“Is it wrong to be pregnant? Is it a crime to be a woman?” lamented 29-year-old Charissa Tan in a Jan 18 Facebook post she made accusing Mr Coconut, a popular retail chain selling coconut drinks here, of firing her for being pregnant.

In TODAY’s Feb 7 report, Mr Coconut offered up its own side of the story: Ms Tan was dismissed due to poor performance and not her pregnancy.

It said Ms Tan’s claim that she had laid her head down on her desk one of the days when she was feeling unwell and on some days during her lunch hour was not true and she had also “watched a movie openly” on her mobile phone during office hours.

The decision to let Ms Tan go had been made on Jan 15, stressed the company — a day before she informed her direct superior of her pregnancy.

No one could have known Ms Tan was pregnant, it insisted. After all, footage from the office closed-circuit television (CCTV) had shown that she was still “heavily smoking more than three to four times a day”.

The company also said that Ms Tan, having filed a complaint with the Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management, is seeking over S$53,000 in claims from Mr Coconut — nearly 18 times her monthly remuneration of S$3,000.

But that was only a teaser. The next day, the company put out its own Facebook post, submitting a seven-page document detailing every last inch of its internal investigation findings for netizens’ consideration.

It also supported its claims on Ms Tan’s head-resting and movie-watching behaviours with time-stamped CCTV screenshots.

Perhaps the most damning reveal in Mr Coconut’s expose: Ms Tan’s declaration, captured in WhatsApp screenshots dated Jan 17, that she was going to “write to all the news platforms” and “make this a big hooha”.

Despite repeated attempts to reach out, TODAY has received no comment from Ms Tan.

CLAPBACK OVERKILL?

Since Ms Tan’s Jan 18 Facebook post, public responses to the ongoing saga have only gathered steam.

Many netizens applauded Mr Coconut’s move to come through with “tea” and “receipts”. Turnabout is fair play, after all. Ms Tan had started this public fight; Mr Coconut was merely doing unto her as she had done unto them.

While everybody largely agreed that Ms Tan deserved the boot, some also voiced concerns over what they perceived to be an overblown response on Mr Coconut’s part.

Was there really a need to put her on blast the way they had in their Feb 8 Facebook post? Was it entirely ethical for the company to publicly broadcast images from CCTV footage (captured presumably for security reasons), or the details of Ms Tan’s smoking habits? Surely she had already been punished by losing her job — why pile on?

In the end, Ms Tan got her “big hooha” and Mr Coconut got its redemption in the court of public opinion. Everybody seems to have got exactly what they wanted.

Where, then, is the happy ending that is supposed to follow?

Ms Tan took Mr Coconut to social media court with the intent of painting it the misogynistic villain, but it didn’t take long for the jury of netizens to put her on trial instead for being “lazy” and a “lousy employee”.

Never mind that, aside from the few incidents spotlighted by Mr Coconut, we largely don’t know what Ms Tan’s actual work performance was like. Was she hitting her set targets and goals?

Was she completing assigned tasks to satisfaction? Had she been given any feedback on her supposed sub-par performance before being terminated?

Many even labelled her a bad mother, before she’s even become a mother, for smoking while pregnant. (No one is endorsing smoking while pregnant, but a couple of comments did point out that smoking “three to four times a day” is not typically considered “heavy”.)

YOU, ME, AND EVERYBODY

For better or worse, the Internet has warped our idea of conflicts. No longer do they take place between two parties, behind closed doors.

Everything is now a case to be heard in the court of public opinion, and trials are set up and carried out by hordes of strangers in the blink of an eye.

Such a court is available to anyone and everyone with a Wi-Fi connection — but does that always warrant its use?

In a Jan 26 interview she gave to AsiaOne, Ms Tan said: “I don't think I'm mentally prepared to answer these questions professionally without any emotion attached”.

When we’re swept up in a wave of intense emotions, taking up the sword of social media in the name of justice for our private grievances sounds like an easy fix. However, this sword is double-edged — and you’re not the only one armed.

Brandishing any sort of weapon in public spaces can pose a danger not only to yourself and your target, but bystanders caught in the fray as well.

For example, how will this incident prematurely colour public perceptions of other pregnant women legitimately wronged in similar situations?

Actions have consequences, even one as small as typing a few words and clicking “Post”.

If your intention is to shake the trees, keep in mind that coconuts are likely to come falling down. One might just land on your own head.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Melissa Lee Suppiah is a deputy editor at TODAY where she oversees commentaries.