HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 217889,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/217889/?format=api",
"text_counter": 248,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. Muite",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 235,
"legal_name": "Paul Kibugi Muite",
"slug": "paul-muite"
},
"content": "Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, there are three issues that I would like to comment on, in my contribution. The first one is: Back in 1997, this House enacted the Retirements Benefits Authority Act. If you remember, that statute compulsorily brings all the retirements benefits, even from the private sector, under the Retirement Benefits Authority. Back in 1999, I think via the Finance Bill, we amended the Retirements Benefits Authority Act and put in a clause which stipulated that when an employee is retrenched, retires or, otherwise, resigns, that employee cannot access his or her benefits under the Retirement Benefits Authority until that employee reaches the age of 55. If an employee is retrenched at 38 or 40 years, that is the age at which that employee most needs that money in order to go and start life afresh or to start a business. That is the age at which that employee has got his or her children in school or at the university. That is when that employee needs that money either to start life afresh, start a business or pay for the educational expenses of his or her children. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, That clause is thoroughly unfair to the family and children of the person who has been retrenched. We are denying them access to what is, after all, their money. We tell them to wait for another ten or 15 years in order to give them their money when they reach 55 years. What is the reason? The reason given is that if you release that money to that employee, he or she is going to squander it. If a person has not learnt how to spend his or her money or how to be careful with money at the age of 40 years, he is she is not going to learn at all. Are we not patronising? Even in the worst case scenario, if she or he wants to squander that money in whatever way, who are we to deny that employee that opportunity? Majority of people will not squander that money. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I regret that, despite many contributions made on the Floor of this House by various Members, pleas to the Minister for Finance to reconsider that clause and repeal it so as to make it discretionally--- Give the owner of the money who has been retrenched the right and option to access the money. If they want to leave their money, that should be their decision. But despite many pleas, I see that the Minister is proposing amendments to the Retirements Benefits Authority Act, but he is not proposing the repeal of that particular clause. I would like to make a special appeal, through you, to hon. Members: I have already given a note to amend this Act so as to repeal that particular clause so as to give the option and discretion to the person who is retrenched to either get his money or elect to leave it with the Retirements Benefits Authority. I hope that, that is an issue we should address. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the second issue on which I would like to comment is the powers that the Minister seeks to give to the very good Commissioner-General, who has done an excellent job; we all agree. He has increased the collection of revenue to new heights, and we pay him compliments for that. But let us not get carried away with emotion. These powers that we are seeking to give him are draconian; they are imperial. The power to sell somebody's property within 14 days through an ex-parte order; is it really, what we want? Without personalising the issue, Mr. 1876 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES June 19, 2007 Waweru has done a good job. But do we know who is going to be the Commissioner-General tomorrow? There are adequate powers under the law. As you are aware, even in this House, there are some hon. Members whose emoluments the Commissioner-General is taking in full to repay tax. There are enough powers. Let us respect the sanctity of property guaranteed in the Constitution, Section 72. Let us respect the due process. I would appeal to the Departmental Committee on Finance, Planning and Trade to scrutinise these powers and these provisions, and consider whether it is wise, and in the interest of the public and this country, to give the Commissioner-General those powers. I would plead with that Committee to bring an appropriate amendment so that those powers are tamed, or are deleted from the proposed legislation. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the third and final issue is that when power is given to a Minister, that power is supposed to be exercised objectively, in the public interest, and is not to be exercised in a discriminatory manner. If it is exercised in a discriminatory manner, it is not right for members of the public. Last year, the Departmental Committee on Finance, Planning and Trade brought amendments because the Kenya Breweries realised along the line that they had neglected a segment of the market of the low-income earners. These low-income earners are human beings like you and I. They will want to attend marriage ceremonies for their daughters; they want to sit down with their in-laws. These low-income earners, who may not afford the whisky, the Chivas Regal or the Martel Brandy that you and I may be able to afford and enjoy, also want to relax and to have a drink, which they can afford when they are discussing marriage rituals relating to their children. They are also human beings. Therefore, some local industries like Keroche Industries identified that niche of the market, which was neglected by the Kenya Breweries and came up with their fortified wines. Let us not confuse the abuses that were used by some other people, not the Keroche Industries, and come up with affordable wines targeting these low-income earners, so that they do not go taking poisonous drinks. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the fact of the matter is that the Kenya Breweries realised suddenly that there was potential here for this low-income market, and came up with this Senator beer, which is called in Central Province \" njohi ya bombo\", because it is pumped out of a container. It is as dangerous as some of these other brews. Our young men and women drink it to over-indulgence because they can afford it and, in fact, there are very many complaints. What I am saying is that while that issue of drunkenness is a separate social issue to be addressed, what about taxation? Can one argue that it is fair for the Minister to favour one competitor, the Kenya Breweries, by zero-rating the Senator beer and imposing a tax of over 60 per cent on Keroche Industries? This is what he had done last year; this is what he is doing this year; it is wrong to favour one industry against another, particularly the Kenya Breweries, whose 60 per cent shares are held by M/s Guiness, which is a foreign company. So, its dividends leave the country. At least, Keroche Industries is 100 per cent Kenyan and their dividends circulate here. I would urge the Departmental Committee on Finance, Planning and Trade to consider that and, if possible, bring in the necessary amendments. We must not use the law in order to advantage one against the other. With regard to the powers that the Minister is seeking to give to the Commissioner- General, let us be cautious. We do not want powers that can be used selectively to settle political scores. If you give the Commissioner-General powers to auction people's property within 14 days, that is a power that can be abused by being used selectively to settle political scores. With those remarks, I beg to support."
}