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. 

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?