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

[makapaaa]

<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

 

[Man in the streets]

So Andy Koh is telling us that Straits Times bastards are telling lies?

 

[popdod]

So Andy Koh is telling us that Straits Times bastards are telling lies?

Implying is one-sided story.

:o :o

 

[Gillette]

<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]

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

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

 

[halsey02]

<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

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

 

[travelbug]

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!

 

[The_Latest_H]

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

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

 

[panama]

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.

At least MOM investigated

 

[jw5]

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

If she sues, the company may reveal why she was terminated.
She may not want that to be made public.

 

[hughgrant]

1001 reasons can sack someone, cant really prove if its due to pregnant

 

[Singapaporean]

1001 reasons can sack someone, cant really prove if its due to pregnant

Should learn from LBW...the decision was made b4 she preggy...closed case

 

[silverspoon]

maybe the other pregnant woman is his OWN wife.....basket.....some SME are run by all the family members......

 

[The_Latest_H]

If she sues, the company may reveal why she was terminated.
She may not want that to be made public.

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.