Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 260955,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/260955/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 357,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "interviewed, you should not say that I have no passion because you do not know what happened to me in the morning. I could be low or drowsy because I took piritons for my running nose. I want to ask the House whether we can disqualify people on the basis that on the date of the interview, they did not seem to have passion. How can we measure the passion of someone to carry out a job on the basis of how he looked in one or two afternoons? Some of the people who have made the greatest scientific discoveries have been scientists who are very passionate about their work. However, when you meet them, you will dismiss them. You look at them and you even do not think they can be professors. But the passion of their work is shown in the results they give, the discoveries they have made, the papers they have written and the new knowledge they have brought into our science and discoveries in other social disciplines. When you look at these people, they do not look like they belong to any field that you call passionate. I want to reject this idea that these people do not have passion to fight corruption. That is an unfair categorization of these three nominees. Mr. Speaker, Sir, I never had opportunity to meet them. However, I am convinced that the results is what should determine whether someone is passionate or not and not the length of speeches and how excited the person looks when they are being interviewed. The results these three nominees will give are what we should be looking at. Therefore, I want to disagree with my friends who have said that these people lack passion and, therefore, should be disqualified. I disagree that this is a category that should disqualify our people. This President is outgoing. I would urge the next President that we are going to elect to relook into this again. One very disappointing factor about the three nominees is that they are not members of any political party. Starting with the last one, Ms. Irene Cheptoo Keino, she is not a member of any political party and does not expect any conflict of interest to arise. There is the other nominee, Prof. Jane Kerubo Onsongo, again, she is not a member of any political party and does not expect a conflict of any interest to arise. Then there is Mr. Mumo Matemu; all the other qualifications are fine, but there is one here which is written that he is not a member of any political party and does not expect any conflict of interest to arise. The next President or the current President, if he has any other people to nominate, must relook into this. People who do not belong to political parties are people who are not interested in the governance of this country. They are people who most likely have never voted even maybe, they do not have a voters card. They are people who have no interest in the corporate governance of this country. Mr. Speaker, Sir, being a leader of one political party, the ordinary membership costs something like Kshs20. If you want other categories, you will have to pay more. How do you bring to this Parliament three nominees and you make it almost like it is a holy and nice thing not to belong to political parties? I have said it in this House before and I am saying it again, please, let us bring nominees who have affiliations. I do not mind if you belong to KANU, NARC(K), ODM or any other political party."
}