Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 724023,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/724023/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 220,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Hon. Anyango",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 130,
        "legal_name": "Dalmas Anyango Otieno",
        "slug": "dalmas-otieno"
    },
    "content": "Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairman, I have some difficulty with the amendment. First of all, you say “government-owned.” Now, we know there is a distinction between owning, which is 100 per cent ownership and controlling, which is owning shares not necessarily majority but controlling shares. Unless that is defined, this amendment is vague. If you say “government-owned”--- As of now we do not have any government-owned bank. National Bank, which is the nearest, is not government-owned. The Government has minority shares. In KCB the Government has minority, but it has controlling shares. So, this has to be looked at again and properly defined. On the second amendment the Leader of the Majority Party is proposing, what if in future those county governments own banks? When you are making law, you make it for several years. You do not make law to be amended tomorrow. So, if it is to be owned, ideally we should say “controlled by either the national Government or the county governments themselves”. I can see a future--- T"
}