Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 479101,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/479101/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 220,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Tonui",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1242,
        "legal_name": "Ronald Kiprotich Tonui",
        "slug": "ronald-kiprotich-tonui"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, hon. Speaker for giving me this opportunity to also make my comments on this Bill. I want to comment on the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF) specifically. There is an amendment to the NHIF Act, 1998, which wants to exclude some current members of the NHIF. I support the exclusion of some, but I do not support the removal of some. For example, this Bill wants to remove the representation of teachers in the NHIF. Those are the major contributors in the NHIF. Teachers in this country are more than 300,000 and they contribute well over Kshs1 billion to the NHIF. These people, under this Bill, will not be represented. So, my idea is that the teachers should be represented by their unions. They should be incorporated in the NHIF. Right from the composition of the NHIF, from “A” to “E”, I can see that these are Government appointees. I wonder how much the Government contributes to the NHIF for it to be represented by these Government appointees. All the people who are going to be in this Board are going to be Government appointees. So, the contributors should be well represented. I would wish to see primary school teachers being represented ably by their union. The teachers in post primary schools and colleges should also be represented by their union; KUPPET. So, that must be captured in this Bill. These people are going to be contributing a lot of money and should be part of the people who will be managing it. If we only have people in the NHIF Board who will not be answerable to the contributors that is not going to be fair. So, that section should be amended at the right stage. There is also the issue of the Technical and Vocational Education Training Act, namely, TEVET Act. This wants to give some powers to the technical and vocational education institutions. There is going to be some conflict with the Teachers Service Commission because most of the personnel in TEVET institutions are going to be teachers who are employed by the TSC. Currently, technical institutions are staffed by the TSC. There should be more clarity on who can employ these people. Under whose employment will they be? Is it the TSC or the technical and vocational education institutions? There should be clear clarification on that. This Bill is trying to come up with the “word” trainer very well, but it should also clarify because teachers are also trainers and they are employed by the TSC. This amendment may bring more confusion than solution to the prevailing situation. Then there is the issue of Salaries and Remuneration Commission. This Bill intends to make Members of the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC) to be on permanent terms."
}