Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 719602,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/719602/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 233,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Ogola",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 1264,
        "legal_name": "Gideon Ochanda Ogolla",
        "slug": "gideon-ochanda-ogolla"
    },
    "content": "Thank you very much, Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker. From the outset, I would like to concur with very many of my colleagues who said privatisation of some of these parastatals is a necessity in our economy because most of these parastatals were created when individuals or private sector were not able to come up with them. Over time, private citizens have been able to access capital to invest in these parastatals and are better placed having acquired the technical skills, education and innovation, to run them more profitably than the Kenya Government would have been able to run them. Hon. Temporary Deputy Speaker, these parastatals have become pork barrel for failed politicians. A President comes to power and looks for all those who were around him and failed the elections and appoints them to chairmanship of those boards and parastatals as a way of reward. This is not the reason why these parastatals were created. They were created to fill a gap that the private systems could not fill at that time. I will give an example of SONY Sugar Company which was created to help develop sugar farming in Southern Nyanza because there were no private systems capable of doing that but they are now there. Privatising them is the only logical way of bringing efficiency into the sugar sector. The Act that exists created mechanisms through which this process should be carried out. Today, we have a Bill that seeks to amend that Act. I want to take you through what this Bill seeks to do so that you agree with Hon. Dalmas Otieno that we do not have a Bill here. “The Act may be cited as the Privatisation (Amendment) Bill, 2016”. It ends there. The Act is amended in Section (2) by inserting the word “Cabinet Secretary”. Transitional and consequential provisions of the Constitution already state that any statute that has the word “minister’ will mean the Cabinet Secretary. There is no need of creating a Bill to do that. The Bill defines the county government but does not allocate any work to it. The Act was enacted in 2005 when there were no county governments. There is no reference to county governments in the Act and in this Bill apart from the definition. Why should you define it? There is no reason for defining it. The Bill further deletes the word “minister”. I do not see the need to do that. The electronic version of the Official Hansard Report is for information purposesonly. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor."
}