Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 800439,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/800439/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 259,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Sen. Farhiya",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13179,
        "legal_name": "Farhiya Ali Haji",
        "slug": "farhiya-ali-haji"
    },
    "content": "Thank you, Madam Temporary Speaker for your indulgence. Another Clause that was addressed by the Chair is Clause 37. I am still of the view that Clause 37(a) should be deleted because the essence of retirement benefit is to save for retirement. If the person has worked for 40 years and he is still working for the same institution before withdrawing his funds, what we should be asking is; if the county government can continue contributing to the fund because you already have an employment--- If we cannot do that then at least be fair to the member by deleting Clause 37(a) because the person is still in gainful employment and he or she does not need to take that fund. Lastly, in Clause 39, in terms of sharing the reserves, we should continue creating the reserve to give members some more income on a yearly basis. However, if anybody leaves, that pension should be shared among the members so that that member who is leaving can get his or her share at that point. This is because if you allow reserves to accumulate without giving benefit to the members who are leaving, this can bring litigation in future years to the trustees. This is because someone would have contributed money when he was an employee and he would not have left with his benefits if the reserve is left like that. Thank you for adding me the extra time."
}