Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 325809,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/325809/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 479,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "one of which is the issue of setting standards. It is not provided for here. I think that should be the primary thing that this Bill should seek to do, which is to provide standards in terms of examinations, not just to regulate but to provide standards because of our failing standards of education. I was an employer before I came to this Parliament and, indeed, I can say that our standards of education are falling alarmingly. I have said it before. Therefore, I will want to propose that the Minister either on his own or I will initiate an amendment that seeks to regulate that or to set standards. Mr. Temporary Deputy Speaker, Sir, the other issue of concern to me is the issue of the offences. As much as I know we want to punish, if you look at the way the offences are stipulated, a lot of them will affect or are likely to affect young people who are 18 years old and below, because it relates to examinations. This must be looked at in line with the constitutional provisions in relation to children and the Children Act and in issues relating to imprisonment of children. I think the standards that are put here might be in violation of the Children Act and the constitutional provisions in relation to children. My final comment is in relation to the issue of limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms. I understand that the Minister does not want any interference especially during the examination period. But you cannot limit a right in a manner that takes away the scope of that right. Therefore, I will want the Minister to relook at the limitation of the right to strike, whether it does actually take away that fundamental freedom or right. As much as we want to ensure that we do not disrupt examinations, the Constitution provision is very supreme. When we want to take away that right, we want to indicate whether there are no other means of achieving our intended purpose. One of the ways of achieving that intended purpose is to ensure that the examiners are paid their dues on time and efficiently. They need to be given their just payment. This is because those are the reasons that, a lot of times, make examiners go on strike. Once you do that then if people want to strike then you can provide that as a limitation. My worry is that the way you are bringing limitation to rights, very soon somebody will challenge us in a court of law because we are giving with the right hand constitutionally and taking away with the left hand. So, unless it is really necessary, you should not limit a right. I support."
}