 a.m. We need to ensure that that person is energetic enough for him to wake up early enough without complaining. For somebody who is 55 years old, it is a tall order to tell him to be waking up at 5.00 a.m. to go and inspect a parade just because he is expected to be on duty. Surely, he should go home! In any case, we have a young generation which is willing to work. I do not think the issue of three years needs to be overemphasized. Let it be very clear that that is the way we should go. I do not think there is anybody who should even challenge that proposal for anybody to enjoy pension or the employer’s contribution after three years. In any case, three years of service is good enough for any employer to accept that when you have been there, three years’ service is worth saying thank you to the employee. Madam Temporary Deputy Speaker, with those few remarks, I beg to support."
}