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. 

East West Center Alumni & Friends Get Together

 

Date: 29 August 2003 Time: 7 pm to 9 pm KL time Hosted by President of the East West Center, Suzanne-Vares Lum

Venue: Element Kuala Lumpur 8 Lorong Binjai Kuala Lumpur 50450 Malaysia About 50 alumni and friends turned up for the reception.

ChatGPT cannot solve math problems?

According to a test done by someone in the US, ChapGPT cannot solve a simple Grade 5 math problem. I am not surprised, as it is not built for math, it is an AI language model. 

Anyway, here's the problem posed to ChatGPT:

Q:  Klein read 30 pages of a book on Monday and 1/8 of the book on Tuesday. He completed the remaining 1/4 of the book on Wednesday. How many pages are there in the book?

Here's the answer from ChatGPT, after a long few minutes!

Let's represent the total number of pages in the book by "x".

Klein read 30 pages on Monday, so the remaining number of pages in the book is (x - 30).

On Tuesday, he read 1/8 of the book, which is (1/8)x pages. So the remaining number of pages in the book after Tuesday is (x - 30 - (1/8)x) = (7/8)x - 30.

On Wednesday, he completed the remaining 1/4 of the book, which is (1/4)(7/8)x = (7/32)x pages.

Since Klein completed the entire book on Wednesday, we can set up an equation:

(7/8)x - 30 - (7/32)x = x

Simplifying this equation, we get:

(21/32)x = 30

Multiplying both sides by (32/21), we get:

x = 45.71 (rounded to two decimal places)

Therefore, there are approximately 45.71 pages in the book.

A simple solution made complex!!! What is your answer? 48? 

My conversation with ChatGPT about China and the US

Just how "intelligent" is ChatGPT? The following is a Q & A session I had with ChatGPT to find out a bit about how it works. My ultimate goal is, of course,  to determine how CharGPT can be used as a tool to enhance teaching and learning. Looks like I need to do much more testing to come up with a workable model for this purpose. 

For starters, the prelim test of a simple Q & A was done to set the parameters within which ChatGPT works:  

Q: What is China's 12 point peace plan for Russia-Ukraine war in 2023?

I'm sorry, but as an AI language model, I do not have access to current events beyond my knowledge cutoff date of September 2021, and I cannot predict future events. It's best to consult reputable news sources or diplomatic channels for information regarding any developments related to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.

And now, here's my  Q & A session with ChatGPT: 

One China Policy and the US

Q1: Does one China policy mean that US recognise Taiwan as an integral part of China?

Yes, the One China Policy is a diplomatic policy in which the People's Republic of China (PRC) asserts that Taiwan is an integral part of China. As a result, countries that adhere to the One China Policy do not officially recognize Taiwan as a separate sovereign state but instead recognize the government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China. The United States recognizes the One China Policy and officially acknowledges the government of the PRC as the only legitimate government of China, including Taiwan as part of China.

Q2: If the US adheres to the One China Policy, doesn't it mean that it should not interfere if China takes over Taiwan to rule it as a province of China?

The One China Policy does not imply support for any specific actions or policies regarding Taiwan, including the use of force by China to take over Taiwan. The policy is primarily a diplomatic stance that acknowledges China's position that Taiwan is a part of its territory, and it does not prejudice the U.S. position on the future status of Taiwan.

The U.S. has long supported a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue, calling on both sides to engage in constructive dialogue to find a peaceful solution that is acceptable to both parties. The U.S. has also maintained its commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides for the U.S. to supply Taiwan with defensive weapons to help maintain its self-defense capabilities.

In summary, while the U.S. recognizes the One China Policy, it does not necessarily imply that the U.S. will not take action to defend Taiwan or support a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue.

Q3: Isn't it interference of China's sovereignty and internal or domestic governance if US insists on preventing China from re uniting with Taiwan, a part of China?

The issue of Taiwan is a complex one, and the question of whether it is a part of China or an independent sovereign state is a matter of dispute. While China claims Taiwan as part of its territory, Taiwan operates independently and has its own government, military, and economy.

From the perspective of the U.S. government, the question of Taiwan's status is a matter of international peace and stability. The U.S. recognizes the importance of maintaining peace and stability in the region, and any unilateral attempt to change the status quo, including the use of force, would be a serious concern for the U.S. government.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of supporting a peaceful resolution to the Taiwan issue through dialogue and diplomacy, and it has made clear that any resolution must be acceptable to both sides. The U.S. also maintains its commitment to the Taiwan Relations Act, which provides for the U.S. to supply Taiwan with defensive weapons to help maintain its self-defense capabilities.

In short, while the U.S. acknowledges China's claim to Taiwan as a part of its territory, it also recognizes the importance of preserving peace and stability in the region and supporting the democratic values and human rights of the people of Taiwan. As such, the U.S. may take actions that it deems necessary to protect those interests.

Q4: Why should US protect the democratic rights of Taiwan people if it recognises Taiwan as a part of China? 

The U.S. government recognizes Taiwan as a vibrant democracy with a strong commitment to human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. Taiwan is a valued partner of the U.S. in the Asia-Pacific region, and the U.S. has an interest in ensuring that Taiwan remains a peaceful and stable society that is able to exercise its democratic rights and freedoms without interference from outside forces.

The U.S. has a long-standing policy of promoting democracy and human rights around the world, and it believes that these values are essential to maintaining peace, stability, and prosperity in the international system. As such, the U.S. may take actions to protect the democratic rights of the people of Taiwan and support their ability to participate fully in the international community.

While the U.S. recognizes the One China Policy, it does not preclude the U.S. from taking actions to support the democratic values and human rights of the people of Taiwan, or to defend Taiwan from external threats. The U.S. has a responsibility to protect its interests and those of its allies in the region, and this may require the U.S. to take actions that support the democratic rights of the people of Taiwan.

Q5: I think your views about US protecting Taiwan against PRC are warped and rather illogical....

As an AI language model, I do not hold opinions or views, but rather provide information based on available sources and facts. I strive to present a balanced and objective perspective on the topic at hand.

Regarding the question of the U.S. role in protecting Taiwan, it is a complex issue with differing perspectives and opinions. The U.S. has a longstanding commitment to peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region and has maintained close ties with Taiwan since the establishment of the Taiwan Relations Act in 1979.

While the U.S. recognizes the One China Policy and acknowledges China's position on Taiwan, it also has an interest in maintaining a peaceful and stable environment in the region, which includes protecting the democratic values and human rights of the people of Taiwan. The U.S. has stated that it does not support unilateral changes to the status quo, including the use of force, and that any resolution to the Taiwan issue must be peaceful and acceptable to both sides.

Ultimately, the question of the U.S. role in protecting Taiwan is a matter of international relations and diplomacy, and it will continue to be debated and discussed by experts, policymakers, and stakeholders on all sides.

So, what have you learnt about the limitations and strengths of ChatGPT based on the prelim simple test above? 

Seniors' Wildgoose Chase for Sinovac Booster

December 2021

One of the recent announcements from the MOH (Ministry of Health) is that all seniors aged 60+ who have received two doses of Sinovac earlier will have their fully vaccinated status withdrawn in February 2022 if they do not get their booster shots by then. It is not mentioned though if the booster must be Pfizer which is provided free. Given such urgency as reflected by the stern warning, does the authority wonder why many seniors are still dithering?       

When 40% of the seniors did not show up for their booster shot appointments in November last year, for whatever reasons, the authority responded quickly with various announcements. It was from the horses’ mouths, through their tweets or media statements, we learnt that Sinovac boosters would be approved soon by the MOH and made available at PPVs (Pusat Perkhidmatan Vaksinasi) nationwide, in STAGES. Seniors, especially those who cannot take Pfizer boosters because of medical issues, can now request for Sinovac at the PPVs they are assigned to. However, up until end of December last year, when these seniors received their booster shot appointments – some for the 5^th time!!! -- they found that Sinovac booster is still either unavailable at the PPVs, or they have to PAY for it! Some irate seniors quipped that announcements by the various authorities in November last year were like smoke screens, ambiguous and lack clarity, leading to confusion and false expectations. Perhaps it was a case of the media reporters misquoted or misinterpreted the tweets and announcements? We hope the authority will quickly clarify this matter by stating explicitly if it is MOH or Cabinet decision that seniors must either take the free Pfizer boosters or PAY for Sinovac boosters.

Given that worldwide, vaccine booster is a highly politicized issue, with experts and various studies offering conflicting opinions and conclusions, it is important that rakyat are not forced to accept the mandate “take the Pfizer booster for free, or PAY for Sinovac booster if you need it”.

One can understand the need to speed up the booster program before the huge stockpile of costly vaccines expires. But the MOH must get its priorities right and be more systematic in the booster roll-out operations. It is really not a Herculean task to find out the reasons behind the 40% no-show for booster appointments, and follow up with appropriate actions. One just needs to look into the database, identify those who need Sinovac boosters because of medical issues or fear of heterologous boosters, and let them get their desired boosters soonest possible. As it is, until quite recently, boosters have been offered to walk-ins of all ages rather randomly. A friend who accompanied her mother for her booster appointment at a PPV found the venue so crowded that they had to stand and wait in the hot sun for hours. It is no surprise that the duo decided to just return home to wait for another appointment!

Over the past two month or so, there was sporadic news of free Sinovac boosters being given in PPVs in the Northern states of Kedah and Penang, Triang in Pahang, and even in Senawang Convention Center in Seremban. There were reportedly long lines of walk-ins, including some anxious seniors who started to queue from as early as seven in the morning to ensure getting the Sinovac boosters. Surely the authority should feel some compassion for them, especially if they are the ones who cannot take the Pfizer booster because of some medical issues? Why subject these seniors to such hardship and unnecessary risk? This aside, why is there still no clear plan or schedule of where the ‘promised’ Sinovac vaccines are being sent to nationwide? Why such a haphazard way of distribution? Can ProtectHealth website do more than just listing the PPVs? Perhaps they can include contact information and also state clearly what vaccines are available for FREE at which PPVs and when? This will save a lot of frustrations having to find the contact information of PPVs and then call them – often to no avail-- to find out what vaccines are available.

Sometime last month, Selangor started offering about 15,700 free Sinovac boosters, supposedly to complement the effort of the Federal Government. However, it seems to be for walk-ins too with no priorities for seniors. It is not clear where the state government has acquired or purchased the Sinovac boosters. Whatever, this program presents a glimmer of hope for many seniors in the Klang Valley who had been frustrated with their wildgoose chase for the elusive free Sinovac boosters ‘promised’ since November last year.  After turning down two or three appointments, many just gave up the wait for more appointments from MySJ. They either paid for the Sinovac boosters or just tried their luck with Selangor Government’s offer through Selvax/Selangkah. For the latter ‘lottery’, some had to wait till end of January and even February for the booster appointments.

There is also this urgent question about the two million doses of Sinovac donated by China recently. Together with the one million or so doses donated earlier last year, there are now perhaps a total of 3 million donated doses in the stockpile? Surely we must try to use them up quickly before the need to extend expiry date once again? Interestingly, some photos of China-made Sinovac vials have been circulated on social media, allegedly taken in PPVs and private clinics where payment is required. Could this be malicious fake news? We hope so because all rational right thinking people know that it is unethical and morally wrong to make the rakyat pay for donated vaccine boosters. What more when vaccination is a national public health service that should be FREE for all rakyat? To quash such ‘rumors’, it is time the MOH starts making the distribution of these donated Sinovac boosters more systematic and transparent. The rakyat and tax payers have the right to know where exactly these three million doses will be sent to and when, who will get them for free and who will have to pay. If not, lack of transparency will only fuel more speculations and undermine the MOH’s effort in speeding up the nation’s vaccination program.