Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 78639,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/78639/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 365,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "us and generations to come. We do not know whether the other Committee will see this appointment as political. They will want to see their mandarin rather than an institution or person. So, I would like to persuade the Committee that for now let us live with what we have past intended. Let Parliament vet the Board. Let us then give a free hand to the Board to then appoint a Chief Executive who is answerable to the Board without divided loyalty. I know I have discussed this with the Chair of the Committee. I know there are merits and demerits of both. But on balance, since we are creating this new Authority today, we can go first of all by appointing the Board. If we find there is need to reinvent this, we can bring this as a subsequent amendment during the miscellaneous amendment rather than trying to delete this. There is legitimacy that the people we might want to attract to be Director-General of this organization might fear being discussed in Parliament. So that you only find people who would be applying are those who want to subject themselves to a debate. We have seen this happening in some of the recent debates. I know there is precedent although that is not necessarily the best practice. It worked well because of the Members of the Committee and the process but you cannot guarantee that the same people will be there in future. Madam Temporary Deputy Chairlady, I persuade the Committee sitting in Parliament that if we do not want to take that risk in future of dual loyalty, we leave out this amendment for today. If need be, we can always introduce it in future. I beg to oppose."
}