Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 783026,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/783026/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 488,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "That is what I am talking about; ladies can get jobs in this country on merit. We must defend that, that we did not gerrymander anything to ensure that the candidate who was finally voted by the Committee as first, was either a relative of a Committee Member; or she came from a certain corner of the Republic; or that she was of a certain political persuasion or spoke better than the rest. No! It was on merit. If this Senate wants to prove that it is the protector of counties and merits, you will follow merits. If you use any other criteria, it will be one to satisfy another sector of this country; it will not be merit for women; it will be something else. Mr. Temporary Speaker, Sir, we received applications from very qualified people, and I can mention them. Magara is here, he is our colleague and we know him; he is very qualified. There was also Rachel Ameso Amolo, who garnered 74 per cent. If you look at the marks, the difference was very little. This is because I did not check what the colleague who was seated next to me was grading and they did not check what I was grading. So, they did not know what I graded and I do not know what they graded. When we sat in the Committee, our final results came in codes. I actually do not know what the Chairperson graded for any of the candidates. I do not know what Sen. Cheruiyot or any other Member of the Committee graded any candidate; whether or not they liked them. The amount of clarity of thought and intellect put into this work will go down in history by setting precedent of how to do a good job. In the case of our colleagues, including the Senator, who was my colleague, I said that we must declare our interest because we were bound to look favourably at him without looking at merit. That is why we needed to be a little more cautious than any other candidate. At some point in the interviews, it was disappointing, because many people did not know why they applied for this job. But what disappointed me most is the gentleman who was representing this category under the Act. They issued a report up to 2012; it is available in the Senate. When he was asked whether he bothered to deal with the Senators or the Members of the National Assembly, he said: “No, I did not bother to talk to these people.” When he was asked why, he said: “It is because I found that they were making a lot of noise. So, I never bothered”. So, for the period this gentleman served as a representative of the Senate, he never bothered to deal with the constituency which elected him. We cannot afford to repeat that mistake. We made sure that we asked these candidates: “Who is your constituency? Will you agree with the rest of the Commissioners when the Senate does not agree with you or the county governments which you represent? What will you do if you find yourself in crosshairs with the rest of the Commission?” The candidates who we have finally listed in this Report in order, with the qualifications and without those qualifications, are the candidates who satisfied the Committee of nine Members, except two who did not sign because they were absent. If it comes to county governments at the Salaries and Remuneration Commission (SRC), they will represent their interests. The SRC is just not about salaries; it is about fair remuneration for fair work done. That is what the law requires. 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."
}