Singapore courts side with US bank to dismiss pregant employee

[eatshitndie]

in sg you die your biz.

in californicate, can have 4 months of paid maternity leave plus paid time off and vacation to make it 6.9 months. shiok! see many new mothers on very long leave in sillycon valley tending to their newborns. almost like a 6.9-month sabbatical. it's tough on new mothers.... and fathers too. fathers can have 2-3 months of (paid) paternity leave plus paid time off and vacation. feeding cycle for newborn infants is around 2 hours with 16.9 minutes of patting and burping followed by 6.9 minutes of cleaning karchng lancheow cheebye and changing diapers. and then patting baby to sleep in order to get some down time for parents. mothers have to produce and pump milk too during rest period. non-stop production 24 by 6.9. no live-in maids in sillycon valley. just part time maids and nannies. $6.9k per month for professional nanny help. who can afford? only the wealthy and elites. thus, californicate and californicare women appreciate the generosity. moreover, after the 1st 6.9 months mothers continue to produce and pump milk for their babies. offices have "breast" rooms and dedicated refrigerators for mothers to pump and store their milk. if sg wants to be 1st world and continue to feed baby boys to the ns machinery, must encourage mothers to get pregnant by enforcing paid mandatory maternity (and paternity) leaves for both parents and penalizing and fining companies that skirt their responsibilities. unfortunately sg in this respect wants her cake and eat it too - i.e. encouraging parents to have babies but also allowing companies to fire and hire at will especially with regards to pregnant mothers. in this aspect sg is truly toothless and pays only lip service.

 

[nayr69sg]

in sg you die your biz.

in californicate, can have 4 months of paid maternity leave plus paid time off and vacation to make it 6.9 months. shiok! see many new mothers on very long leave in sillycon valley tending to their newborns. almost like a 6.9-month sabbatical. it's tough on new mothers.... and fathers too. fathers can have 2-3 months of (paid) paternity leave plus paid time off and vacation. feeding cycle for newborn infants is around 2 hours with 16.9 minutes of patting and burping followed by 6.9 minutes of cleaning karchng lancheow cheebye and changing diapers. and then patting baby to sleep in order to get some down time for parents. mothers have to produce and pump milk too during rest period. non-stop production 24 by 6.9. no live-in maids in sillycon valley. just part time maids and nannies. $6.9k per month for professional nanny help. who can afford? only the wealthy and elites. thus, californicate and californicare women appreciate the generosity. moreover, after the 1st 6.9 months mothers continue to produce and pump milk for their babies. offices have "breast" rooms and dedicated refrigerators for mothers to pump and store their milk. if sg wants to be 1st world and continue to feed baby boys to the ns machinery, must encourage mothers to get pregnant by enforcing paid mandatory maternity (and paternity) leaves for both parents and penalizing and fining companies that skirt their responsibilities. unfortunately sg in this respect wants her cake and eat it too - i.e. encouraging parents to have babies but also allowing companies to fire and hire at will especially with regards to pregnant mothers. in this aspect sg is truly toothless and pays only lip service.

Anyway now we know how sinkies think. The next time sinkies complain about FTs, just say yeah but you support firing pregnant sinkies!

No new baby sinkies of course end up get foreigners lah.

 

[eatshitndie]

Anyway now we know how sinkies think. The next time sinkies complain about FTs, just say yeah but you support firing pregnant sinkies!

No new baby sinkies of course end up get foreigners lah.

it's amazing how companies in californicate (not only tech firms but also old school ones) are thriving and actually doing better despite the tough maternity and paternity leave laws that go into effect not too long ago. no wonder so many neh and tiong couples want to work for companies in californicate. they produce babies like in baby boom town and enjoy the privileges and benefits while tending to their babies. in fact some of the most innovative and dominating tech firms are thriving because they are generous to parents who have newborn infants. these parents are cream of the crop in brain trust and these companies cannot afford to let them go (to the competition). i've witnessed brainiac and high energy women who just returned to work after 6.9 months of maternity leave, and they start to craft solutions and products on the get go the first 6.9 days back in office. they are not just a worker or digits in the balance sheet. they can make or break companies with or without their presence and contribution. the few savants and geniuses who are working in ilumina, amgen and genentech (now roche) are mainly women, young mothers who just had their 1st or 2nd babies. how can sg mistreat and abandon their female geniuses at the workplace by letting them be eaten alive by (corporate) wolves?

 

[nayr69sg]

it's amazing how companies in californicate (not only tech firms but also old school ones) are thriving and actually doing better despite the tough maternity and paternity leave laws that go into effect not too long ago. no wonder so many neh and tiong couples want to work for companies in californicate. they produce babies like in baby boom town and enjoy the privileges and benefits while tending to their babies. in fact some of the most innovative and dominating tech firms are thriving because they are generous to parents who have newborn infants. these parents are cream of the crop in brain trust and these companies cannot afford to let them go (to the competition). i've witnessed brainiac and high energy women who just returned to work after 6.9 months of maternity leave, and they start to craft solutions and products on the get go the first 6.9 days back in office. they are not just a worker or digits in the balance sheet. they can make or break companies with or without their presence and contribution. the few savants and geniuses who are working in ilumina, amgen and genentech (now roche) are mainly women, young mothers who just had their 1st or 2nd babies. how can sg mistreat and abandon their female geniuses at the workplace by letting them be eaten alive by (corporate) wolves?

to be fair most sinkies I spoke to say that their company would not fire pregnant women. Compassionate. Or misinterpretation of the law. Sinkieland had the new laws April 2019.

But now there is precedent case. And playbook.

So I say spread the word. Let companies in sinkieland know they CAN fire pregnant employees. And the LAW will support them.

 

[rocket]

Sinkie has a you die your problem as long don't die near me mentality.
Sinkie lack unity.
Sinkie undercut one another take advantage of each other.
Easily jealous of others doing better.
This is why foreigners take advantage of this and snapped up all job opportunities.
They come to Singapore to work is because they look down on sinkie and they are better worked harder than lazy Sinkie.
Dont believe just go cai png store or roast duck store ask a jiuhu kia.

 

[eatshitndie]

sg has "sympathetic to women and mothers" laws but authorities close both eyes and allow companies and the courts to screw sinkies. what's the point of having the fucking law? deduct ministars' and mps' pay! useless law passed in parleement.

 

[Hypocrite-The]

sg has "sympathetic to women and mothers" laws but authorities close both eyes and allow companies and the courts to screw sinkies. what's the point of having the fucking law? deduct ministars' and mps' pay! useless law passed in parleement.

Heaps of useless laws tat are not implemented..guess the pappies are sleeping. Like why is penal code 377a not enforced?
Singapore Government Logo
A Singapore Government Agency Website
Infopedia
Home Politics and Government
Penal Code section 377A

Share
Feedback on article
In 2007, the government reviewed the Penal Code and introduced the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill which proposed significant changes to the law.1 The topic that caught much attention involved section 377 which prohibited oral and anal sex between consenting adults. The Bill had proposed the repeal of section 377, but opted to keep section 377A which prohibited similar acts between homosexuals. This proposal was hotly debated between gay supporters, who claimed the clause was discriminatory, and their opponents, who supported the retention of section 377A.2

Background
In November 2003, a police coast guard officer, Annis Abdullah, was convicted under Section 377 of the Penal Code for having oral sex with a teenage girl, although the act was consensual.3 The conviction generated much debate in Singapore about whether oral sex should continue to be considered an offence in modern times.4 The law in contention was the Penal Code of the Straits Settlement, which was enacted in 1871 during colonial administration. It mirrored the Indian Penal Code and was the primary criminal statute in Singapore.5

The 2003 case caused the Ministry of Home Affairs to begin a comprehensive review of the Penal Code. In September 2007, the ministry submitted to Parliament the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill, which proposed 77 amended provisions and four repealed provisions.6

Description
Section 377 of the Penal Code had stated that “whoever voluntarily has carnal intercourse against the order of nature with any man, woman or animals, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 10 years, and shall also be liable to fine”.7 This clause was repealed in the Penal Code (Amendment) Act in 2007 and a new section 377, which criminalises sex with a human corpse, was instituted in its place.8

Section 377A of the Penal Code had stated that “any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years.” This clause was retained in the same 2007 Penal Code review.9 Whether the act was performed privately or publicly was not relevant in the eyes of the law.10

In the second reading in Parliament to amend the Penal Code on 22 October 2007, the senior minister of state for Law and Home Affairs, Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, laid down the justifications for the retention of Section 377A, stating that Singapore was generally still a conservative society and the majority of its people still found homosexual behaviour unacceptable. Hence, the government had chosen to allow section 377A to remain status quo to maintain the country’s social cohesion and let the situation evolve naturally.11

The ministry’s proposal to keep the clause sparked strong comments and protests from gay supporters and attracted wide media coverage. Prior to the second reading of the Bill in Parliament, an open letter was sent to the prime minister and an online petition site, Repeal377a.com, was set up. The site collected 2,341 signatories to appeal against the retention.12

The petition was presented to Parliament by nominated member of parliament (NMP) Siew Kum Hong ahead of Parliament’s sitting on 22 October 2007.13 The petition argued that the clause discriminated against homosexuals and bisexuals and was an “unconstitutional derogation” of the Constitution, where all persons were equal before the law and entitled to equal protection of the law [Article 12(1)].14 In his speech to Parliament, Siew argued that a private consensual act between adults should not be treated as a criminal act as it did not harm others, regardless of one’s view on homosexuality.15 However, another member of parliament, Indranee Rajah, rebutted him on the interpretation of Article 12(1), stating that it was taken out of context.16

A group calling itself “the Majority” also set up a website to collect signatures calling for the government to retain Section 377A. The group argued that repealing Section 377A would force homosexuality on “a conservative population that is not ready for homosexuality”, and could lead to calls for same-sex marriages and the trend of adoption by same-sex couples.17

Parliament eventually concluded that legislation had to reflect both societal norms and the views of the majority, and opted to keep section 377A. Speaking on the issue, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong stressed that the social norms in Singapore called for heterosexual and stable family units, but assured that the government acknowledged homosexuals’ contributions in society and would not actively enforce section 377A. He highlighted that people on both sides held strong fundamental views on the matter and discussions would not bring the views of the two groups any closer, and hence it was better for the issue to remain as status quo.18

Aftermath
An NMP, Thio Li-Ann, reported that she received hate mails for her stand on homosexual issues. One of these was an email that was “full of vile and obscene invective”, which prompted her to make a police report.19 The author of the email was poet and playwright Alfian Sa’at, who admitted that he wrote the mail in a fit of anger after thinking that Thio had made a police report that had led to the cancellation of a National Day picnic organised by gay activists. Thio decided not to sue Alfian after he apologised to her.20 Shortly after the incident, she made a second police report, after receiving an anonymous letter threatening her and her family with bodily harm.21

Siew was also targeted by some netizens who insinuated that he was promoting a homosexual lifestyle, taking sides when he should have remained neutral as an NMP.22

Timeline
9 Nov 2006: Ministry of Home Affairs releases public consultation paper on amendments to Penal Code.23
17 Sep 2007: First reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill by Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, Wong Kan Seng.24
22 & 23 Oct 2007: Second and third reading of the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. Bill is passed without further amendments.25



Author
Lim Puay Ling



References
1. Parliament of Singapore. (2007, September 17). Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. (B 38/2007). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Parliament of Singapore website: https://www.parliament.gov.sg/sites/default/files/070038.pdf
2. Lum, S. (2006, November 9). Law on ‘unnatural’ sex acts to be repealed. The Straits Times, p. 3. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
3. Mistake in court: Girl was a minor: Policeman jailed for oral sex. (2003, November 15). The Straits Times, p. 1; Ex-cop appeals against jail term for oral sex. (2003, November 19). The Straits Times, p. 8. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
4. Ex-cop appeals against jail term for oral sex. (2003, November 19). The Straits Times, p. 8. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
5. Chan, W. C., & Phang, A. B. L. (2005). The development of criminal law and criminal justice. In K. Y. L. Tan (Ed.), Essays in Singapore legal history (pp. 245–277). Singapore: Marshall Cavendish Academic & the Singapore Academy of Law, pp. 247–248. (Call no.: RSING 349.5957 ESS)
6. Parliament of Singapore. (2007, September 17). Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. (B 38/2007). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Parliament of Singapore website: https://www.parliament.gov.sg/sites/default/files/070038.pdf; Li, X. Y. (2007, November 9). On homosexuality, religious offences and marital rape. The Straits Times, p. 25. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
7. Singapore. The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore. (1985, Rev. ed.). Penal code (Chapter 224). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Singapore Statutes Online website: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...00 TransactionTime:14/05/2016;rec=0#pr377-he-
8. Singapore. The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore. (1985, Rev. ed.). Penal code (Chapter 224). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Singapore Statutes Online website: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...blished%20Published%3A28%2F01%2F2008#pr70-he-
9. Singapore. The Statutes of the Republic of Singapore. (1985, Rev. ed.). Penal code (Chapter 224). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Singapore Statutes Online website: http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/sear...ansactionTime:20160514000000;rec=0#pr377A-he-
10. Ho, A. (2006, October 27). Time to put straight some legal quirks? The Straits Times, p. 29. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
11. Loh, C. H. (2007, October 23). A code to fit the crime. Today, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
12. Ng, A. (2007, October 23). A rare petititon and a spirited debate. Today, p. 1; Ng, A. (2007, October 19). Keep377A.com vs Repeal377A.com. Today, p. 3. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
13. Chua, H. H. (2007, October 12). NMP to submit Parliamentary Petititon to repeal gay sex law. The Straits Times, p. 47. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
14. Singapore. Parliament. Official reports - Parliamentary debates (Hansard). (2007, October 22). Petition (Vol. 83, col. 2121). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Parliament of Singapore website: http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00075231-ZZ
15. Ng, A. (2007, October 23). A rare petititon and a spirited debate. Today, p. 1. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
16. Singapore. Parliament. Official reports - Parliamentary debates (Hansard). (2007, October 22). Petition (Vol. 83, col. 2242). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Parliament of Singapore website: http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00075231-ZZ
17. Ng, A. (2007, October 19). Keep377A.com Vs Repeal377A.com. Today, p. 3. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
18. Lee, H. L. (2007, August 24). Why we should leave Section 377A alone: PM. The Straits Times, p. 30. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
19. Chong, C. K. (2007, October 30). Police question poet over e-mail to NMP. The Straits Times, p. 3. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
20. Li, X-Y. (2007, November 1). Poet sends ‘civil’ e-mail apology so NMP drops plan to sue him. The Straits Times, p. 34. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
21. Li, X.-Y. (2007, November 8). NMP Thio files 2nd police report after getting threat. The Straits Times, p. 53. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
22. Chia, S-A. (2009, May 15). NMP candidates attacked online. The Straits Times, p. 41. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
23. Broad changes to Penal Code proposed. (2006, November 9). The New Paper, p. 18. Retrieved from NewspaperSG.
24. Singapore. Parliament. Parliamentary debates: Official report. (2007, September 17). Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Vol. 83, col. 1522). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Parliament of Singapore website: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00004744-WA
25. Singapore. Parliament. Parliamentary debates: Official report. (2007, October 22). Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Vol. 83, col. 2175). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Parliament of Singapore website: http://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00075231-ZZ; Singapore. Parliament. Parliamentary debates: Official report. (2007, October 23). Penal Code (Amendment) Bill (Vol. 83, col. 2445). Retrieved 2016, August 16 from Parliament of Singapore website: https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/report.jsp?currentPubID=00004748-WA



The information in this article is valid as at 2010 and correct as far as we are able to ascertain from our sources. It is not intended to be an exhaustive or complete history of the subject. Please contact the Library for further reading materials on the topic.

Subject
Law and government>>Criminal law
Politics and Government
Criminal law--Singapore
Explore Further


People

Wong, Kan Seng


Ho, Peng Kee


~ Recommendations ~

Maintenance of Parents Act
The Maintenance of Parents Act provides for Singapore residents aged 60 years old and above who are unable to subsist ...
Nominated Member of Parliament scheme
The Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) scheme was introduced in 1990 to allow for the appointment of non-elected members ...
National reserves
Singapore’s national reserves are the net assets (assets minus liabilities) of the country. Being a small nation lacking ...
Elected presidency
Elected presidency was legislated in Singapore in 1991 to help safeguard Singapore’s national reserves and ensure the ...
Regulating the Use of Fireworks
The Singapore government started regulating the use of fireworks in 1968 when the practice of lighting celebratory fireworks ...
Administration of Muslim Law Act 1966
The Parliament of Singapore passed the Administration of Muslim Law Bill on 17 August 1966. The resultant Administration ...
FirstPrevNextLast

Categories

Arts
Communications
Community and Social Services
Economy
Education
Events
Geography and Travels
Heritage and Culture
Nature and Environment
Organisations
Personalities
Politics and Government
Sports and Recreation
Streets and Places
Transportation

National Library Board
Contact Us
Feedback
FAQ
Report Vulnerability
Terms of Use
Linking Disclaimer
Privacy Statement
Takedown Policy
Browser Compatibility
Rate this Site
©2019 Government of Singapore

 

[nayr69sg]

sg has "sympathetic to women and mothers" laws but authorities close both eyes and allow companies and the courts to screw sinkies. what's the point of having the fucking law? deduct ministars' and mps' pay! useless law passed in parleement.

The point is to bluff the gullible sinkies.

 

[eatshitndie]

The point is to bluff the gullible sinkies.

everything outward cho sui sui. but no soul and spirit.

 

[nayr69sg]

everything outward cho sui sui. but no soul and spirit.

Anyway......SINKIES themselves support all this lah. SO FUCK SINKIES!

 

[eatshitndie]

Anyway......SINKIES themselves support all this lah. SO FUCK SINKIES!

soixante neuf. 69%.

 

[laksaboy]

in sg you die your biz.

in californicate, can have 4 months of paid maternity leave plus paid time off and vacation to make it 6.9 months. shiok! see many new mothers on very long leave in sillycon valley tending to their newborns. almost like a 6.9-month sabbatical. it's tough on new mothers.... and fathers too. fathers can have 2-3 months of (paid) paternity leave plus paid time off and vacation. feeding cycle for newborn infants is around 2 hours with 16.9 minutes of patting and burping followed by 6.9 minutes of cleaning karchng lancheow cheebye and changing diapers. and then patting baby to sleep in order to get some down time for parents. mothers have to produce and pump milk too during rest period. non-stop production 24 by 6.9. no live-in maids in sillycon valley. just part time maids and nannies. $6.9k per month for professional nanny help. who can afford? only the wealthy and elites. thus, californicate and californicare women appreciate the generosity. moreover, after the 1st 6.9 months mothers continue to produce and pump milk for their babies. offices have "breast" rooms and dedicated refrigerators for mothers to pump and store their milk. if sg wants to be 1st world and continue to feed baby boys to the ns machinery, must encourage mothers to get pregnant by enforcing paid mandatory maternity (and paternity) leaves for both parents and penalizing and fining companies that skirt their responsibilities. unfortunately sg in this respect wants her cake and eat it too - i.e. encouraging parents to have babies but also allowing companies to fire and hire at will especially with regards to pregnant mothers. in this aspect sg is truly toothless and pays only lip service.

That's why California has a huge debt and taxes are among the highest of all US states.

Four families are holding California hostage.

 

[Scrooball (clone)]

Know of one terrible cunt who didn’t inform the company she was expecting. Then about one month after she joined, she announced her pregnancy.

And a few months after, she went on 3 months maternity where she was still paid and her role was kept vacant for her. When she returned, she tendered her resignation and joined another company.

A real bitch.

 

[nayr69sg]

Know of one terrible cunt who didn’t inform the company she was expecting. Then about one month after she joined, she announced her pregnancy.

And a few months after, she went on 3 months maternity where she was still paid and her role was kept vacant for her. When she returned, she tendered her resignation and joined another company.

A real bitch.

yes. Please spread the word on HOW TO DISMISS YOUR PREGNANT STAFF. There has already been a precedent case. So the SOP has been approved by the Sinkie Courts.

Steps:

Find out she is pregnant

Back date a few letters to each other saying the role is redundant.

Dismiss the pregnant woman on the basis that her role is redundant. Remember to emphasis decision on redundancy was made BEFORE we knew she was pregnant.

If brought to the Employment Claims Tribunal just say it was determined that her role was redundant before we knew she was pregnant. And say the new staff is only doing 25% of the role previously held by the staff.

 

[Leongsam]

A woman should decide whether she wants to procreate or she wants to work. She cannot have her cake and eat it.

 

[nayr69sg]

This forum is full of Misogynists. View women as sex objects.

 

[knowwhatyouwantinlife]

Not sure dr what u are arguing about...is it for discrimination against a pregnant woman or for unethical employment practices...if it's the former hard to prove as being pregnant is part of being a woman where does the sympathy line start and when does it stop...of course u can say our mothers wives sisters relatives who are females do get pregnant and what comes round goes around...if there is a natural disaster now and it requires quick feet obviously the pregnant womn maybe last and end up perishing and this is the law of nature...u cannot fault people for not sacrificing themselves for a pregnant woman...as for the latter its just the science of convenience...if I am the boss and doing performance appraisal and I compare the pregnant woman with a non pregnant one and the non pregnant one turns up for 20 days of work a month while the pregnant one turns up for 18 due to her condition and for mile stone checks...obviously I have the right to say the one who turns in more days have more working days to be appraised...and also not forgetting the staff male or otherwise who have to cover the pregnant one as and when she is not around and is seldom rewarded for...i am a son and a father and worked in multiple industries so all I can say is a pregnant woman has to protect herself as well and not expected society to hand her privileges on a silver plate..remember lastly pregnancy is a normal developmental milestone for a woman it is not a disease...if they can cope from young to having period they will need to cope with pregnancy likewise

 

[mojito]

I do not support breeding.its the pap

It is election strategy. Which govt will tell u they anti birth? Look at what they do, not what they say.

 

[rocket]

This forum is full of Misogynists. View women as sex objects.

I am not.
I respect woman equally.

 

[eatshitndie]

This forum is full of Misogynists. View women as sex objects.

auntie gin(ni) is my sex object.