Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 309125,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/309125/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 280,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "under sub-section (4), that person shall have the option of retiring or being deployed within the public service. Mr. Temporary Deputy Chairman, Sir, this is subject to the amendments by hon. Baiya. Clause 10(2)(c) says that if the Director-General is convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of at least six months---. So, what we are saying is that we just remove “sentenced to an imprisonment for a term of at least six months” and just leave it as “if the Director-General is convicted of an offence”. So, we are just making it right so that it is consistent. If you look at 2(e) and (f), these are the factors that necessitate the formation of a tribunal. So, if somebody has already been declared bankrupt or incompetent, these are issues that will have already been adjudicated by other competent agencies and there is no need to duplicate the same by forming tribunals. So, we suggest that those two be removed. If you look at 10(4), I think it was typo. Instead of (2) it is supposed to be (1). The same goes for (5). The import of this is to make sure that if a Director-General, for example--- If a serving State officer is transferred by the CEO to head that important agency and in between, the CEO loses confidence in that particular officer and yet the officer is still competent, what do you do with that officer? Do you just sack and terminate? You must have a fall- back position which is that, that person can be deployed to any other Government department. This is so that we do not criminalize---"
}