Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 1506178,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/1506178/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 504,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Seme, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. James Nyikal",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "will still face that other problem. This is to an extent curing discrimination. Our Constitution depicts or indicates that the state shall not discriminate against any person for reasons like age, sex, and so on. This is specifically discriminating against these children because of their age. To that extent, I support the Bill. It is a simple Bill. There is nothing much. It is important that we correct that and all the other issues I have raised. A child can get to university before attaining the age of 18 years. The Bill also brings another issue. Hon. Temporary Speaker, you are in the education sector. Do we have a law or any guidance on the right age to join university? A Member asked why children are getting there earlier. Do we have proper guidelines on when children should get to school? That is where the basic problem is. There would be no way children under certain ages would be in particular schools if we adhered to a proper guidance or law. Paediatricians would say the difference in child development was the reason. The childhood of people like Hon. Charles Nguna here demonstrate that some children develop faster. We also see this thing even in areas of sexuality. We should ask if the ages we are putting in place are correct. There may be changes in human biology where maturation occurs earlier. If that happens, do we need to look into that? This Bill looks at that and to me is clear. This is something we have to support. Children cannot suffer for the mere reason that they went to school earlier and performed well and because of that they are now getting into problems. Therefore, I support that we amend this to allow the children to get the support that they need. I noted in Clause 2(b), where we are saying that if a child is below a certain age, parents will have to sign for them. I do not think it is just a matter of signing. This is getting into an agreement and taking responsibility. Parents are actually securing that loan. The parents are being guarantors. We need to look at it and perhaps amend to decide that if the child defaults later on when they are adults, they come around and claim that someone else signed because at that time they cannot be tied to the responsibilities of their parents of looking after them when they were young… If the parents are going to be guarantors, we need to get appropriate wording so that they are guarantors, or wording that indicates that when they become of age, they hold responsibility for the signatures that their parents gave when they were underage, and were allowed to get the loan despite what the laws in place indicate what age one can take legal responsibilities. Those areas need to be looked at. Probably, we will look at them at the amendment stage. I support."
}