• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Andy Koh: I Did Not Fire Preggy for Being Preggy!

makapaaa

makapaaa

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Woman fired: Pregnancy not the reason, says firm
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I refer to The Sunday Times article, 'Expecting a baby? Expect to be fired' (Aug3).
I am the managing director of the company (then known as SD Systems Pte Ltd) which terminated the services of Ms Lau Li Nah, who was featured prominently in your article.
Your headline suggests that our company - which was not named in the story - had been wrong to terminate the services of Ms Lau on account of her being pregnant at that time.
This matter was investigated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) back in 2006 and there was nothing found by MOM to substantiate Ms Lau's allegations.
I wish to state that Ms Lau's pregnancy had nothing to do with her termination. I wish to add that there was another woman - of the same rank - who was as pregnant as Ms Lau was at that time in our company. Her services were not terminated and she has continued to receive promotions, bonuses and increments on account of her loyalty to the company.
The above facts certainly point to quite a different situation from that portrayed in your article. Andy Koh
Managing Director
DeskRight Pte Ltd
 
G

Gillette

Alfrescian
Loyal
makapaaa said:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Woman fired: Pregnancy not the reason, says firm
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I refer to The Sunday Times article, 'Expecting a baby? Expect to be fired' (Aug3).
I am the managing director of the company (then known as SD Systems Pte Ltd) which terminated the services of Ms Lau Li Nah, who was featured prominently in your article.
Your headline suggests that our company - which was not named in the story - had been wrong to terminate the services of Ms Lau on account of her being pregnant at that time.

This matter was investigated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) back in 2006 and there was nothing found by MOM to substantiate Ms Lau's allegations.
[/B]
Click to expand...

----------------

Did MOM ever punish any company for firing pregnant Singaporean women anyway? Just show us 1 case.
 
halsey02

halsey02

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
makapaaa said:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Woman fired: Pregnancy not the reason, says firm
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I refer to The Sunday Times article, 'Expecting a baby? Expect to be fired' (Aug3).
I am the managing director of the company (then known as SD Systems Pte Ltd) which terminated the services of Ms Lau Li Nah, who was featured prominently in your article.
Your headline suggests that our company - which was not named in the story - had been wrong to terminate the services of Ms Lau on account of her being pregnant at that time.
This matter was investigated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) back in 2006 and there was nothing found by MOM to substantiate Ms Lau's allegations.
I wish to state that Ms Lau's pregnancy had nothing to do with her termination. I wish to add that there was another woman - of the same rank - who was as pregnant as Ms Lau was at that time in our company. Her services were not terminated and she has continued to receive promotions, bonuses and increments on account of her loyalty to the company.
The above facts certainly point to quite a different situation from that portrayed in your article. Andy Koh
Managing Director
DeskRight Pte Ltd
Click to expand...

What Andy said, they had already indirectly or mistakenkly sacked the second pregnant woman, who made the complaint. Having two pregnant women on their payroll is a strain on the company!, especially those small SME's..or any SME's.:(

They didn't sack the woman, they put PRESSURE on her, so that, she would resign, and saved costs.

ha ha ha ha ha:biggrin:
 
T

travelbug

Alfrescian
Loyal
What the stupid GM Andy is also admitting subtly is that between 2 pregnant women in my office, I can only keep 1 pregnant woman only due to costs!!! Since, he has admitted it openly in the press, I suggest that aggrieved pregnant woman whose services were terminated to consult a pro bono lawyer to see whether litigation can be taken up!
 
T

The_Latest_H

Alfrescian
Loyal
halsey02 said:
What Andy said, they had already indirectly or mistakenkly sacked the second pregnant woman, who made the complaint. Having two pregnant women on their payroll is a strain on the company!, especially those small SME's..or any SME's.:(

They didn't sack the woman, they put PRESSURE on her, so that, she would resign, and saved costs.

ha ha ha ha ha:biggrin:
Click to expand...

Even so, the woman should sue. I don't see why she can't win a civil suit for emotional damages.
 
P

panama

Alfrescian
Loyal
This matter was investigated by the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) back in 2006 and there was nothing found by MOM to substantiate Ms Lau's allegations.
Click to expand...

At least MOM investigated :biggrin:
 
T

The_Latest_H

Alfrescian
Loyal
jw5 said:
If she sues, the company may reveal why she was terminated.
She may not want that to be made public.
Click to expand...

True. It depends on how one wants to pursue it though. The problem is that, though, most women are disadvantaged in the first place. The women groups are powerless, the men have the cards, and the government doesn't give a rat's ass about it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Sinkie Employer fires FT who borrowed from Loan Sharks without MOM's advice!
Replies
13
Views
544
worcer
W
G
shameless and despicable Goh Jin Hian, son of ex pm Goh Chok Tong, dirty acts are widely circulated in Malaysia legal fraternity
Replies
15
Views
603
gingerlyn
G
P
Chitchat Sinkie SME Boss Stabbed Preggy Chiobu Wife 10 Times, She UpLorry!
Replies
2
Views
1K
worcer
W
P
Chitchat Lao Cheebye Cynthia Koh Does No Regrets Not Being a Mummy
2 3
Replies
40
Views
3K
musclepower
musclepower
P
Serious MIW release more dirt on ATB Clerk Han Feizi!
Replies
19
Views
2K
mahjongking
mahjongking
Top