Entry Instance

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

{
    "id": 859599,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/859599/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 176,
    "type": "speech",
    "speaker_name": "Kajiado South, JP",
    "speaker_title": "Hon. Katoo ole Metito",
    "speaker": {
        "id": 13239,
        "legal_name": "Janet Marania Teyiaa",
        "slug": "janet-marania-teyiaa"
    },
    "content": "Let me also talk about the formula being used. I do not think this formula will bring a minimum of a third of one gender into this House. What we are hearing is if this Bill goes through, maybe the top up for the current Parliament will be about 21 or 22 women. For those who studied mathematics, if we now have 47 county women Members plus 23 who are elected, that adds up to 70. Add six who are nominated and that comes to 76 and then you want to add a top up of 21 or 22. That becomes 97 or 98. That will not be a third of this House because the House will be 349 plus the top up of 21 or 22. There is the exponential formula in mathematics that should be used and not just saying you need a third or two-thirds of the 290 Members. Put a top up and then the whole House will increase and you need a minimum of a third of the House as a whole. Finally, if this Bill goes through, it is only for a term of 20 years and then a Member is only eligible for nomination for only two terms. When the 20 years lapse, we may have to do away with all nominated seats. Therefore, we just have the elected Members of Parliament. That may bring the cost of the wage bill down. I support the Bill but knowing the history of this House, just recently we were not able to get the numbers on a very pertinent matter that we all have interest. Because of that, I will say that the end game on this is actually to amend the Constitution and have this two-thirds gender rule be applicable only to Civil Service jobs and not elective seats. I beg to support."
}