GET /api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1496947/?format=api
HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 1496947,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1496947/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 169,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Tabitha Mutinda",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "lose your loved one, the culture, and as most cultures would replicate, we say you do not bury your own person. Therefore, the community, friends and neighbours help you mourn and give a decent send-off to your loved one. It is a culture that has been there and people normally come together, condole, share and help you in ensuring that you give a decent send-off to your loved one. In most scenarios, it is voluntary, but comes from an existing culture. Looking at the timelines that have been set here, one of the first timelines by the Cabinet Secretary was 14 days. Further to that, Clause 16(1) states that – “the committee member shall, within ten days upon receipt of an application under section 16 — (a) examine the documents submitted to it;” Now, it moves from one body which has 14 days and it goes to another Committee for ten days. You have lost a loved one and those are 24 days, which is an equivalent of three weeks and three days. In most scenarios, for us, as Christians, it will take us like two weeks to bury someone unlike the Muslims who bury immediately, almost the same day. If there is support that is needed and all these processes have to take place, then when do we give a descent send-off to our loved ones? It does not make sense. I recommend to the Senate Majority Leader to redraft this Bill and do a very simple amendment insofar as the issue of the state officers is concerned. He has talked about the state officers being able to participate but not being the chief guest and leading in a particular fundraising. In short, they are being asked to step aside. Is it a good thing or is it a bad thing? Yes, it is a good thing because the state officers will now fully concentrate on their responsibilities. Fundraising is not about how much I have been able to contribute versus what my opponent has been able to contribute. It is not a competition. You do not get an award at the end of the day because it is a voluntary process. The state officers will then just be mandated to ensure they partake their roles without involving themselves so much with other responsibilities. This Bill has also talked about the three-year period. This means that if you intend to vie for a particular position, then you should not participate in any fundraising three years before the general election. This is okay because one will now not be judged by how much they have been able to contribute in total, but in terms of how much you are able to offer or do as a leader. One will not be judged by how much they have contributed or how many sacks they have been able to carry. The focus will be on whether one has achieved their mandate and fulfilled what they promised the people during the campaigns. If the Senate Majority Leader can refocus this amendment and narrow it to target the State officers, then it would make sense. Lastly, Clause 31 talks about – “Not more than five per cent of the targeted amount to be raised shall be utilized in defraying administrative expenses related to the fundraising appeal.” What are we doing? We have Kshs10 million and five per cent of Kshs10 million is Kshs500,000. Subsequently, why should we contribute and still subject ourselves to more room for giving an opening that money can still be spent again? That is why I am wondering what we are trying to achieve. If it is to bar state officers from fundraising, The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Director, Hansard and AudioServices, Senate."
}