Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 846745,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/846745/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 272,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Funyula, ODM",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. (Dr.) Wilberforce Oundo",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13331,
        "legal_name": "Wilberforce Ojiambo Oundo",
        "slug": "wilberforce-ojiambo-oundo-2"
    },
    "content": ". On the question of the National Housing Fund, again, we seem not to basically understand the definition of housing. It seems to be this unreasonable obsession by the mandarins at the Treasury and other policy makers that you only own a house when it is owner occupied. It is believed that if you live in a rental house, you do not own a house. So, there seems to be a push to ensure that every person owns a house. It is not necessarily correct. Staying in a rented house is by choice and staying in an owner-occupied house is also a choice. It is a pure business decision. It is sometimes cheaper to stay in a rented house than to stay in an owner- occupied house. Therefore, to force a young person who has simply been employed to pay the National Social Security Fund (NSSF), the National Hospital Insurance Fund (NHIF), Pay As You Earn (PAYE) and on the net income, pay VAT, the Fuel Levy and an endless list of taxes and burdening him with another figure is just being unreasonable considering that that money will never be enough. He/she might never access that money during his working life because of the large number of people expected to benefit from that Fund. That is generally punishing that particular person. Therefore, we request the Departmental Committee on Finance and National Planning to rethink it. We are doing fairly elaborate discussions. We will move amendments to literally scrap that particular Bill because there are other ways of raising funds for housing instead of setting up a National Housing Fund that is going to be looted like other funds that have been looted before. We have seen how massively the NSSF has been looted and how a lot of funds for the NSSF have been misused. Lastly, there is the elephant in the house. This is the most emotive issue in this country, namely, the repeal of the interest rate caps. I must commend Hon. Jude Njomo for having had the courage to bring and push amendments to the Baking Act. Hon. Joe Donde tried, but it was killed at the Executive level. I must commend the President for having been courageous enough and assent to the Bill. Any attempt to repeal that particular section is completely unpopular with the ordinary Kenyans on the ground that they have been fleeced by banks all along. In any case, Kenya has had one of the highest interest rates in the world. An average of 15 to 18 per cent against an average of 6.6 per cent in the world is out of question. It is not true that generally the interest rate cap has squeezed credit to the SMEs and other sectors. The flow of funds from the banking sector to these two particular sectors has been declining since the year 2015 because they have been pitted against a Government, and generally, banks view the Government as risk- free. Therefore, we must retain the interest rate capping. We could only consider removal of the interest capping if we change the structure of the banking sector. Recent reports indicate that there more than 40 banks. About 52 per cent of the banking business is controlled by about six banks. So, this is not a perfect market. It is oligopoly and in an oligopolistic situation, the players dictate the pricing and the terms of supply and demand. So, they cannot argue on the basis that we need to apply free market situation. If the market cannot set an acceptable equilibrium price, the State and the Government has a right to intervene and remove market distortion. This is what this particular Bill is proposing."
}