Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 685341,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/685341/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 191,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. S.S. Ahmed",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 140,
        "legal_name": "Ahmed Shakeel Shabbir Ahmed",
        "slug": "shakeel-shabbir"
    },
    "content": "money for up to five years and pay no interest on it. It is retrogressive and will not help us. It will only make the department more inefficient. The issue on deemed interest under Clause 2 was very interesting and we are very happy that it has been proposed. This was used by transnational and international companies. They would charge exorbitant interest on capital or loans to Kenyan companies which always made losses. We are now saying that if the foreign transnational company charges 25 per cent to the local company, it will be ignored and the deemed interest will apply. That is a very good thing. There is also the issue of kerosene. We cannot allow increase of the cost of kerosene. Most of the wananchi all over Kenya use firewood or kerosene. The fact of the matter is that we do not want kerosene to be used to adulterate petrol. In other countries in Europe and America, kerosene which is used for farming is coloured pink. It is dyed pink. As it comes to the country, it is dyed pink. If you try and use it to adulterate petrol, the petrol will have a tinge of colour. Let us not use that excuse of adulteration to increase the cost. That is why I said that this Bill is not pro-poor. Somebody raised the issue of tax amnesty and said that they are not sure how it would help. The Diaspora have a lot of money and they can invest in this country. The only thing that we need to be very careful about is money laundering. We must recommend and suggest that the tax amnesty that is given to the Diaspora stays. There is another pro-rich proposal that was put here that does not make sense. It does not even make sense with Government policy. We want to increase houses but why say that those companies that start to build, at least, 10,000 units should immediately pay 20 per cent corporation tax from 30 per cent? We can see a problem here. Companies will start a project which will take 20 years. They will start a project then start paying 10 per cent less corporation tax. This is not going to happen. If we will have something like this, we must have a start and finish date of those residential units. With those few remarks, I beg to support the Bill."
}