Reema Razif Has Done A Huge Disservice To Working Women
The viral allegations made by Reema Razif against SPF are filled with contradictions that do a huge disservice to working women who wish to start a family.
Just last week, an ex-policewoman Reema Razif made a Facebook post alleging that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has discriminated her on grounds of her pregnancies. She tried to portray herself as a poor childbearing mother that was taken advantaged of by her colleagues and her employer. However, her own statements only reveal otherwise.
Reema Razif’s accounts do not add up and they are filled with contradictions.
❶ Her performance grade only dropped after her third pregnancy.
Reema claims that her performance grade dropped because of her pregnancies. The Straits Times indicated that she has a “boy aged four, and three girls, aged between one and five”. This means that she gave birth to her first daughter in 2017 (pregnancy possibly starting in 2016), and her son in 2018.
Yet thereafter she also shares that her performance grade dropped from a B to C in 2019, 3 years after her first pregnancy. If the drop in her performance grading were only because of her pregnancy, why did her performance grade only drop in 2019 (and not 2016–2018)?
➋ Was she doing her usual duties or was she on light duty?
Reema said to Straits Times that she was given lighter duties (that were primarily desk-bound) while she was pregnant. Yet in her 2020 Facebook post she wrote that she was “still hustling with no complaints” and spoke about the “unpredictable dangers” that she is exposed to.
➌ Was it her colleagues who didn’t appreciate her, or was it the other way?
Reema griped that she is not being appreciated by her colleagues, saying that she did not receive any farewell cards on her last day.
Yet, she is also underplaying the work done by her peers. She questioned why her juniors were promoted quickly, and is of the opinion that she did not deserve a lower grade than her peers. These are her colleagues who had to take up her share of duty while she was desk-bound, and even cover her while she was on maternity leave (16 weeks per pregnancy). How can she expect to be graded the same?
SPF may not be perfect, but Reema is the unreasonable one in this case.
Those who are condemning SPF forget to think about the situation from the perspective of her colleagues. Even as a female, I would be furious if I had to cover for her absence and yet my 12 months of standard work is graded on par with her 8 months of light duty assignments. Moreover, she made the decision to do this 4 times in 5 years (16 months of maternity leave).
Would it be fair to her colleagues, if they were all given a B? Or worse still, if she received a B while they got a C? SPF even allowed Reema to maintain her rank, position, and pay, even after 4 consecutive pregnancies in 5 years!
Reema claims that she is being punished for her pregnancies, but in reality she has not been shortchanged. Considering the amount of work done, it might even be fair to say that she has been overpaid.
By faulting the SPF for her own choices, the impression that she has given to the community is one of self-entitlement. Reema has done a huge disservice to working women who plan to start a family.
There are many other great points written by the author on this Reddit thread here too, do check it out.
