Dear Committee members of CPSH-AUD,

I am writing to you to thank you for taking up my complaint, and acting on it swiftly and proactively
ensuring that my perpetrator Lawrence Liang is convicted, and evidences brought into light against
sexual harassment and predatory behaviour of Ned Bertz is also taken into account following due
process, and his home university at Hawaii, US be notified.

However, after having read the report several times, I have come to the conclusion that despite
conviction of perpetrators, which essentially means that the charges of sexual harassment against them
– especially Lawrence Liang, the defendant of my primary complaint – have been proven, there are a
number of instances in course of these proceedings that, I feel, have systematically removed me as a
victim/complainant from accessing justice – both substantive and restorative – in a more tangible form
that could help me heal from the trauma of his repeat sexual assaults (the chronology of some of which
he has mangled, and others he denied, making me out to be a liar in his deposition). I would therefore
like to request the committee to consider with sensitivity the following points, which I am well within my
rights to demand your attention to for reasons stated alongside each of them.

1. Lawrence Liang continues to hold his position of authority and power despite his conviction, which he
uses to influence the outcome of the due process to work in his favour as much as possible. It has been
brought to my notice by sources (who cannot be revealed for obvious reasons) that Liang had
immediately written to the VC appealing that the report of the IC stating his conviction may not be
handed over to me. This is just another instance of how he continues to abuse his authority and
proximity to those in power to impede the justice delivery mechanism.

The committee must bear in mind at all times that his position inside AUD, not only as an administrator
of a Centre/School but also as a faculty member, provides him powers and access to derail due process
to the point of disregarding its binding nature on him as a convict, which not only defeats the primary
purpose the sexual harassment laws, but also goes against the prevention of sexual harassment policy at
AUD, as it fails the institution from preventing a "hostile environment" under clauses (ii) and (iii), and
Explanation of subsection (1) of section 2, under which my complaint was registered in the first place.

2. Preventing access to transcripts of my own deposition in verbatim including at least the proceedings
(questions by committee members and my responses to them) at the time of my deposition by reading
the confidentiality clause against my interest. Throughout the course of due process in this case, the
confidentiality clause has been read to serve the interest of my perpetrator while undermining my rights
to have a copy of what I deposed, thereby, distancing me from my own narrative of the incident. Even
after pointing this out on previous occasions I have only been reminded of consequences of not keeping
matters to myself after the commencement of the inquiry. This is unfortunately more like a gag order,
and not something to protect my confidentiality or in the interest of my safety or well-being.

To do this with a restrictive and almost antagonist reading of the confidentiality/secrecy clause to work
against me as the victim, the IC is expecting me to have a photographic memory of the my deposition
and related proceedings. This as we all know is humanly impossible, especially if one takes into account
how trauma of having abused and repeatedly harassed already makes recounting things in front of
others so much more harder, and not just because of ensuing humiliation one feels for not being
believed or understood. What is has led to is counter questions such as "did you mention this
(compensation or apology from my perpetrator) in my deposition?" Irrespective of the fact of my
mentioning what I would need to heal from the impact of the sexual harassment, which any way have
not really been taken into account, making my own deposition transcripts inaccessible to me makes it
impossible for me to answer such retroactive counter questions with certainty, which causes further
confusion, trauma, helplessness, and thereby, harassment. I feel further victimised by being treated as
an alien to parts of my own experience, which I had made every possible effort to narrate with clarity
and honesty, trusting the good will and competency of such a body because they so assured at the time
of registering the complaint. Such treatment of complainant and her witnesses is explicitly prohibited by
AUD CPSH policy under clause (i) of subsection (1) of section 4.

This along with comments, such as, the committee is in no way obliged to listen to what I have to say
once the report has been prepared (meaning, inquiry closed), because then would also have to entertain
the queries of the defendant. This makes little sense because it means that the committee continues to
treat the convicted individual at par with the victim, because to their minds the idea of giving the
feelings of the person who is a victim (and has suffered), and the person who is a perpetrator (who has
harmed the complainant and also the credibility of the institution(s) that he is associated with, and
therefore has been rightly indicted by the IC) equal weightage somehow sound reasonable – as if the
conviction ought to be status quoist when it involves a person in position of power, as if the committee is
obliged to be considerate to his view of what consent and "borderline romance" hinging on criminal
behaviour mean even as it indicts him under external pressure of formalities related to SHW laws. This
kind of treatment is not actually neutral or objective at all, but it could be interpreted as discriminatory
based on status, power, and affiliation, all of which in this specific case is stacked in favour of my
perpetrator.

3. No steps have been taken, or no recommendations have been made to ensure or facilitate my well-
being, or compensate for the loss of health or mental health caused due to the assault/sexual
harassment that I have suffered in the hands of my perpetrator. While the IC has shown great sensitivity
to ensure scope of rehabilitation of my perpetrator, it appears from the report that it has treated my
trauma from the sexual harassment and from the harrowing process of seeking justice quite casually
even after the charges brought against Liang have been proven. This they have done in the following
ways:

(i) They have provided me with a hard copy of a report that to my shock does not contain Lawrence
Liang's and Ned Bertz's names. It convicts an anonymous D (Liang), and makes some preliminary note of
Z's (Bertz) history of sexual misconduct and abuse of power. This is unacceptable because it is a further
breach of my basic right as a complainant/survivor to have the least bit of satisfaction of seeing their
names on this document – as some concrete proof that the due processes at least recognise in practice,
and not just on paper, that this kind of sexual misconduct and casual disregard for boundaries and
consent is indeed sexual harassment – that my perpetrators could be held guilty of SH despite gaping
holes in the system, despite their rank and social standing, and despite "certain lacunae in reporting to,
or consulting with CPSH on matters of sexual harassment by AUD faculty, that too by faculty in
administratively responsible positions" by IC's own admission (p.15, Report on SH Case 2017-2).

A copy of the report with Lawrence Liang's conviction and recommendations against Ned Bertz's
misconduct must be made available to me and IC can't possibly be allowed to treat me as an outsider to
my own case, the benefit of all of which goes to the perpetrators. Moreover, as a survivor, I should not
be bearing the additional emotional or psychological cost of these "lacunae" or the ways in which the
various institutional authorities have fallen short due to lack of prior experience of handling cases of this
nature (as i was informed), or due to the fact that the IC consists of academics and not social work
professionals and lawyers. This is not my fault, and in fact it works against me, so the outcome should
not make me pay the price of such due process failures by making recommendations against my interest.

(ii) The IC report has also not drafted in a single recommendation toward monetary compensation to be
made available to me by the person(s) found guilty of sexually harassing me for me having to go through
this inquiry process that in no way is an easy task for me as a single female student, especially as a
[redacted] woman from [redacted] who has had to fight several other battles to be able to access
academic spaces and be safe in a place away from home. I would like to go in for therapy as soon as
possible, but good long-term therapy is expensive. Yet it is important that I have some agency over
choosing my therapist myself because I have social anxieties and C-PTSD related mental health issues
which make travelling long distances in public transport or seeing new people very hard for me.

My trauma, the financial and emotional costs I have had to go through, and continue to bear till this day,
due to these incidents of sexual harassment in my working environment by powerful men in academia –
who by the way I still might encounter time and again with even more hostility for having spoken out –
have been completely overlooked in the IC report despite the conviction, leaving basically nothing in it
for me to feel restored in any manner, or get justice in some tangible manner that would also make my
perpetrator realise what he did to me is not okay, and can never be, no matter who he is, or what
becomes of him, that he is wrong to assault me and others like me, and there is cost to the damage that
he glibly inflicts upon women, while narrating with bravado in his own defence, his own history of serial
sexual misconducts to appear magnanimous to his own faults.

(Not to mention, reading the IC report with just extracts of his deposition therein was traumatic for me.
He is blatantly gaslighting his victim(s), and exploiting the reputation of his former organisation and the
efforts of so many committed lawyers and activists who work for it to his advantage, to distract the IC
and add weight to his defence against having to take responsibility for his unethical and predatory
behaviour, and to redeem himself in the eyes of the audience.)

(iii) The disciplinary actions and penalties against Lawrence Liang drafted into the report are inadequate.
It is barely doing justice to the what the IC members had promised to me in the beginning of the inquiry
that there is a list of penalties mentioned in the policy but it's not exhaustive, and they would do their
best to ensure that I get justice because they understand how hard it is for victims like me to speak out
against powerful perpetrators, which is why such complaints never come up.
By depriving me of even the barest minimum access to some sense of restorative justice, the IC is
discouraging victims of sexual harassment from speaking up against their powerful perpetrators, and
continuing to keep these academic spaces unsafe for women and nonmale stakeholders. If I remember
correctly, while I had said in my deposition that anything other than his removal from
administrative/teaching post would be a compromise, I had also asked for a written apology, and
suspension, and some form of compensation for what I had gone through. In fact the AUD policy actually
also has a provision for the perpetrator to tender an apology through "Form VIII".

In the light of the aforementioned points, I feel that the conviction of Lawrence Liang and the
recommendations of the IC report do not do justice to the implementation of the AUD CPSH policy or
the SHW Act, thereby, making the conviction of my sexual harassers, Lawrence Liang and Ned Bertz,
especially the former, a mere [redacted] fact on paper that only the committee and University
authorities could have access to, but not even me as a complainant/victim/survivor.

Not only has the committee not followed zero tolerance policy towards sexual harassment as the AUD
policy states, the punitive actions recommended cause minimal impact to his position as a powerful
academic and person of authority. While under the specific clauses (xv) and (xvi) of subsection (2) of
section 9 of the AUD policy makes no distinction in penalties awarded to administrative or teaching staff,
the most stringent of the recommendations against Lawrence Liang, is of nominal nature that asks of
him to step down from his administrative position, while he continues to enjoy all other benefits as a
regular employee in teaching position.

If not dismissal from service, at least a suspension for a period of time from all university roles and
responsibilities, along with undergoing mandatory gender sensitisation and orientation training, and an
undertaking that he understands the ethical responsibilities that come with his position as an educator
and how any further complaints of such nature would require him to resign would have felt substantive,
or fair to the cause to gender justice.