15 July 2024
Chairman
Disciplinary Committee
Royal Lake Club
Kuala Lumpur
Dear Sir
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 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
