Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 802989,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/802989/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 161,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "deductions. Therefore, as we look at the functions of the board, we should consider building capacity of our county governments so that they know the importance of statutory deductions. Regarding Clause 19, we need to broaden the approach and ensure that the person who becomes the CEO in charge of the scheme has the relevant experience. We should also consider their education background and knowledge, so that we get people who have the capacity and managerial skills. We have many allegations of mismanagement even at the National Social Security Fund (NSSF) and it is because of how we provide for people to be in office. I agree that the board may determine, at the senior management level, the functions of the scheme. However, we should not move that way because the board can decide otherwise. In as much as it may give options, it is important to leave it open so that we just say that we should have a CEO with relevant experience in, for example, economics, law, finance or management. That will ensure that the CEO of the scheme is properly appointed. That is why I insisted that the board of should have people with integrity. To get a good CEO of the scheme, they should look for the correct person. It has been indicated that that person should meet the requirements of Chapter Six of the Constitution and I agree with that. I have an issue with Clause 19(4). We should not allow members of the board to manipulate the CEO. We have seen instances where a board makes unfortunate decisions and the CEO goes ahead to implement. We would like to see a board---"
}