Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 641744,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/641744/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 210,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Bunyasi",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2511,
        "legal_name": "John Sakwa Bunyasi",
        "slug": "john-sakwa-bunyasi"
    },
    "content": "expected of the amendments when the Constitution was passed. However, there are three observations I would like to make. One is the issue of the minimum and maximum land holdings that has brought about heated feelings and it probably will. Let me say a few things about this. Somebody talked about a scientific study. Science cannot solve this issue. This is one issue whose solution does not lie in the domain of science with respect to determining the minimum and maximum land holding. It may lie in the domain of science with respect to finding alternative sources of livelihood so that this issue does not arise. Minimum and maximum land holding is a matter that lies in the social policy that a country adopts and in the values that they wish to achieve. This was the driving force when the Constitution was being drafted. The fathers of the Constitution wisely thought about this. First of all, it is a misnomer for people to think that land just a factor of production. Land is not just a factor of production. It is a lot more than that. It determines our livelihood. It sometimes determines whether some communities exist or become extinct. It is a subject of historical injustices because it was acquired by force in the colonial period and inherited by force in the post-colonial period, by virtue of the fact that there is a positive correlation between large land holdings and the quantum of power. That means that it is not a normal factor of production. This is a factor of production that causes disruption in the process of its acquisition. We must make note, as Parliament, that we cannot leave this difficult emotive question to future generations. If we do, that is going to be with us and haunt us for a very long time. Furthermore, Kenya is one of the most unequal societies in the whole world looking at the indices of inequality. Not that this is unique. We all know that. One of the reasons why there is this huge inequality is access to capital resources, and particularly access to land. This inequality varies across regions in Kenya. We have inequality all over but inequality perpetuated by adverse land holding sizes is concentrated in certain parts of this country. We will never get stable societies in those areas until this issue of access to land is addressed. It may be difficult but we must confront it. You cannot draw a boundary and put up an electric fence around your 10,000 acres when the people next door have virtually nothing to eat, no access to land and are squatters, who do not even have a vegetable garden. We have to confront this issue. We might say that we do not have an immediate solution yet but we must work towards getting a solution. If we do not, there will be a huge ball of fire hanging over us. The second issue I would like to comment on after the min-max issue on land is on privatisation with respect to land. I always get such a strange feeling about privatisation of land. It happens in many societies. People would sell land where I come from in Nambale, Busia. Ten years later you find that they have used up all the money that they received and they still think that you underpaid them, not realising that the prices have moved up during the course of the 10 years. You sell your cow when it is thin because you have nowhere to graze it. The neighbour has some fodder for it; it gets fatter and commands a high price. You go to the market and you find that they are selling it twice the price you sold it and you feel cheated. The time dimension when you are surrendering an asset in exchange for a reward happens when, for example, land is acquired for development and owners are compensated. Over time, that compensation looks like a pittance because you probably live next door and you find that the price at which you sold the land is no longer---"
}