Low Birth Rates: Gov Shold Stop Wondering Why...
-
Sacked for being pregnant
Jun 21, 2007
AsiaOne
When Mrs Valerie Chan landed a job as an operations executive at a global conference company last July, she thought she had found an employer who supported work-life balance for employees.
At her job interview, she told her prospective employer about her plans to start a family, and was assured that the company was pro-family life.
But things took an unexpected turn after seven months on the job when she found out she was pregnant.
The managing director of the company announced that the training department she was attached to would be downsized. In addition, the operations staff were also informed that they now had to travel at least two weeks a month on work assignments.
Mrs Chan, 28, was asked to go because the company felt that she could not meet the constant travelling demands.
Yesterday, Mrs Chan wrote to AsiaOne, asking if there were any organisations or associations which could help her.
She wrote: "With the government's efforts to promote work-life harmony and family life, I am appalled and disappointed that women still contend with issues such as getting sacked for being pregnant."
When AsiaOne spoke to Ms Chan, she clarified that she was willing to travel, if her physical condition allowed her to.
She said: "Of course at the point of retrenchment, it did not seem like I was able to travel as I was still experiencing nausea in my first trimester. No one could tell at that point of time whether this will carry on throughout my pregnancy or whether it will cease."
Now saddled with housing loans, medical bills and aged parents to care for, and not to mention the impending arrival of a new baby, she looked to the Ministry of Manpower to explore alternative options of compensation.
But she learnt that the company had not acted unlawfully, and it did not need to compensate her.
Mrs Chan said: "I feel that employers nowadays are very smart. They know the loopholes in the law. I was retrenched not because of poor work attitude or performance - just that at that point, my condition was unsuitable for travel.
"How can the government expect women to start families at a younger age and have more children? Just giving incentives is not enough to attract. Ultimately, it is the bread and butter issues that count. My loss of income if I did not find a job is many times more than the baby bonus of $3,000."
It is a problem faced by many pregnant employees in Singapore even today. In June last year, corporate account manager Lau Li Nah lost her maternity benefits when she was sacked from her job. She was five months pregnant then.
Her case was highlighted when she wrote in to The Straits Times Forum.
In 2005, there were at least 78 cases of people who sought help from the Manpower Ministry to claim their maternity benefits.
Under current laws, a woman with six months service is entitled to paid maternity leave.
If she is dismissed without adequate reason within three months before the birth, the employer must still grant her paid maternity leave.
However, this still allows employers to sack an employee who is one to five months' pregnant, without compensating her maternity benefits.
AsiaOne readers who wrote in to comment on Mrs Chan's plight felt that employers have other costs to be concerned with and a pregnant employee who proved unsuitable for work would be let go.
One reader, Terry Chang, said that companies also have overheads to worry about and should only be obliged to retain older workers with past contributions to the company.
Mrs Chan has since found a contract job with another IT company.
But although she felt fortunate to be employed again, it is hardly any consolation as she has lost all her maternity benefits, and also faces the prospect of unemployment again after her three-month contract ends.
Her current job pays her about $200 less than her previous salary. And while she still has her husband's financial support in daily living expenses, she still wonders how she will cope with the upcoming medical bills and housing loans that they have on hand.
Ms Chan said:"My mother has medical problems. My older brother is currently unemployed and I have a younger brother who is about to enter university.
"The thought of not being unemployed for at least nine months from my retrenchment is very disturbing." -
I feel that although our government wants More Babies, People to Accept Low Wages, Shelve Retirement Plans and Work Beyond 70, Low Incomer Earners to Contribute CPF, etc., .. are doing very little and DRAGGING THEIR ARSES in making it possible for the people to do all these that they preach and expect.
(!!!) -
this is a govt that has no idea how to deal with rouge employers, it's now less of an exception to have willful employers screwing the regular joes and janes....
the govt wants more babies, but are afraid to enact laws to protect expectant women...work life balance, how many women after giving birth are taking the extra month without risking the sack....why co-pay to receive baby bonus, those in need often have can't claim the full entitlement...the policies are half-hearted, half-thought and half-baked....
more elderly folks now have to work, where's the law to make employment of these group of workers? especially now that retirement is a luxury.....
better pay? what's the minimum wage? none! no even a benchmark to speak of....lol
what's the union doing except making speeches and holding annual dinner and dance? -
i don't know about enacting laws to protect the pregnant women. Its prone to abuse.Originally posted by countdracula:this is a govt that has no idea how to deal with rouge employers, it's now less of an exception to have willful employers screwing the regular joes and janes....
the govt wants more babies, but are afraid to enact laws to protect expectant women...work life balance, how many women after giving birth are taking the extra month without risking the sack....why co-pay to receive baby bonus, those in need often have can't claim the full entitlement...the policies are half-hearted, half-thought and half-baked....
more elderly folks now have to work, where's the law to make employment of these group of workers? especially now that retirement is a luxury.....
better pay? what's the minimum wage? none! no even a benchmark to speak of....lol
what's the union doing except making speeches and holding annual dinner and dance?
and i wonder about getting the companies to foot the bills for an employee who cannot carry out his/her duties. If, for example, you can't go overseas for 1 year because of personal reasons when the company hired you for such purposes, why should they keep you? -
With foreigners coming in to make up the numbers, would the govt still be so concerned about local birth rates declining?
If they were really concerned, the baby bonus would have been vastly improved a long time ago.
Anyway, the education system in Singapore is fundamentally flawed. I'm not sure how many Singaporeans consider this before they give birth. -
I don't think anyone in their right mind will give birth for the baby bonusOriginally posted by Rock^Star:With foreigners coming in to make up the numbers, would the govt still be so concerned about local birth rates declining?
If they were really concerned, the baby bonus would have been vastly improved a long time ago.
Anyway, the education system in Singapore is fundamentally flawed. I'm not sure how many Singaporeans consider this before they give birth.
It's not even enough to pay for the check ups
-
Just a couple of thousands, would those with sound minds come up with such policies?Originally posted by elindra:I don't think anyone in their right mind will give birth for the baby bonus
It's not even enough to pay for the check ups
It would take at least $100,000 to feed and clothe a child all the way till university. -
apparently there are lots of those with unright minds around thoughOriginally posted by elindra:I don't think anyone in their right mind will give birth for the baby bonus
It's not even enough to pay for the check ups -
really?Originally posted by hisoka:apparently there are lots of those with unright minds around though
u know ppl who give birth for the baby bonus n not because they want kids? -
erm, should we stop then
-
Giving birth? I don't intend to have any.Originally posted by de_middle:erm, should we stop then
If I send my children to UK in 20 years time, it would cost $300,000. If US, it would be $250,000. If local, it would be $80,000 (after subsidy), provided they qualify for the limited number of places. -
well i know 1 couple who were swayed by it. not completely but they were claiming its a bonus for them and were like extra glad they had a childOriginally posted by elindra:really?
u know ppl who give birth for the baby bonus n not because they want kids? -
3k?Originally posted by hisoka:well i know 1 couple who were swayed by it. not completely but they were claiming its a bonus for them and were like extra glad they had a child
Err how much they earning? -
all along i thoought a kid was to enhance a couple's love & committment to each other.....so sad that political reasons are getting in the way
-
no idea just acquintancesOriginally posted by elindra:3k?
Err how much they earning? -
Originally posted by de_middle:all along i thoought a kid was to enhance a couple's love & committment to each other.....(
no that is not the right reason to have a kid............... -
Even without this case, the Govt should stop wondering why birth rates are stagnating, the Esplanade is a white elephant and the arts scene is not flourishing as vibrantly as the Govt hopes to promote.
I understand that to even be considered for work in the Prime Minister's Office, one needs to have at least a good honours degree. I wonder how all the top brains cannot even see the problem......
Rising costs may not be the sole problem but it surely is the root of many problems. Rising costs means more people have to sacrifice leisure hours into to make ends meet. So where got time for arty-farty stuff when the rice bowl is harder to be filled. And where got time to have babies when affordability is a key isue.
The govt seems to want everything simultaneously such that it comes across to me that they seem lacking in any concrete direction.........
I am indeed awed and amazed that the top brains cannot even see this point and yet demand for a pay increase........... Or perhaps they see this but choose to attribute to other unreal reasons.....
-
then what isOriginally posted by av98m:
no that is not the right reason to have a kid............... -
Errmm...how about because you love children in the first place?Originally posted by de_middle:then what is
Having children to 'enhance' one's marriage, or in so many real-life cases, as an attempt to salvage a stale or failing marriage, is reprehensible at best. In the end the children suffer.
In some of the cases, BOTH the father and mother do not want custody of the kids!!
You can enhance love and commitment in a marriage without using children as a tool. Really!! -
Yeah and having children so that you have someone to look after you when you are old shouldn't be the reason to have them too
-
Down with the garments! Show our ar5e to the government!
-
yup gotta love children tooOriginally posted by av98m:Errmm...how about because you love children in the first place?
Having children to 'enhance' one's marriage, or in so many real-life cases, as an attempt to salvage a stale or failing marriage, is reprehensible at best. In the end the children suffer.
In some of the cases, BOTH the father and mother do not want custody of the kids!!
You can enhance love and commitment in a marriage without using children as a tool. Really!! 
-
abuse? you mean more ladies will get pregnant as a result? isn't that the objective??? lol......Originally posted by hisoka:i don't know about enacting laws to protect the pregnant women. Its prone to abuse.
and i wonder about getting the companies to foot the bills for an employee who cannot carry out his/her duties. If, for example, you can't go overseas for 1 year because of personal reasons when the company hired you for such purposes, why should they keep you?
apparently you have no idea that mncs like hp will keep your job for you if you for some reason need to take extended no pay leave....i used to work for a nordic co that gives $5k to any expectant female employee, use it how you want....these are companies who will keep you even if you are a 'burden'.....happy employees, happy profits....nitwit... -
tats what happens when you have a gahmen thats pro-employer than pro-employee..
-
No govt in this world has solutions to all problems. Singapore is no exception.
Singaporean should stop thinking that a (PAP) govt has all the solutions and the (PAP) govt should stop projecting/highlighting/implying/glorying that it can solve all (if not most) problems. Somewhere between this line is the reality.
Foreigners (some, not all) blindly compare a developed economy to their third world homeland. They have not live here long enough to see the full picture. Stop glorifying our govt.
Many things in singapore are nice and pretty for the moment/at the moment.
But there are serious problems that has not solution yet.
Our
1) 99 years leasehold HDB flat with its runaway price. What happens when
it reaches leasehold of 0 year?
2) longterm relationships with our neighbours.
3) tax induced inflation - how much of GST is enough to keep (what our govt
claims or implies) our economy running at a first world status?
4) CPF that is increasing size but actually shrinking in value.
5) racial mix that is becoming more and more complex and uncomfortable.
6) increasing local born senior citizens with younger foreign born PRs. How is
this relationship going to work out?
5) Our water problem. I remember when I was young and reading in the
newspaper about our reservoir drying up due to heatwaves. How
many still remember or experience water rationing? Only a fool would
think we can be completedly self-sufficient in water supply.
and many many more.....