Jeniffer Shamala

All parliamentary appearances

Entries 51 to 60 of 313.

• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: My justification is that as stated earlier by Hon. Chris Wamalwa, in Kenya today, we are not sure what an assisted reproductive technology assistant does. However, we are aware that doctors have taken the Hippocratic Oath and will abide by it. At this point, when there is no clarity as to what those assistants do, it is my considered opinion that this must be certified by a medical doctor. view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: (Spoke off-record) view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, for conception to happen, whether in vitro or otherwise, there must be a donor and a recipient. There must be two people. There is no way you can have a single person doing it. The definition of the word “couple” must include the donor and the recipient. When you talk about a single mother, does that mean that they will receive a donation through the Holy Spirit like it happened during the birth of Jesus Christ? There must be a donor and a recipient. That is the “couple” we are talking about. In that case, even ... view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: Yes. view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: The information is well taken, but it is misplaced because at the end of the day, there must be the donor and there must be a recipient and both must agree. When they say that the husband donated and died, there must be consent of the donor, namely, the husband who died and had donated the sperms before he died. view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: Yes. When it comes to the ability to make the decision, I oppose. I think we need somebody who is more mature, not at 18 years. We can even put the age bracket to be around 35 years. view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, you know most of the 18-year old guys are not yet employed. They may make that a money minting exercise and a form of employment, yet we really need somebody who is stable. Actually, we should even say “a person of around 35 years and financially stable”. view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, my comment is on the new sub-clause (4). When you say the fine should not exceed Ksh5 million, it can even be Ksh5. Because this is a serious issue, why don’t we say not below Ksh5 million and not less than five years? When you say not exceeding, one can be jailed for even one day which does not exceed five years, or be fined Ksh20 which does not exceed Ksh5 million. We can say between Ksh5 million and Ksh10 million or between Ksh3 million and Ksh10 million. view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: We can trust the Judiciary on the “minimum” but not “exceeding”. Why not say a minimum of Kshs1 million so that they can go with a discretion of Kshs20 million up to Kshs30 million or whatever they go? At the end of the day, our Kshs5 million maybe peanuts in the coming years. In the 1991, Kshs10 was a lot of money which is not the case now. If we go to the minimum, they can go to the higher side, whichever way and also taking into consideration the living standards, then they can go to wherever maximum they want. ... view
• 17 Nov 2021 in National Assembly: Hon. Temporary Deputy Chairlady, though there are a lot of voices against me, but on this one, I must go on HANSARD record that I oppose. We needed to have said “a minimum of Kshs5 million”. It is a very sensitive issue; it deals with death. We are taking over powers that were bestowed upon God so that human beings can take that power. We cannot be having “not exceeding Kshs5 million”. Kshs5 million is not a lot of money and you know they can end up being penalised. view