Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1415216,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1415216/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 508,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr) Ojiambo Oundo",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": " He has abandoned his point of order. My one minute has been eaten up as he was trying to abandon his point of order. As I was saying, clearly, a risk is an occurrence of unforeseen event. That is the basic definition of ‘risk’, whether negative or positive. A risk should be defined as an occurrence of unforeseen event. A risk should be seen as an occurrence of unbudgeted or unexpected events. In the Bill, its promoters have already defined ‘risk’ as a combination probability of an event occurring with negative consequences. Again, we already have a negative approach to addressing disaster. Let me give you a very typical example. The floods water that end up in Budalang’i come from Mount Elgon all the way down. As the water come down, it comes with fish. As much as people are displaced temporarily, they have an abundant harvest of fish once the water subsides. Disaster is never just about negative consequence. When there is rapid flow of water coming down, if we do dam water harvesting and tapping, it is not a negative consequence at all. Therefore, I want the Committee to look at this matter. Definitely, I will look at it. That is why I am saying the Bill is drafted from a negative point of view. On disaster and risk management, again, we are so consummated with addressing or responding post-facto instead of finding out why risks occur. In the US, through a history of information gathering processes and modern technology, they can predict when cyclones will hit them. Again, the definition of ‘disaster risk management’ is not in the Bill. Early detection, modelling and prediction are not included here. We are simply interested in attending to the issues that happen. Hon. Temporary Speaker, the structures in Part II of this Bill are very bureaucratic. This is another bureaucracy-laden framework that will not allow rapid response to disasters. The Departmental Committee Chairman mentioned that they will propose amendments. I have always had issues with ‘promissory notes’ contained in Committee reports to the effect that they will amend or that we should take less time to debate and accept that amendments will be made. What if we are pre-empting debate? That is anticipating debate. We do not know what the outcome of the Committee of the whole House will be. So, this is very heavy. It will not move. The relationship between the national Government and the county governments is already prescribed in the Constitution, and in the County Government Act. Creating another bureaucracy is, again, literally bogging down response. Again, this is government-driven and government-heavy yet we have very many corporates, Community Based Organisations (CBOs) and other non-state actors that are The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor"
}