HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 255311,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/255311/?format=api",
"text_counter": 219,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Mr. M. Kariuki",
"speaker_title": "The Assistant Minister, Office of the President",
"speaker": {
"id": 367,
"legal_name": "Kariuki Mirugi",
"slug": "kariuki-mirugi"
},
"content": " Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir. I wish to support the sentiments of His Excellency the President on the opening of this Session. I would also like to support the sentiments that were expressed by the hon. Speaker on that particular occasion. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I think this House as an institution has a very big challenge and it has a serious credibility crisis. This House has an image crisis. As people look at us out there, they wonder whether we are performing as expected. This is the challenge that His Excellency the President raised that the expectations of our people are too high about this particular institution. So, how we conduct business and ourselves all adds up to the image of this particular institution. It does not matter whether we are from different political parties, or have different opinions on issues but I think we must understand that we have a corporate image which we must market out there to the people. When we were on recess, I heard my colleagues demand the reopening of the House. Failure to do so, they threatened to storm it on 14th February, 2006. They claimed they had very serious business to do. I remember making a statement somewhere and I said: \"Give them seven days after the House reopens and there will be no quorum.\" Today was a very sad day. The Quorum Bell has rung twice. I do not know what Kenyan's think of us. Are we truly delivering what we should be delivering? Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, it was a very sad occasion the other day when we had a debate on March 29, 2006 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 207 the composition of the House Business Committee. The hon. Speaker kept asking us whether we understood the seriousness of that debate. If that Motion did not carry the day, this House would have proceeded to another long recess of six months unless His Excellency the President decided to prologue the House and recall it. I really wonder, if that Motion was not carried and we went home for six months, what message would we, as an important institution of governance in this country, have delivered to Kenyans? Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, the question of Bills is a major issue. I have read the experiences of other Houses in the Commonwealth. It is the Chief Whips who are supposed to decide how long a debate should last. They should have meetings with their political caucuses and decide that so many hon. Members from their groups want to contribute, and they want to manage time effectively. So, by the end of the year, we can then boast of having passed about 20 or 30 Bills. However, I think there is mismanagement of time. There is also lack of consultation on issues that are very important. So, there is a challenge on the Chief Whips to be able to meet more often and manage Motions and Bills that come before this House. A situation where time is open ended, that even when we discuss the Reports of the Committees, somebody can discuss here an issue for days on end, it is unattainable and in bad taste. We should be able to understand that, at the end of the day, we are being judged by the number of Bills we are able to deliberate on and translate into law. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, we are still reeling from the effects of the referendum. There are many misconceptions about the referendum. Listening to hon. Members today talking about the Orange Movement and so on, I think the hangover is still there. The referendum was about a draft constitution. Once Kenyans made a verdict, the debate should have ended there. I have heard comments and sentiments expressed today that it was a victory for the Opposition against the Government. That is far from it. For those of us who have sense of history, the Orange Revolution in the Ukraine came to an end on Sunday, 26th March. That was hardly 14 months, with people having a lot of zeal, talking about the Orange Revolution. Seven months down the road, the Prime Minister was no longer in the office. In another 14 months down the road, the entire Orange Revolution came to an end. That is why we say, one day in politics is too long. Nobody thought that the revolution in the Ukraine, labelled the Orange Revolution would have lasted for only 14 months. So, to my brothers who are still reeling from the hangover of last year's Referendum, you better learn a lesson from the Ukraine, that the euphoria of Kenyans cannot last forever. I can assure you today, as you talk of winning an election, the euphoria of the Orange Movement is already over. Let us learn some lessons of history and move forward as a country. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, an issue was raised about the Constitution and the way forward. It is critical to realise that even after the referendum, the current Constitution is the source of authority in this country. The President of this Republic is the one who can exercise Executive authority under the Constitution. He can do so through his Ministers and other appointed officers. When I hear questions being raised about the Kiplagat Committee, I wonder whether people reckon there is a Government in place with a mandate from the people. There is also a Constitution in place, from where we derive the Executive authority to do business for our people. After all the heat in the referendum, it was time for politicians to step aside and give way to other persons who can distance themselves from the passions of the day. The Committee of eminent persons should be given an opportunity to chart the way forward. There are many scenarios to think about. Do we really want a new Constitution now? Can we get a constitution on the so-called 80 per cent we have agreed on and continue to dialogue on other issues that are still outstanding? This is the time to make our submissions before that committee. At the end of the day, we shall require a new legal framework. That new legal framework can only be made by this House. So, whatever the Kiplagat Committee will come up with, at the end of the day, each one of us in this House will have an opportunity to make a contribution as to the road-map towards a new 208 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES March 29, 2006 Constitution. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say something about the economy. If you look at the stock market and the accounts of corporates in this country, the profits are really attractive. However, the question I keep asking myself is: \"Yes, we have made dramatic steps in terms of growth, with a GDP in excess of five per cent, but to what extent do these benefits percolate to the grassroots level? That is the challenge. I am happy that His Excellency the President was able to underscore that particular point. He said that the challenge we, as a nation, have today is to ensure that the benefits of growth reach the ordinary people at the grassroots level. That is why I welcome the CDF initiative. It is one vehicle that has taken the benefits of growth to the ordinary people. I wish we could look at other possible initiatives to empower our people at the grassroots level. Otherwise enriching corporates with profits, year in, year out, when our people continue starving from famine, poverty and unemployment, that remains a big challenge for us. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, I would like to say something about the way leaders make statements out there. A number of us, in fact, 26 of us, had the benefit of visiting Rwanda last year and we saw what hate speech can do to a country. Today many countries have ratified the UN convention against discrimination. They have also ratified the UN convention on the freedom of speech. One of the basic tenets in those two conventions is that hate speech is a criminal matter. It is time that this country looked around to domesticating the UN convention against discrimination and on the freedom of information and expression, to have a domestic legislation to criminalise hate speech. Today we are so ethnicised that when leaders speak wherever they are, they talk about their tribes and clans. So, the country has become so polarised along ethnic lines. We stand up to use language that is beyond the pill, to label others this or that. I would like us to borrow from countries like the UK, Canada, the US, South Africa, Australia and Rwanda. They have domesticated the UN conventions to an extent where they have a hate crime court. When leaders use hate language, it should not be published by the media. When the media publish hate speeches, then they are liable criminally. That is the point we need to get to. I hope that in the fullness of time, before the end of this session, the Government will be able to bring a Bill to regulate the publication of hate speech, and to criminalise it. We need to stay as brothers and sisters. We need to understand that the ethnic diversity we enjoy today is an aspect of creation which should be respected. It should not be used as a basis of discrimination. This House requires direction to that effect. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, finally, I hope that during this Session we will be able to have the land policy document tabled. There is a committee looking into this issue. One area of concern is the way we handle the squatter issues. We need a legislation to protect squatters in this country. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, with those few remarks, I beg to support."
}