Search the Community

An article by Chen Show Mao:- SERVICE: THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT Now, let me talk about service as a role of the government. As I see it, our government's central task to serve Singaporeans. You may say, "Yes, of course." But I am not sure if we always remember to use that yardstick to measure the success of our government policies. To me service means putting at the center of things the object of our service. The question is simple, it is a matter of perspective, who will be at the center of things, that is all. Is it the people of Singapore, or some measure of gross development or growth, that has over time been taken as a proxy for what's good for Singapore. For instance, when the economy grew by 14%, as it did last year, but median household income grew only 3%, or 0% after you adjust for inflation, then we need to ask "who is all this growth for?" Who is at the center of all this economic growth if most Singaporean households barely kept pace? I have come to meet many more Singaporeans in this situation since my return. It has got to be: all this economic growth will go to benefit MOST Singaporeans, in the long run if not necessarily in the short run. But is that the case? SERVANT LEADERSHIP In his National Day dinner speech in Ang Mo Kio, the Prime Minister said that we've got to

I only remember what Uncle Ben said: With great power comes great responsibility [laugh] Seriously we all want a caring, understanding and most important of all, a generous boss But the fact is most of the time we do realise there is no such a boss or they rarely in existence and we make do what we have. Bosses pay us to provide a service for them so most basically deliver but some of us do really excel either for self pride or to get more reward i.e. bonuses. From ST Forum: http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-...piness-20130321 Bosses' role in ensuring workplace happiness Published on Mar 21, 2013 THE workplace, if anything, is not a social laboratory for human endurance. It is an incubator for growth and productivity. The compelling need to retain staff and ensure workplace "happiness", as advocated by Mr Lawrence Loh Kiah Muan ("How to retain staff and keep them happy"; Monday), cannot be a zero-sum game. Too often, the root cause of workplace unhappiness lies in intangible things like the abuse of power, the absence of fair procedures, the instilling of fear that prevents debate, favouritism and the lack of action against bullies. Perhaps central to workplace unhappiness is the mutilation and interpretation of power dispensations. Bosses need to change their mindsets and ensure that power becomes a vehicle for reform, with the concomitant drawing up of definite parameters for its exercise. As a large percentage of Singapore companies are small and medium-sized enterprises, this guiding principal seems to have been lost in the rush to boost bottom lines. Power is greatly coveted everywhere. Perhaps former United States president Abraham Lincoln was right when he said: "If you want to test a man's character, give him power." Jaya Prakash

From Yahoo! News COMMENT One thing hasn't changed since a red supercar slammed into a taxi near Bugis Junction last weekend. Ferrari's showroom on Leng Kee Road is still open for business and its flashy website continues to sell the dream of macho power and unbridled speed. Anger at the unnecessary deaths has been directed at the rich young Chinese national at the wheel of the 599 GTO that night. When the video surfaced suggesting that he had ignored a red light, Singaporeans' outrage was matched only by that of people in China who are sick of the class of individuals in their midst who think they can get away with anything (because they often do). Opponents of gun control in the United States have a famous slogan that says, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people." It states the obvious, that unless you inhabit the world of Terminator or the Transformers, humans shouldn't be blaming machines for their problems. As obvious, though, is the fact that people can kill people is by failing to control the harm they can inflict with their machines. We already have speed limits, and the government has promised to step up enforcement. But, in this and all other cases of speed-related deaths, we seem to accept without question the right of manufacturers and merchants to sell fast cars that maybe just don't belong in a crowded city. The comparison with guns is instructive. The standard defence of gun rights in the US is that guns aren't used only to commit violent crimes: they can also be used for hunting and self-defence. But then you don't need a military assault rifle like an AK-47 for such purposes, so these are more tightly regulated. Cars, similarly, have mostly benign uses. When you think about it, though, it is odd that there are no special restrictions on buying the vehicular equivalents of AK-47s: cars expressly engineered for purposes that would be unsafe anywhere or anytime in Singapore. We have no speed-unlimited autobahns nor a cross-country rally course. Yet, luxury sports models like Ferraris and more-affordable racers such as the Subaru WRX ply our roads freely, packed with the kind of horsepower that has no legal purpose. True, a Ferrari is a thing of beauty even when it is standing still, so why shouldn't a car aficionado buy one like it's a piece of art. However, as last weekend's crash seemed to demonstrate, a thoroughbred strains to show what it was created for, and the temptation to let it can be irresistible. (When I last bought a car, I reluctantly decided against the Suzuki Swift Sport

Which do you prefer? I have been in both position and honestly, while individual contributor role provides more room for self actualization and satisfaction, managerial role is much more visible/rewarding and for lesser effort.

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin...1186538/1/.html Govt's role relating to Temasek Holdings, GIC clarified Posted: 02 March 2012 1420 hrs SINGAPORE: Minister of State for Finance Josephine Teo on Friday clarified the government's role in relation to the state's sovereign wealth funds. Mrs Teo said the government does not decide how Temasek Holdings and the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation (GIC) manage their portfolios. Mrs Teo said their respective boards and professional management teams are responsible for the decisions. She added the government ensures risks to the whole portfolio are not excessive, by assessing the impact of various adverse global scenarios. Mrs Teo was responding to concerns of overlapping investments among Singapore's sovereign wealth funds. Member of Parliament for Ang Mo Kio Group Representation Constituency (GRC) Inderjit Singh said: "In recent times, they are starting to look very similar and also investing in almost similar assets. "This is not a good trend as we may be over-investing and lack diversification in our investments could come back and haunt us doubly-hard if these sectors are hit by problems." In response, Mrs Teo said: "First and foremost, we ensure that these investment entities have competent boards to oversee how their respective management teams execute their investment mandates. "We also ensure that these entities have proper mandates and objectives. Second, based on the overall risk profile of the government's whole portfolio, we decide how government capital should be allocated." - CNA/wk

MRT and the role of LTA policies Letter from Toh Beng Guan (TODAY 24Dec2011) The problem is that there are counterproductive policies that have effectively fostered an oligopoly in all modes of transport. This includes the insistence that there be no competing modes of transport to train services. WHILE everyone has been berating SMRT Corporation chief executive officer Saw Phaik Hwa and suggesting solutions to the recent train disruptions, we have overlooked the role of the Land Transport Authority. Many other cities with subway trains have alternative means of transport should one line fail, so commuters can still get to their destinations. These alternatives may not be optimal, but they run regularly; unlike backup buses called upon in a rail disruption, there are no problems of unfamiliarity with the routes for both drivers and commuters. Whereas with the Mass Rapid Transit, we have put all the eggs in one basket, which means it has to be 99.99 per cent reliable. To make matters worse, we have accepted a slow recovery time when things go wrong. But 30 minutes to put buses into operation is unacceptable. Ms Saw was tasked to find other means of revenue, to reduce the need for fare increases to fund investment and profits. In that sense, she has done well. The problem is that there are counterproductive policies that have effectively fostered an oligopoly in all modes of transport. This includes the insistence that there be no competing modes of transport to train services. In Hong Kong, for example, there are minibuses, taxis, bus services and even the Kowloon train service. In contrast, when the Light Rail Transit was launched, some feeder bus services plying the same routes were removed. The LRT was packed but only recently has there been news of increasing the number of carriages. This follows other LTA policy failures over the years, such as failure to keep Certificate of Entitlement supply in recent years in tandem with growth of the road network. Now, COE supply is being drastically reduced. There is an inordinate reliance on Electronic Road Pricing to control traffic flow. Look at the cost of travelling to town via the Central Expressway and how ridiculous it was to pay ERP to go home even as late as 10.30pm. Now, the ERP operates until 8pm. There was a failure to provide alternative expressways to the CTE for the new estates in the north/north-east. Only recently did we have the Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway, and the North-South Expressway is being planned now. The LTA has also insisted on not allowing cab drivers to be independent operators. Have the taxi complaints gone down in tandem with the reduction in Yellow Top taxis? Is outsourcing the policing of driver behaviour to companies proving effective?

Transcript of Lee Kuan Yew's interview with the Straits Times Straits Times August 12, 1999 In an interview with the Straits Times, Lee Kuan Yew gives a blunt retort to popular views about the role of an elected president and clarifies the limits of his powers. Lee, the chief architect of the scheme, also speaks on the importance of rotating the presidency among the races and his assessment of Mr S.R. Nathan, the only candidate to obtain an eligibility certificate, who was named president August 17. ST: Do you think the current excitement over the post of the EP is some sort of reflection for a greater check on government, or is it just a lack of understanding? SM Lee: First, people think there should be more consultations and their views should be heard. If they can't have their views heard, then get an Elected President to get their views through. Well, then you're going to have two centres of governments and you're going to have trouble. Supposing the President goes out and makes speeches contrary to the government's policies, there's going to be a clash. He is acting outside his province. That is not on. There are only two ways in which you can change the government's view. One, stand for elections, contest. The other way is to get your views over time accepted by the majority, including the Government. The PAP has survived not because it stuck by its guns all the time. If it were ideological and dogmatic, it would have become irrelevant. With every change in circumstance, I said, let's look at the options, what are the solutions? It doesn't matter who produces the solution; if it's going to work, adopt it and if he's got many solutions to offer, co-opt him. I see no disadvantage in that. ST: You brought up a fundamental point when you mentioned how Singapore cannot move away from the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy. SM Lee: No, I'm not saying we cannot move. I say it has worked, so do we want to alter the system? Are you sure that altering it will make it work better? We have evolved, we have changed bits here and there. Once we had a parliamentary draughtsman from England who wrote up a brand new Constitution. I said this looks neat, but should we go and change our habits of working just to fit the Constitution? The Constitution has got to accommodate the political, social and cultural habits of the people. It has worked. People know how it works. Better leave it largely as it is. Continue to make it work. ST: There's some confusion on the ground on the role of the EP, but that's also due to the fact that the Government has put out expectations that the EP office is to clip its wings. SM Lee: No, if you've to clip the wings, then you are in for trouble, you cannot govern. It is to prevent the Government from doing manifestly wrong things. ST: But that quote came specifically from Mr Goh Chok Tong in Parliament. SM Lee: Well, I cannot remember it but I would not have used that phrase because the executive powers of the Government should not be clipped. It is when it exceeds what is proper that it should be blocked or vetoed. ST: But considering that it's a new office, wouldn't you expect that there should be disagreement between Government and the EP? SM Lee: Yes. There must be these disagreements. ST: What is the reason? SM Lee: Because the system is new and the President does not know the exact limits of his powers. ST: Are these over fundamentals? SM Lee: No, disagreements are over the finer points, at the margins. The broad outline of his powers is already clear. ST: What would you count as interference by a president? SM Lee: The government should not be stopped from doing what it has always been doing. ST: You've also said that the president should not be an activist? SM Lee: No, he cannot initiate. He's not an executive president. It's not for the president to say, look, I want to use the second key, come on, let's use the reserves. His job is to protect the reserves, not to use them. ST: But if you look at the small pool of people qualified to be presidents, most of them would be former Cabinet ministers and they are by nature activist. SM Lee: Yes, therefore when you move into this job, you must change your mindset. ST: One view is that the elected president's job is a very big responsibility and is a complex task, in terms of looking at the numbers, for example. No, you don't need to be an accountant. This is not a job for an accountant. What comes up to him or what should come up to him is the final summary of the position: this is what has been going on; this is what the Government is going to do; does it infringe on the constitutional rights of the president? That's all. If it does, he has to stop it. ST: Another issue that has surfaced is that people think there has been a lack of transparency in the relationship between the Presidency and Government. SM Lee: What is there to be opaque about? There's nothing that requires the Prime Minister to be secretive. He does not require anything of the President other than official signatures. When they are sent to the President, he signs or he doesn't and he queries, if it is his right to block it. ST: One comment, including by Mr Lim Kim San, is that the presidency can be manipulated by a rogue government.I have had this argument with him many times. SM Lee: He has seen politics in the raw and he knows that if the PM is a good populist mobiliser, he can work up feelings, then arrange a referendum to support his expenditures or appointments and eventually overturn the Constitution. Either the president gives way or the PM may get his amendments through a referendum. I accept that is possible. Therefore I say we must have a president with six people who in such a crisis will sit down and quietly plan what to do to block this move and not to allow this populist to gather more support. He would have to explain coolly and quietly to the people with the support of his CPA why if you do this you're putting in jeopardy your life savings and your future. No, I agree with Kim San it is not foolproof because if you want to make it foolproof, you have to block yourself permanently into a corner, which you don't want to do. You may actually have to use those reserves from time to time. ST: Do you think the system could be improved further? SM Lee: I think it has to be worked out by convention, by interaction over time. The present government has to be careful that it does not take too constricted a view that a future government may not be able to operate without going to see the President almost every other time, which will be unworkable in practice. Also, you cannot work on the basis that every government is a rogue government. So, therefore, you must give a rogue government rope for two to three years before you reign its excesses in. If you start off on the basis that the next government is going to be a rogue government, then you lock up everything. ST: There is also some general unhappiness about the fact that the powers of the President are not operationalised like the Article 5(2A). SM Lee: Once you operationalise it, you've got to go through a referendum to change it. Do you want to do that? ST: Your argument also seems to be that with the PAP in power - and the PAP is definitely not a rogue government - the role of the EP would be mostly 99 per cent ceremonial as before. SM Lee: Well, provided the Government is doing right, I think that should be the position. If he's interfering then he is becoming an Executive President. You can't have a division of executive powers. ST: So as long as this is the case, the next elected President will be like the previous ceremonial presidents like Wee Kim Wee, Benjamin Sheares and Yusof Ishak, playing basically the same role. SM Lee: Yes, it has to be that or the Government is unduly restricted. It cannot be otherwise. Supposing you have another source of authority and the Government says, "No, we will not do this," and the President says, 'Yes, we will do this" then we say, 'All right, let's take a vote." And what will happen? Then he should resign from there and get into Parliament for a proper contest. ST: So you would need somebody who can just carry out the symbolic functions of the office? SM Lee: With the proviso that he is at the same time looking at all the reports submitted in to make sure it is in fact on the right track. You cannot assume things will not change. You might get a PAP Government but a new generation, beyond this present one, that becomes spendthrift and has less skills, and begins to bribe the voters. Then next to no time, the reserves are run down. ST: One popular catch-phrase in the recent debate is "We want an independent President". Mr S.R Nathan countered by saying "Independent of what?" In your view, he would be independent only insofar as the need to check a rogue government but beyond that, no? SM Lee: No. Under the Constitution he has to act on the advice of the Government. There's no difference between him and any other other previous presidents. It is in the Constitution, he has to act on the advice of the Government. He can't make speeches against the Government. His address to Parliament is written up for him. He cannot act independently of the Government. He cannot act against the wishes of the Government, full-stop, except when the Government wants to do things which he's entitled to block or veto. ST: Maybe if we could turn to Mr Nathan and you could share some insights on what sort of person he is. SM Lee: Well, I've known Nathan since the 1960s. I think he first came to my notice when I was looking for people to boost up the NTUC because the NTUC lost many of its capable workers when they split with the communists, so among those we sent there, we seconded to the NTUC research unit was Nathan and Hsu Tse Kwang, and I remember seeing them personally and telling them that this is a secondment, help them build the unions up. Then from there, the relationship went on. I found him very stable, steady, can get things done his quiet way. He was sent to university later in life, but he had his other qualities that enabled him to rise above his disadvantaged youth. So he ended up I think Perm Sec (Foreign Affairs), Director SID and he was in Mindef for quite a long while, associated with intelligence, and because I used to meet the intelligence people regularly to gather updates and not just read reports, so I got to know him. So after he retired he joined the Straits Times Press Group but then we needed somebody in Kuala Lumpur at a difficult time, so I asked him to take on that job. And after that he went on to Washington. He came back, he was still active, he's got energy, ideas, so he started IDSS which he launched and it's got on its way. I would consider him a person who can accomplish things, in his own way. ST: Was race a consideration when you drew up your shortlist of three candidates to Cabinet? SM Lee: Yes, in this regard, it's very difficult to find suitable minority candidates. Because the population is so small, when you reach the apex, the number of minority candidates who can fill the job becomes even smaller. So when you have a good man from the minority race, I think it helps to remind Singaporeans that we are a multiracial society. Although this is elected presidency, had there been a contest against a populist Chinese, we would have gone all out to make sure that he's elected. It'd be a very sad day if a populist Chinese candidate were to turn up and Nathan were defeated. I would have gone all out for him. The Prime Minister and the ministers knew that, if there was a contest with a populist Chinese candidate, we have to throw in all our resources to help him get elected. ST: Right. But the fact that he was Indian, do you think there was a feeling that it's time for a minority to be president? SM Lee: Yes, I think so because we've had two terms of Wee Kim Wee, one term of Ong Teng Cheong. I think it's time to remind Singaporeans that we are a multiracial community. And it's also good. It's a symbolic expression of our national identity. ST: So this idea of rotating the presidency among the races is on? SM Lee: I think it will continue. I would be very sad if expediency made future governments just support Chinese candidates. I think that would be a very bad thing. But if they put up a minority candidate, they must be prepared to back him to the hilt because if he comes up against a populist, Chinese chauvinist type, you have a problem. There's no doubt that this is a problem because it would take several generations before we get out of this. ST: Before Singaporeans stopped voting along racial lines? SM Lee: Yes. It took several generations for the Americans to vote for a Catholic candidate as President. These are gut feelings, emotional prejudices which are very difficult to wear down. ST: Was it difficult to persuade Mr Nathan to stand? SM Lee: Well, he did not jump at it. He knew it would mean a change of life for him and for his wife and family. So he asked for time to discuss it with his wife. The wife of a President can be of great help because, for many of the social functions, you will need a hostess and a good hostess helps in keeping more people happy. ST: You mentioned that it's difficult to find candidates for the position, why do you think this is so? SM Lee: Well, why should they give up their privacy. If you are not a megalomaniac, why do you want this job for? Everywhere you go, the spotlights are on you. People salute you, you are on parade. You can't go sauntering around to a hawker centre or go to Daimaru, and do whatever you like. And if you go for a walk in the Botanic Gardens, some crazy guy may approach you and say, "Look, here's my petition" or whatever. You have lost your right to be yourself; you are on parade. ST: The Straits Times ran two surveys to find out whether people wanted an election and the majority, 80 per cent, wanted to see an election because they wanted to take part in the process of choosing their President. But it would seem there would not be an election after all. SM Lee: You want us to go out and look for another candidate? (Laughs) ST: No, my question is: If there were no election, would you consider it a good thing or an unhealthy development? SM Lee: No, I'm completely agnostic on that. In many of the last 10 general elections I've been uncontested. Now, why did they not contest? Because their chances of winning were pretty small, so they looked around for where they thought their chances were better, that's it. I was ready to contest and I made sure that my party branch, although I don't go down as regularly as other MPs, is functioning. I've got another MP to nurse it. I go down from time to time and I know come election time I can meet anybody in the contest. I don't know, should we have arranged for a second candidate? ST: To put it another way, maybe even if it was a contrived contest, at least the candidate will be able to say, 'I have X per cent of the people" behind me. Would that help the moral standing of the President? SM Lee: I don't know. They have not contested because they don't believe they stand a chance. Nathan's name was out in the newspapers for several weeks, right? Singapore is a small place, you can calculate who are the possibles. You can eliminate the unlikely ones and come down to about half to a dozen people. If people thought they stood a chance they would have come out, that's what my experience tells me. The last time we had to go out of our way to nudge Chua Kim Yeow to come out. ST: Why did the Government not feel the need to do so this time around? SM Lee: Well, the last time was the first time ever so it was necessary to run the system in. This is the second time so we didn't feel strongly about it. ST: But don't you think it's actually not a good precedent in the sense that, of course, the Government would put up its own candidate, one with qualities required for the EP. Then every time a term ends, there might not be an election. SM Lee: I would not be prepared to say that. That depends upon the mood at that time and the standing of the person and the standing of the Government. If the Government is wildly unpopular, I think its candidate would not enjoy the same acceptance. But I wouldn't like to project what would happen in the next election; it's six years down the road and many things can happen in six years. ST: But do you think the public should seriously consider taking it upon themselves to put up their own candidates rather than keep waiting for the Government? SM Lee: Go ahead. First he must be qualified; secondly, he must have some weight to be credible or he will lose $30,000. ST: But this will be the sixth President that you would have recommended. Do you think there will ever be a time where the President can actually emerge out of natural selection, where people actually come forward to offer themselves? SM Lee: It depends upon the evolution of the relationship between the political parties and the people. If there is a credible opposition that credible opposition will put up a candidate. But the opposition cannot put up a candidate because it's not credible. If you just stand for election you must have the organisation to canvass for votes. You can't just say, 'I'm Jimmy Carter, I'm a peanut farmer, vote for me." He had to run around like mad using the Democratic Party machine. It's easy to say I'll run but is it so easy to do, if you haven't got the organisation? When you talk about an alternative, either the alternative has to be a PAP alternative or it has got to be an opposition alternative. ST: But it can be an independent alternative as well. SM Lee: Ah yes, but who's going to run around for you? ST: Civil society groups perhaps? SM Lee: (Laughs) You know, civil society groups are okay for committee meetings, issuing statements and press conferences. Go on the hustings? Do you know how tiring it is to go up 20 floors, and walk down to shake hands? ST: Perhaps the Presidential election is less taxing than the General Election. SM Lee: Right, okay, if you believe that. You put up a candidate next time with your NGOs.

Oh no, another collectable oldie gona be retained. Hope MHA has the budget for an additional head count & has least some place catered for him. Whatever it is, I sincerely hope he will not be placed in PMO together with the rest. The again, place him here, there or anywhere we still have to pay for his multi-million dollar salary right? Silly me... Ho Peng Kee will continue to have a role in MHA By Tanya Fong | Posted: 17 April 2011 2031 hrs SINGAPORE : Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs Ho Peng Kee will continue to have a role in the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to spearhead Volunteers Outreach and Development. Associate Professor Ho, who announced his retirement from politics two weeks ago, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam had requested that he continues to play a role in the MHA. Mr Shanmugam had said Associate Professor Ho's stepping down is a big loss, adding that Associate Professor Ho has built up deep linkages with the several volunteer organisations. There are currently 11,000 MHA volunteers. Associate Professor Ho said that he hopes that in continuing as a link to volunteers, he can help lift volunteerism in Singapore. He added that emergency preparedness and resilience cannot be solely driven by the government. Citizens too must play a part in looking out for one another, and this is where volunteerism plays a crucial role. Associate Professor Ho said: "What I have agreed to do is to continue to leverage on my deep ties with these people and to continue to 'ra-ra' them to make their volunteering experience satisfactory. "It is not because I am leaving and they just want to do it for me. It is something which we have been thinking about the key roles volunteers play. Basically volunteers, they need a link. They need recognition. It is a nice platform to continue some association in a relevant way." - CNA/ms

Chelsea have staged their own cabinet reshuffle - clearing the way for Roman Abramovich to take a more hands-on role at Stamford Bridge. Chelsea have appointed Ron Gourlay as the departing Peter Kenyon

crooked a$$holes in mediacorpse ================= AN EXECUTIVE at MediaCorp Enterprises was fined $8,000 yesterday for helping to rig a lucky draw the company had been hired to organise. David Quek Siak Yeong, 43, an assistant vice-president, admitted that he agreed to accept a $2,500 bribe from a contestant in a daily draw giving out $5,000 in Shell petrol vouchers. In return, he asked a subordinate to 'pick' the man as a winner on Oct 17 last year. Quek is the most senior MediaCorp official to be implicated in the rigging of the 'free fuel for a year' promotion. Teh Gim Leng, 29, who was in charge of the daily draws, was convicted in July. He was sentenced to three months' jail and ordered to pay a penalty of nearly $6,000. Quek yesterday pleaded guilty to asking for $2,500 in fuel vouchers from 'winner' Chan Chor Meng. A second charge of asking another contestant for the same sum was taken into consideration. His lawyer, Mr Adrian Wee , said Quek had suggested 'in jest' to Teh to let some of his friends win the contest. Teh agreed as he had been doing precisely that, Mr Wee added. Asking the court not to impose a jail term, Mr Wee said MediaCorp was standing by Quek. Later, in the same district court, Long Say Chong, 34, an engineer with Rami Technology, was fined $5,000 for agreeing to accept $300 in Shell vouchers from another 'winner'. Quek and Long were among the five people charged yesterday for their role in fixing the lucky draw, but they were the only ones to plead guilty. The cases against the other three will be heard later this month - bringing the total brought to court to 18. Of the 12 'winners' charged on Nov 12, 10 admitted to the offences and were fined $5,000 or $6,000. The other two will be attending court on Dec 15 to discuss arrangements for their trials. The maximum penalty for corruption is a $100,000 fine and five years' jail