Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 552132,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/552132/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 47,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Chepkong’a",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1154,
        "legal_name": "Samuel Kiprono Chepkonga",
        "slug": "samuel-kiprono-chepkonga"
    },
    "content": "Thank you. As you directed in the morning, the Departmental Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs met at 11 O’clock to consider the amendments of the Senate. As you know, this Bill had been exhaustively debated and passed in the Third Reading. When we recessed as a Committee we considered the ten proposed amendments by the Senate. What we found are mainly corrections of typographical errors and replacement of some words which they did not like. For instance, we had proposed that instead of calling the person who makes the decisions an “administrator”, they wanted him to be called “decision maker”. The Senate in their wisdom decided that we should still call the person who makes decisions an “administrator”. As far as we are concerned, those are not substantive amendments and we can live with them because it is just a question of semantics as opposed to matters of principle. As someone has said: “On matters of opinion you swim with the wave, but on matters of principle you stand as a rock.” On this one here, we feel that these are matters of opinion. They do not go into the substance of the Bill. We accepted the word “administrator” instead of the “decision maker”. The other anomaly that we noted from the Senate is on Clause 3. While they were debating this Bill in the Senate, the Mover together with the Seconder decided that they do not intend to move that amendment, instead they proposed to drop it."
}