Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1372049,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1372049/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 94,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Oketch Gicheru",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "Mr. Speaker, Sir, thank you and actually I rise to support this. It is only that I hold a contrary opinion. I wish that you could limit this to two minutes of debates on one day because the sense of Article 132 has lost meaning in this country. Mr. Speaker, Sir, you even saw when the Majority Whip was moving this Motion, you see the kind of sense of righteousness and thinking that the President's Address is actually final, that there is nothing to be debated about it and that is a correct position. In fact, the intention of Article 132 was such that any time the President addresses the nation, it is a reporting mechanism to the nation and to us, as Parliament, such that we can be able to interrogate, scrutinise and input so that some adjustments can be made. However, if we have got a country whereby you feel like what you have said is final and the direction you have taken is the direction, then this is what classical politicians like Clinton used to call a broken clock is right twice a day . We should be bold enough. If you can amend that Motion to say that we limit that debate to literally the day of that Address or one day after that Address and let it be and let the President continue. Furthermore, we have debated a number of times reports and address by the President, but no changes are made from that debate. So, what is the sense of that debate? Is it just a platform for lamentation or for battling each other?"
}