Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 822190,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/822190/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 102,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Navakholo, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Emmanuel Wangwe",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 2543,
        "legal_name": "Emmanuel Wangwe",
        "slug": "emmanuel-wangwe"
    },
    "content": "quality. We witnessed that the sugar we got was not per se good enough in terms of quality. That in itself, without looking at it beyond any other condition, is as good as dumping. In it, we shall have to look at it in the recommendations. We would like to look at the impact of the import in terms of the pressure to the local farmers. What does it mean when we see an importer bringing in raw sugar? What does it look like when we are talking of a miller bringing in raw sugar instead of buying cane from our farmers? The effect is that we are now going to subject our farmers to competition with external people who are doing large-scale productions like those in Brazil and the rest of the world. Therefore, that pressure kills the market for our farmers. We looked at the roles of the institutions in the Report. We have itemised KEBS, KPA, Port Health and KRA. The role of the various agencies in terms of importation, where they were supposed to act and how they acted is well itemised. I would call upon my colleagues to read the Report in full. For example, an importer wrote a letter to the KBS. There was communication to that effect and KBS could not tell the difference between one product from the other. There was the importation of raw sugar and table sugar in bulk being given two different letters. That is something that is annexed and Members need to look at it. We have also itemised where the agencies failed. I want to call upon my colleagues to look at the observations in the Report from Page 52 to Page 59 that details the real observations as we observed in the last one month. The recommendation of the Report on Page 60 details what the Committee, in its wisdom, thinks the Report is supposed to look like. I would like to single out an observation on one company called SONY Sugar, where the documentation with the naked eyes was depicting some forgery. All the details that they were sending to us could not really determine that, that was an import in itself. We would want to look at the 14 companies, which evaded tax to a tune of Kshs10.6 billion. SONY Sugar evaded tax of Kshs2.5 billion, yet the taxman is looking for money and resources to help the country meet its expenditure. With those observations and recommendations, I beg to second."
}