Bullying beyond schools and workplaces

This write-up was published in the Sun on 17 Oct 2024 pg.10

Bullying in schools, workplaces, and on social media has been increasingly highlighted in recent headlines. Is this issue more rampant now? Not necessarily. Bullying has long been a significant problem, but increased awareness and expanded reporting platforms have brought it more into the spotlight. Social media, in particular, has extended bullying beyond traditional environments, allowing cyberbullying to occur anytime and anywhere. This makes it more pervasive, persistent, and harder to escape, which can give the impression that bullying is more common today.

Bullying is often viewed as a social malaise, but it is actually both a social and psychological problem, involving complex interactions between individual behavior and societal dynamics. Its causes are multifaceted, including power imbalances, social hierarchies, and psychological factors like insecurity, aggression, or a desire for control. Women and girls, especially, are often disproportionately affected by bullying, typically by men in positions of power. Factors like power dynamics and psychological motivations often contribute to this behavior, where traditional gender roles and societal norms perpetuate male dominance. Men who bully women often have underlying psychological issues such as low self-esteem, a need for validation, or past experiences of abuse. These issues can drive them to project their insecurities onto others, particularly women they perceive as vulnerable.   

In Malaysia, school and workplace bullying are handled by the Ministry of Education and other relevant ministries and government agencies, while cyberbullying is addressed by the Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC). Despite these efforts, improvements in policies and enforcement are needed to more effectively address bullying in all its forms.

One overlooked area is perhaps bullying within private sports and social clubs, as well as thousands of societies/associations such as Residents’ Associations; including political parties and NGOs, all of which come under the purview of the Registrar of Societies (ROS) in the Ministry of Home Affairs. These entities play an important role in community bonding, but bullying can lead to divisions and a less cohesive community. Addressing bullying in these settings will foster healthier communities and reinforces positive social standards.

A recent case of blatant bullying of a lady member through abuse of power by its leadership in a prominent sports and social club of Royal status in the Klang Valley has underscored the need for ROS to take a more proactive role in ensuring good governance in clubs to curb this bullying issue. Bullying within a club, particularly when involving individuals in authority/power who selectively enforce rules or apply discriminatory punishments, -- to the extent of breaching club constitutional rules to impose a wrongful conviction -- undermines the integrity of the club and alienates members. The Societies Act provides a framework for overseeing club activities, but enhancements to this oversight could offer better protection to members, especially if good governance based on the rule of laws is emphasized. Suggestions include:

1. Strengthen Oversight and Monitoring Mechanisms

Enhanced Reporting Systems: ROS could implement a reporting mechanism (much like the ADU@KL of DBKL) where members can complain and report instances of bullying, discrimination, or unfair treatment without fear of retaliation. This would allow issues to be addressed at an early stage before they escalate to legal suits in court.

Regular Audits and Inspections: ROS could conduct more frequent and unannounced audits of clubs -- especially for those with a track record or history of disputes and court cases with members -- focusing on compliance with constitutional rules and byelaws. Audits could include reviews of how rules are enforced and whether there is evidence of discrimination or bias.

External Ombudsman: Establishing an independent ombudsman for clubs and societies could provide a neutral party to whom grievances can be reported. This role could ensure that all complaints are investigated fairly and that corrective actions are taken in a timely manner.

2. Clearer Guidelines on Governance and Accountability

Transparent Rule Enforcement: ROS could mandate that clubs provide clear, written policies on how rules are enforced, including specific criteria for punishments and disciplinary actions. This would help ensure that enforcement is consistent and fair. In the case cited above, the lady member was punished disproportionately with 3 months’ suspension and RM 500 fine based on a wrongful conviction. This double punishment is rare and unprecedented in the club, and is widely perceived by club members as a case of bullying, selective prosecution and victimization.

Mandatory Training for Club Officials: Implementing mandatory training for club officials on ethical leadership, anti-bullying, and anti-discrimination practices would help foster a more inclusive environment. This training could be required by ROS as part of the process for elected or appointed club positions.

Governance Audits: Periodic governance audits by ROS could assess the fairness and transparency of decision-making processes within clubs. These audits could be used to evaluate the extent to which officials adhere to ethical governance standards and rules of law.

3. Enhanced Legal Recourse and Enforcement

Stronger Legal Consequences for Misconduct: ROS could work with legal authorities to establish clearer legal consequences for club officials who engage in bullying or discriminatory practices. This could include penalties for clubs and individual officials that fail to take action against bullying or are themselves involved in bullying!

Empowered Mediation and Arbitration Services: Offering mediation and arbitration services through ROS could provide a formal pathway for resolving disputes between members and leadership. This could be an alternative to legal action, providing a quicker, less costly way to address grievances.

In conclusion, it goes without saying that regular reviews of the Societies Act would help keep governance practices of clubs and societies up-to-date with current challenges, including the issues of bullying. This review process could include input from members of the public, legal experts, and civil society to ensure a broad perspective on needed updates.

Requisition for EGM

 

Dear fellow RLC members,

Is RLC still being governed by the rule of law, according to the RLC Constitution Rules and Club Bye-Laws? I have recently been wrongfully convicted and hit with a harsh DOUBLE punishment!  Three months’ suspension and a RM 500 fine, over a baseless charge of conduct unbecoming and injurious to the club! Yet the Investigating Committee (IC), Disciplinary Committee (DC) and GC ALL could not tell which byelaw I breached, which members I offended or what club properties I damaged! Here’s what happened:

On a quiet Saturday afternoon, I was listening to an online presentation on my laptop with my earphone in the Infant Feeding Room (IFR) located in the Ladies' Changing Room (LCR). There were no other members around to be disturbed or inconvenienced. Suddenly, a young man, who claimed to be the Duty Manager (DM), appeared unannounced and asked me to leave the IFR, stating that I was not supposed to occupy it. I explained to him that a few years ago, the GC had decided that the IFR could be used by other ladies if and when it was not occupied. Moreover, there is no byelaw in the LCR explicitly prohibiting its use. Despite this, after he barged in the second time to shoo me off, I left the LCR to maintain decorum. I should have complained to management about his breach of protocol and inappropriate behavior, but I chose not to.

I was shocked that 19 days later, he reported the incident to the General Manager (GM), a non-member and staff, who then filed a complaint directly to the IC!  I had to endure the whole disciplinary process of submitting my detailed and lengthy explanation to IC and then DC, followed by a hearing conducted by a DC panel where everything seemed to go well, without unnecessary argument or unpleasantness. The 2017 GC meeting minutes and an email from the GM to me were presented as solid evidence that the GC allowed the use of the IFR by ladies for purposes other than that of feeding infants.

I thought the DC would find me not guilty of the charge by IC. Unfortunately, I was terribly disappointed and shocked again by the guilty verdict and the harsh DOUBLE punishment, despite having done nothing wrong. This punishment is unjust, disproportionate, and severe in stark contrast -- as many members have come to know by now – to a certain GC member’s son who had blatantly breached a Man’s Changing Room byelaw on 3rd February 2024 with no disciplinary action taken!  Is this “selective prosecution” and double standards?  If this can happen to me, be forewarned that it can happen to any other members.  

I appealed to the GC, but it was rejected summarily without a hearing. I now have to call for an EGM where I hope the truth will prevail. The ICDC and GC members will have to explain how this guilty verdict and harsh sentence were determined and upheld. Please support and sign my petition for EGM. Members must find out the truths and do the necessary to ensure that the rule of law is upheld and will prevail in the RLC.

From now till 27th September, I will be at the Garden Café every Wednesday 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., Friday and Sunday from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. Please come to support and sign the EGM requisition form. I will be there in my tennis attire and/or wearing a visor. Please feel free to call or WhatsApp me at 0163157420, or visit my blog https://gansiowcklee.blogspot.com for more details on the case. I hereby pledge to bear the cost incurred by the EGM should I fail in this last attempt for justice.  Thank you for your time and support.

Best regards,

Dr. Gan Siowck Lee (L0713)

20/09/2024

RLC Matters: Appeal letter to GC after hearing/verdict by DC

 

The President, Vice-President  & Members of the General Committee 

Royal Lake Club

Kuala Lumpur

15 August 2024

 

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Appeal pursuant to  RLC Constitutional Rule 19.5

I am writing in response to the letter from the Secretary dated 2nd August 2024, which has left me, along with many of my fellow RLC members, in utter disbelief and disgust. We are deeply aggrieved, outraged, and appalled by the Disciplinary Committee's (DC) unjust and wrongful judgment finding me guilty of breaching RLC Constitutional Rule 18.1.

I am lodging this appeal with the belief that there are General Committee (GC) members who are principled, fair-minded, unbiased and perhaps God-fearing, who will seek to uphold justice by thoroughly examining the truth. The DC's actions represent a blatant miscarriage of justice that is shocking, despicable, and unacceptable for a club of our standing and repute.

I am now lodging an appeal against the entirety of the decision rendered by the Investigation and Disciplinary Committee (ICDC) as stated in their letter dated 2nd August 2024, as a victim of injustice, NOT as a guilty party seeking mercy.

The DC’s poorly written letter delivering the verdict dated 2^nd August, failed to specify/quote the rule or byelaw I allegedly breached, or clearly state the specific actions deemed as conduct unbecoming or injurious to the club. This lack of transparency and accountability strongly suggests not only procedural shortcomings but also they could not find concrete evidence of any wrongdoing on my part. I reiterate that the DC, through their willful actions, omissions, and gross negligence, has committed errors in both law and fact, as detailed in Sections A and B below.

I sincerely hope that members of the GC will review all the documents attached to evaluate fairly and reasonably the following factors in my appeal as outlined below.

A.     RLC Constitutional Rules & Bye-Laws

The RLC Constitutional Rules & Byelaws govern the behavior of and relationship between members of the Cub which all members must comply with.  Any complaint on the breach of the Club Rules and Bye-Laws can only be lodged by a member to the ICDC. It seems very odd that the Secretary, members of the IC and DC accepted a complaint about me from the GM, an employee, who has no constitutional right to file such a complaint directly to the ICDC.  The GM can file a report to members of the GC, who can then file a complaint to the ICDC against a fellow member.  Is the Secretary or members of the ICDC or GC aware of this? Hence, the complaint by the GM against me to ICDC is invalid, ultra vires the Club Constitutional Rules and Bye-Laws.

 

B.     No Breach of RLC Constitutional Rule 18.1

The charge against me is stated as “….used the Infant Feeding Room (IFR) to conduct an online meeting and/or discussion using a laptop computer. Further when the Duty Manager (DM)…..advised you that you are not allowed to use the IFR …..and suggested that you adjourn to the Garden Café to continue your Google Meet you refused to heed the request….” (please refer to Appendix A, p.15 in bundle).

I did not breach any Club Byelaw by using the IFR (Infant Feeding Room)/Cubicle when it is not in use by anyone.  Members of the GC must take note that there was no Club Bye-Laws prohibiting the use of the IFR/Cubicle by other lady members.  What is in existence is a ruling by the GC at its meeting in March 2017 that the IFR need not be used only for feeding infants. This is evidenced by  the email from the then General Manager (GM) to me in 2017 (Appendix 2 p. 26 in bundle) and extract of the GC meeting minutes of March 2017 (Appendix B, last page in bundle). In addition, prohibition for its use by other members was NEVER incorporated into the Club’s Bye-Laws as evident in the 2018 GC meeting minutes (Appendix 7). The ICDC are wrong to punish me for using the IFR.

I did not “conduct” an online discussion on Google meet. No concrete evidence, audio or visual, was ever presented on this allegation. I was just using Zoom to listen to a video presentation with my head phone on. How did the DM come to that conclusion is something beyond imagination! This issue is apparently a non-issue to the DC as it was not brought up at all during the DC hearing.

I was charged for not complying with the advice of the DM to vacate the IFR.  I did explain to him the  2017 GC ruling, but to no avail, he just insisted on imposing his authority. He behaved like a Little Napoleon would. His two attempts to evict me from the IFR/Cubicle were in direct violation of the GC decision of 2017, which explicitly allows members to use the IFR/Cubicle when not in use, thereby breaching Club Rule 22.13.  My rights and privileges as a member to enjoy the club’s facilities were egregiously violated. In spite of this, after his second attempt, I left to continue my work at the poolside café to avoid further disruption and for the sake of maintaining decorum during the holy month of Ramadan. Can the Club allow “Little Napoleons” to flex their muscles to impose their will on members even if they err, not knowing the Club’s rules?  When questioned during the DC hearing, both the DM and GM admitted not knowing of the 2017 GC ruling. 

In addition, members of the GC may wish to find out who was in the club on that Saturday afternoon to authorize the DM to enter a gender-segregated room, the Ladies Changing Room (LCR)? Is the GC aware that his action of barging into the LCR, unauthorized and then unannounced by the Supervisor or any LCR attendant, constitute a severe violation of women's privacy and could be considered criminal trespass when brought to court or reported to JAI (Jabatan Agama Islam)?

From the above, it is clear that the ICDC have committed errors both in law and in fact as follows:

·        The DC disregarded the GC Decision of 2017 pertaining to the use of the IFR/cubicle in the LCR when it is not in use. (Appendix 2)

·        The DC ignored the fact that I was lawfully occupying the IFR/Cubicle in accordance with the GC Directive as in Appendix 2.

·        Rule 22.13 of the RLC Constitution unequivocally states that all members are bound by GC decisions unless set aside at an Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM). This rule extends to members of the DC.

·        The directive in Appendix 2 remains in force and has not been set aside.

·        No evidence was presented during the DC hearing to indicate that the directive in Appendix 2 had been revoked.

·        By disregarding Appendix 2, the DC has breached Rule 22.13.

·        By reason of this breach by DC, I have been wrongfully and unjustifiably punished

·        The DC erred by failing to recognize that the IFR/Cubicle was vacant and not in use at the relevant time.

·       The DC erred by failing to acknowledge that no other member sought to use the IFR/Cubicle or was denied access while it was occupied by me.

·     The DC erred by failing to consider that no other member was in the LCR during the incident, thus no member of the club was prejudiced, harmed, or had their rights infringed upon due to my lawful occupation of the IFR/Cubicle.

C.      Other Mitigating Factors

Members of the GC would be well informed that members have used the IFR in the LCR to nap, to read papers or use mobiles to chat or view videos, or bathe their children in the shower room designated for the handicaps, although some of these are against the Club byelaws/rules. Has the DM ever reported these or has the GM ever filed any complaint to the ICDC on these matters?  Why this sudden zeal now to use a “trumped-up charge” against me even though this discretional use of IFR is allowed under the GC decision of 2017? Is this gender discrimination, an act of bullying, selective prosecution or victimization of a powerless, non-voting lady member? Will the GC allow “Little Napoleons” to reign in the Club by imposing their authority at will on club members, even though they err and their knowledge of the Club Constitutional Rules and Bye-Laws leaves much to be desired?

The GC may also wish to note that the DM and the GM did not even report or lodge a  complaint to the ICDC against the son of a certain GC member who brought his 11-year-old son  to use the male changing room (MCR) on 3^rd February 2024.  This was in breach of the MCR Byelaw (Appendix 3, p 27 of bundle) - boys below the age of 18 are prohibited from using the MCR. In punishing me, GC members will be confirming that there is one set of rules for members like the GC member's  son and family, and another one for ordinary members like me, a powerless, non-voting lady member, who is now being punished severely for NOT breaching any rule of byelaw, offending or inconveniencing other members, much less doing anything injurious to the club?

Hence, it appears that there may be some “hidden hand” or power that is orchestrating this selective prosecution against me, even to the extent of involving employees/staff and colluding with the ICDC, who are supposedly independent thinking and fair-minded members, including legal professionals? 

Incidentally, the malicious misrepresentation of facts about me in the March 2024 GC meeting minutes (2325.11.6.2) appears to be a premeditated attempt -- and it may be just the tip of the iceberg -- to cast aspersions on me and prejudice the entire  GC against me! (It’s noteworthy that the incident of me using the IFR was just a few days after this GC meeting). I have sent a complaint followed by evidence in at least four (4) emails from 9 May to 24 June to the Secretary requesting amendment of this misrepresentation, but till this day no action seems to have been taken.

In conclusion, given that no member was prejudiced or harmed and that my occupation of the IFR/Cubicle was in strict accordance with the GC directive, the DC's decision to convict me, and arbitrarily impose a three-month suspension and a fine of RM 500 is fundamentally flawed.  The DC through their willful act, omission and gross negligence has clearly committed errors both in law and in fact. I respectfully, yet firmly, request members of the GC to thoroughly review the case to address these fundamental flaws and grant this appeal, to overturn the wrongful conviction and its associated penalties. Doing so will greatly enhance the credibility of the GC, and help restore Club members' trust and confidence in the governance of RLC which is primarily based on the rule of law.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

 

Gan Siowck Lee (LO713)

Attached herewith are:

1.      Bundle of documents (32 pages) previously presented for DC hearing

2.      Appendix 7

3.      Letter from Secretary/ICDC  dated 2^nd August 2024

C.C. All GC members

 

 

RLC Matters: Decision/verdict of DC after hearing

Excerpts of DC decision after hearing on 23 July 2024:

"After presentation and due consideration of all facts......the DC unanimously found you guilty of the charge....and found that your conduct was unbecoming......and injurious to the interest of the Club...." 

(No mention which specific act or conduct of mine while working on my laptop computer in the Infant Feeding Room contributed to above judgement)

"Pursuant to Rule 19.4 of the Club Constitution, the DC unanimously decided to impose upon you the PUNISHMENT of SUSPENSION for a period of THREE (3) MONTHS and a fine of RM 500......"

(Is working on my laptop computer in the Infant Feeding Room such a SERIOUS crime to be so harshly and disproportionately PUNISHED? No mention of which byelaw or rule was breached! Fact is no byelaw prohibits the use of room by others when it's not occupied and GC allowed its discretional use since 2017!)

The DC must explain the grounds for above conviction and the overly severe punishment. They did not!

   

RLC Matters: My letter to DC in reply to the framed charge by IC

 

15 July 2024

Chairman

Disciplinary Committee

Royal Lake Club

Kuala Lumpur

Dear Sir

 Charge of IC for my alleged breach of RLC Constitutional Rule 18.1

With reference to the above, here is my reply in two parts, viz. (1) a summary and (2) a detailed reply.

Summary (Part One)

I admit occupying the infant feeding room (IFR) as per the charge.

I have a lawful right to use the IRF pursuant to a GC Decision allowing lady members to use the place when not in use. Please see Appendix 2 of Part One attached hereto.

Hence the charge against me is misconceived and in error.

Accordingly the instruction by the duty manager Mr Fairoz to me to vacate the IFR is in breach of the GC Decision and in the circumstance unlawful.

It is humbly submitted that this charge as framed is without basis and ought to be struck off. The same applies to ALL other allegations. Please see Table 1 attached (Appendix 5).

In effect the club ought to apologise to me for this grave error.

Detailed Reply (Part Two)

I joined the RLC about 40 years ago to play tennis, as it was touted as the prestigious gentleman’s club. Frankly, I am baffled and perhaps outraged that despite the detailed and logical explanation in my reply to the IC, they decided that the case should be referred to the DC for further action. (Please refer to Appendix 1). It is noteworthy that this notification of their decision came after the AGM recently – where I could have created problems if I wanted to -- and more than a month or SIX weeks after the IC meeting on 21 May! Why such an unusually long delay is anyone’s guess.

As a rule-abiding person since childhood, I feel humiliated and insulted by the IC’s decision. However, in retrospect, being a first-timer—in my 40 years as an RLC member—encountering investigation by the IC, I concede that perhaps I have overlooked something in my reply to the IC: I did not provide enough evidence. I had thought that IC, as its name suggests, would have done the necessary investigation to gather evidence to verify what I claimed in my reply to them. Unfortunately, as I found out a few days ago, investigation is but a misnomer; they don’t investigate! It seems the Disciplinary Committee (another misnomer?) is the one doing the investigation! As such, I shall now try to plug the hole and give one piece of important missing evidence.

The main issue in the charge seems to be my using the IFR (Infant feeding room) for purposes other than its original designated use. I have explained in my reply to IC that the GC allowed the room to be used for other purposes. For evidence, please refer to the email reply from the then GM to me and the ladies in 2017 (Appendix 2). If this GC decision has been changed in subsequent years by other GCs, to restrict the use of the room to feeding infants, then the ladies should have been duly notified, or the byelaws of the LCR (Ladies’ Changing Room) should have been updated accordingly and displayed prominently in the LCR. As of now, there is no explicit club rule or LCR byelaw that prohibits the use of the IFR for other purposes. More importantly, no mothers were queuing to use the IFR that ‘fateful’ Saturday afternoon! As such, I cannot be charged under Rule 18.1 for using the IFR, as it is NOT conduct unbecoming of a member, it is NOT injurious to the interest of the club by any stretch of the imagination, and it is NOT in breach of any club rule or LCR byelaw.

If using a laptop in the LCR is the issue, please note that the byelaw in the LCR only prohibits the use of mobile phones, not laptops or other electronic devices, unlike the case of the Gym byelaws. For evidence, please see Appendix 3.

The other issue cited in the charge has to do with what the laptop was used for. As of now, there is no explicit RLC rule or LCR byelaw prohibiting the use of a laptop, much less specifying how the laptop should or should not be used. It is actually a non-issue. However, to ensure that no stone is left unturned, I will address this too. But first, there are inconsistencies in the exact wording of the complaints/charge: from Mages’ “doing a Google meeting,” to DM’s (Duty Manager) “conducting a Google meet,” to the final one by IC “conducting an online meeting and/or discussion.” It is apparent that no one is sure what I was doing with my laptop in the IFR as none has really seen what was on my laptop screen, and there was no visual, audio, or video recording, or any unbiased witness to substantiate their allegation/charge. In my reply to IC, I explained that I was using Zoom with my headphones on and microphone off (meaning the laptop was in silent mode), which could have prompted the IC to cleverly tweak “Google” to “online” meeting or discussion in their charge. How they knew or concluded I was “conducting” a meeting or “discussion” when I could be just “attending” a meeting—such as a webinar or shareholders’ AGM—is beyond any conjecture. Be that as it may, as I have explained in my reply to IC, there was no emission of sound or noise to disturb anyone if this is their reason for citing a Google meeting as my “illicit” laptop activity. But what is most noteworthy and important is that there was not even ONE member around at that time to be disturbed by any noise! (Please see the photograph in the DM’s report, Appendix 4). As such, I cannot be charged under Rule 18.1 for conduct unbecoming of a member or breach of any club rule or LCR byelaw.

In conclusion, this spurious complaint about me using the IFR shows that the F&M supervisor either made up her own rule or was instigated by someone to complain. Over the years, many other ladies have used the IFR for various purposes -- mostly because of the noisy discussion and chat in the LCR --,  using the shower room designated for the handicapped, chatting on their mobiles, and watching video clips on their mobiles without using headphones in the main LCR area, all with no repercussions. This brings to mind the recent case of the President’s grandson breaching a Men’s Changing Room explicitly stated byelaw, and the GM did not file a complaint to the IC as he should have! Why such an apparent selective and discriminatory “prosecution” of now complaining about a lady member NOT in breach of any explicit club rule or LCR byelaw?

The last issue in the IC’s charge is that I did not leave the LCR as requested by the DM. For starters, both the GM and DM lacked due diligence and did not check the facts, as they should have, before filing a complaint. What’s worse, the DM did not observe social and religious etiquette and barged into the LCR—a gender-segregated facility—not once but TWICE, unauthorized and unannounced, to shoo me off! He even, in his own words, “opened” the curtain of the IFR, invading a lady’s privacy! Given that he does not even know the club rules and LCR byelaws to execute his duties properly, how can the IC charge me under 18.1 for not heeding his misguided order? Please note that—contrary to his report, as detailed in my reply to IC—I left the LCR shortly after 3 pm to maintain decorum and avoid further disruption to my online work. RLC management and staff must be reminded that while members do not and should not demand staff to be obsequious, members do expect them to be genial and discreet in performing their duties, abiding by club rules and byelaws all the time.

Finally, I trust that the DC panel members, with your collective wisdom and professional judgment, will find the above explanation satisfactory and convincing. A decision in my favor will be exemplary and serve as a timely reminder to both RLC management and staff to stop running this prestigious gentleman’s club like a personal fiefdom, using unfounded complaints to bully members, especially lady members. Otherwise, it could send the wrong message that members must be subservient to staff. Exercising discretion and prudence can help management avoid unnecessary legal hassles and costs, as demonstrated by an incident in 2010 involving another lady member.

As a responsible club member, despite feeling aggrieved by this unwarranted complaint against me, I remain fully committed to cooperating and providing additional details if required at the upcoming hearing on July 23, 2024.

Thank you.

Yours faithfully

Gan Siowck Lee (L0713)

 Appendix 1 My reply to IC

Appendix 2 Email from GM 2017

Appendix 3 Latest Byelaws of Changing Rooms

Appendix 4 GM’s complaint and DM’s report to GM

Appendix 5 Table 1 (Summary of Reply to DC)

Appendix 6 IC proposal to amend byelaws

 

RLC Matters: Notification of Charge framed by IC on 2nd July 2024

 ..... you used the Infant Feeding Room to conduct an online meeting and/or discussion using a laptop computer.

Further when the Duty Manager advised you that you are not allowed to use the Infant Feeding Room for any other purposes apart from the intended use of infant feeding and suggested that you adjourn to the Garden Cafe .....you refused to heed the request on both occasions.

Your aforesaid conduct constitutes a breach of RULE 18.1 of the Constitutional Rules of the Royal Lake Club which reads:

If the conduct of a member.......is unbecoming.......or is injurious to the interest of the Club ........or if the member is in beach of these Rules, then the member shall be disciplined in accordance with the provisions of this Rule

Please note 

There is no mention in this framed charge which byelaw in the changing room I have breached, which byelaw prohibits the use of the Infant Feeding Room, which byelaw prohibits the use of a laptop, which byelaw says that I must obey the instruction of the staff even when the staff is wrong.

I already explained that a few years ago (2017) in a GC meeting, it was decided that the room can be used by other ladies when it is not used for feeding infants. This is supported by evidence: an email  from the then GM informing me of this, plus the GC Feb 2017 meeting minutes which stated so.

Must members obey the order of the staff when he/she is wrong, and doesn't know the rule? I left the room eventually, so why complained again? 

There is no byelaw prohibiting the use of laptop in the ladies changing room, period. 

This is a spurious charge, period. 

More importantly, GM is a staff and non-member, he  has no constitutional right to file a complaint to ICDC. Only a GC member and other club members can file complaint to ICDC. 

Please go on to read my detailed reply to DC.