Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 200929,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/200929/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 342,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Mr. Kimunya",
    "speaker_title": "The Minister for Finance",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 174,
        "legal_name": "Amos Muhinga Kimunya",
        "slug": "amos-kimunya"
    },
    "content": " Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, it basically says that every occupational retirement benefits scheme shall ensure that a member leaving employment, or membership, after three years shall thereupon be entitled to a refund. The issue here is that we have heard the cries of people. People lose a job but before they get another job, they go to the NSSF, their retirements benefit scheme, and want to withdraw what they have been saving for their future. When they get that, they use it for their immediate needs such as school fees before they get another job. By the time they retire at the age of 55, there is no pension, or amount available to them, and that is what we are trying to prevent. We want to ensure that when people retire, they do not do so and die because of desperation as they do not have money, or regular income, because they consumed it when they were active. The amendment may be popular. It may be good because people want to be paid their money, but as a nation and a Parliament, I think we must look at the welfare of society in general and ask: Do we want to protect our future? 4416 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES October 9, 2007 Do we want to protect children in future when their father or mother cannot work? Do we want people who are looking for jobs to withdraw whatever retirement benefits had been put aside, consume them and then have nothing available for their children? That is the decision we have to make. Who are we protecting: The person who is desperate to get another job or their children who need to be protected in the old age of this person? I beg to oppose and urge the House to stick to what we have. In any case, I believe the same intention can be achieved through an amendment of the Occupational Retirement Benefit Regulations to provide a window for those desperate cases. We have, indeed, already done that when people are incapacitated and cannot work any more. Such people can access their benefits. That is how we should be doing this, rather than amending a good law just for purposes of short term expediency."
}