Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 599575,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/599575/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 362,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "given in advance, but at a later stage, if they are able to pay, so be it. We are also moving away from the argument to a point where we are saying, let this provision be free. If we are moving to a point where we are saying we want to have both free primary and secondary education, then the certificate must be something that should be given free of charge right from the onset. This is what this Bill is all about. There should be nobody who should be constrained because, as a result, they have not been able to pay, then, they are not able to get the certificate. That certificate should be released to them. This is enshrined in the Constitution clearly, in Article 53 which states that we shall protect the rights of all these children. One of those rights is issuance of certificates in a timely manner. Article 53(2) of the Constitution states that:- “A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.” This Bill is well entrenched. This issue has been discussed over time. Various legislators, over time, have given various proposals that, probably, have not worked. At the end of the day, those proposals still maintain the power within the school institution. Therefore, this amendment to move that responsibility and power from the school to the DEO is very important. Moreover, the Bill stipulates how this should be done very clearly by bringing in three very specific aspects. First, it clearly defines what an examination centre is, which was missing in the previous Act. It says that this is the place where examinations will be conducted, but also adding specific clauses. If you look at it from the perspective of a Bill which it is, Clause 45(a) and (b) are very clear and specific in terms of what should be done and how the ill should be addressed. In the old provision where certificates are given by the school, there was an idea that you are protecting the fact that the headmistress or the principal knows the child; he or she has given it to the specific child, therefore, avoiding all these problems of identification. Times are changing. Apart from the photograph - today in the morning I visited an office and a person walked in and just put in the thumb print. That was already some kind of identification. So, we are moving to a point where we do not necessarily have to worry so much about how that identification can be done because we can use technology. Therefore, that responsibility does not have to remain at the school level. The specific power that is given in Clause 45(a) pushing this responsibility to the DEO is very critical because it removes the responsibility from the school; puts the jurisdiction for this specifically on the DEO. Madam Temporary Speaker, Clause 45(a)(3) is very critical because it states that this officer will not be able to withhold a certificate from a candidate unless the identification of the candidate is in dispute. So, the only provision for withholding those certificates is if there is a problem with the candidate’s identification. Therefore, this sub- clause does not allow for any provisions of confusion as to when the particular certificate should be given. The issue of fees, whether they have been paid or not, does not come up specifically in this particular section and that makes it very clear. Madam Temporary Speaker, in Sub-section 4, the certificate awarded to the candidate shall be collected by the candidate in person just to make sure, as much as The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}