HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept
{
"id": 372088,
"url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/372088/?format=api",
"text_counter": 191,
"type": "speech",
"speaker_name": "Hon. Langat",
"speaker_title": "",
"speaker": {
"id": 384,
"legal_name": "Benjamin Kipkirui Langat",
"slug": "benjamin-langat"
},
"content": "Hon. Speaker, Sir, I think the best we can do now it to embrace the system. If we copy the American system and some bit of the copy we leave it in America – I think the best thing for us to do is to go and look for that bit that remained in America, so that the system is fully American. Hon. Speaker, Sir, concerning committees, what does the Americans do in their system? Because this is their system, what do they do during question time? Do they do the same thing? Can we learn from them so that we do not fight to re-invent the wheel when it has been manufactured and it is on the shelves? So, I would suggest that let us learn from the systems that have been there before. In terms of the Committee, as the Chair of a Committee, questions are being asked and hon. Members want to come and seek instant clarification. I cannot give instant clarification because I am not in the Executive. I can only table a written answer and if the hon. Member wishes, we can create a time and say: Twice every month, we collect all the questions from hon. Member and call Cabinet Secretaries in Committee where hon. Members can come and seek clarifications directly from the Cabinet Secretaries. It will be, maybe, twice monthly. We can call all the Cabinet Secretaries with relevant questions and the respective hon. Members can come and seek direct clarifications. On the other hand, the Constitution says that this House considers and resolves issues concerning the people of Kenya. That is something that we need to re-look at because that is a constitutional power given to this House. But we have never operationalised that provision under Article 95. So, we need to operationalise that and say, if we decide here that this matter shall go this way, then it is supposed to go that way. For example, hon. Members have been rising and saying: “I rise on a matter of great national importance.” Hon. Speaker, Sir, if you look at that Standing Order, it is a fallacy or a talk-show. It is something that we need to re-look at and say: If it is a matter of great national importance, at the end of the day, do we take a vote on that matter or not? But the truth of the matter in that Standing Order is that we never take a vote. It is a talk show and a waste of time. I think we need to amend the Standing Order so that, if it is really a matter of great national importance, and we have admitted that it is such, then we must take a vote and that resolution must be implemented by the Executive. Otherwise, we will stand here every day, talk and hon. Members will bring Motions which are urging the Government – I support the Leader of Majority Party when he said: If you have an issue, how do you want the Government, for example, to stop corruption? It is you to bring legislation and say: “This should be done like this and this and to that extent,” and the Executive will be guided. On the issue of the amendment to the Constitution, I want to challenge my friends from the other side. They can bring it and we can negotiate on that subject. But I am happy that proposition is coming from that side. Otherwise, thank you very much."
}