我在 《 論點的質感更重要 》一文說：
「想說服別人，不少人認為論點的多寡至關重要，論點愈多，說服力愈強。這種看法不大對，論點多並不重要，好的論點才重要，演繹論點的質感更重要！論點不好，再多亦無濟於事。論點好而多，才可產生強大的說服力。而要別人覺得論點好甚至很好，質感絕對不可或缺。所謂質感，就是透過良好的演繹方式，令論點變得具體、可信、可靠及言之成理。」
怎樣才可令論點有質感，用具體實例來示範和說明永遠好過泛泛之論，我再舉二例。大半年前，怡居地產人事部職員在遞交強積金繳費支票給中介公司時，犯了小小錯誤，被中介公司舉報為遲交，以致遭強積金局罰5%附加費。人事部不服氣，草擬了一封要求豁免該附加費的信給強積金局(見附信)，並讓我過目。我了解具體情況後，覺得草擬信不大得力，論點缺乏應有的質感，便大幅修改，重新擬定下面的信件：
『Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority
Level 25, Tower 1, Millennium City 1,
388 Kwun Tong Road,
Kwun Tong, Kowloon,
Hong Kong
執事先生，
反對支付供款附加費
就貴局於2010年9月3日所發出的支付供款附加費通知書，我司謹提出反
對，事情經過及反對理由如下：
- 於2010年8月10日下午約二時半，我司的辦公室助理L小姐帶同2010年7月份有關供款數據資料及一張面額HK$95,446.30的支票親身到強積金中介人ABC保險僱員福利公積金服務部[以下稱「ABC保險」]在旺角彌敦道M商業大廈8樓的辦事處遞交。ABC保險的辦事人員拒絕簽收本司上述支票及有關供款數據資料，指示L將它們投入ABC保險預設的submission box。L無奈之下，唯有照辦。
- 在2010年8月18日，亦即本司提交支票及供款數據後的第8天，我司收到ABC保險一封日期為2010年8月16日的來信(見附件一)，並附回上述支票。ABC保險通知我司，它的銀行將上述支票(見附件二)退回給它，因為上述支票没簽名。ABC保險要求我司簽發一張相同金額的支票並連同來信郵寄到P.O. Box XYZ。我司於翌日(2010年8月19日，星期四)補簽上述支票，然後按ABC保險的指示照辦。
- 從ABC保險電腦上的強積金賬目，我司得知上述支票在2010年8月24日(星期一)已完全過數到ABC保險的我司強積金戶口。
- 2010年9月3日貴局就上述支票「遲交」向我司徵收5%供款附加費，我司覺得十分不公平：
| (a) | 我司於2010年8月10日派人親身送支票到ABC保險辦事處付款，那時還没超過貴局所定之供款限期死線，我司唯一做錯的，祇是行政部負責執行付款的F小姐一時疏忽，忘了看清楚支票是否已由公司董事簽妥，而F小姐是一位没有多少工作經驗的暑期工(見附件三之應徵信及僱傭合約)。 | | (b) | 上述支票的漏簽，純是F小姐一時疏忽，我司當時的支票戶口存著HK$539,440.22(見附件四)，有足夠金錢支付該筆HK$95,446.30供款，再加上現時銀行存款利息幾近於零，遲交供款不會為我司增加似樣的利息回報，我司没有任何誘因要借漏簽去遲交供款。 | | (c) | 如說支票漏簽導致遲交我司有責任，則ABC保險的責任更大：在8月10日，如ABC保險的辦事人員肯簽收上述支票，他們會發覺支票漏簽，本司還來得及於同日補簽，但由於他們堅持要我司L小姐將支票放入信封，然後放進他們預設的submission box，我司於同日補簽的機會就此被ABC保險的硬性指引所輕輕破壞；8月11日或稍後，ABC保險打開submission box拆信封取支票，ABC保險的辦事人員看也没看支票就將之轉交它們的銀行，造成退票。如果ABC保險的辦事人員稍為細心一點，肯望一眼所收支票，他們就會發現漏簽，而來得及馬上用電話通知我司補簽。那樣，支票頂多就會於8月12日或8月13日完全過數，何來遲交？就算ABC保險辦事人員連續兩次疏忽没發現支票漏簽，但ABC保險的銀行在8月11日或8月12日就已經發現支票漏簽，按銀行對退票的一般做法，它們會第一時間用電話通知客戶(即ABC保險)有關退票一事，而如果ABC保險接到電話通知後，就同樣馬上用電話通知我司，則我司頂多在8月11日或8月12日就可補簽，從而避免遲交。但很不幸，ABC保險放棄用電話通知客戶的快速方法，而採用寄信通知一途，這就令我司遲至8月18日才收到通知和退票；更不幸的是，ABC保險没有指示客戶(即我司)可以派人親自送新支票到其辦事處，而祇是不曉變通地叫客戶寄票到P.O. Box XYZ，碰巧8月22及8月23日是星期六及日，銀行不辦公，使支票過數日期遲至8月24日。 |
- ABC保險與客戶的溝通，素來僅依賴僵化、公式化及十分緩慢的文書往來，完全不借助人性化及十分快速的電話聯繫，這就使一件可以在數小時得到修正的小事(例如今次我司的支票漏簽)，演變成延遲14天才可完成。如果ABC保險不修改這種僵化及十分缺乏效率的處事方式，縱使客戶每月1號就遞交供款，但祇要該客戶有少少疏忽，例如漏簽支票、支票上的抬頭人姓名寫錯一個字母或該日銀行戶口現金有小小不足，客戶就有很大機會「遲交」供款14天，到時ABC保險就會按規向貴局舉報該「遲交」，本質上無辜的客戶就要被貴局罰5%附加費。
- 對於上述僵化及十分缺乏效率的處事方式，我司過去二年不斷向ABC保險反映，要求它改善，但ABC保險將我司的意見視為耳邊風，完全不接受。
- 綜合而言，今次「遲交」，我司的責任很小很小，而且可以原諒，但ABC保險的責任很大很大！不處分責任很大很大的，而捧打責任很小很小的，我司覺得很不公平，很冤枉。我司懇請貴局高抬貴手，豁免這次供款附加費。
如有任何垂詢，請致電我司25355895，與人事部K小姐聯絡。
謝謝並祝工作愉快！
怡居地產有限公司常務董事
王文彥
2010年10月5日上
副本呈: ABC僱員福利公積金服務部』
去信後不足三個星期，強積金局就覆信，豁免我司有關供款附加費。
上述兩信(去信及附信)我不加任何解釋或注釋，就讓讀者朋友自己去感受和領悟。你的說服力或理解能力如果不是很強，最好將兩信多看幾遍。一定要兩信一併看，好好比較兩者在質感上的差異。理論上，每多看一遍，你的感受和領悟就增多一、兩分。
－ 待續 －
附信
4th October, 2010
Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority
Level 25, Tower 1, Millennium City 1,
388 Kwun Tong Road,
Kwun Tong, Kowloon,
Hong Kong
Dear Sir / Madam,
Objection to Demand of Payment of Outstanding Mandatory Provident Fund Contribution Surcharge
In response to your letter dated 3 September 2010, we have objection to the payment of surcharge on outstanding MPF contribution for the period 1st to 31st July 2010.
To complete the MPF contribution, 2 elements must be included:
1)the contribution data and
2)the payment slip with corresponding cheque (to be submitted to the submission box on 8/F, M Commercial Building, Nathan Road, Mongkok (“hereinafter called the contribution address”) on or before the contribution day of every 10th of each month for ABC Insurance. The following description explains why our MPF contribution was delayed.| Tuesday, 10th August 2010: | We submitted the data for the payroll period of 1st to 31st July 2010 via e-submission and the payment slip with the cheque to the submission box of ABC Insurance on the contribution address.
We knew that the time was tight to meet the contribution day, so we were so cautious to send a person to do it to avoid any late submission. We thought we had finished all the steps on time on 10th August and finished our responsibility to complete the MPF contribution as an employer. |
| Monday, 16th August 2010: | ABC Insurance sent us a letter dated 16th August, informing us that signature was missing on our cheque and reminded us to send back a new cheque to the P.O. Box XYZ, (the P.O Box). The letter did not mention that we had been considered as late submission, but only need to send another payable cheque. If we knew the immediate submission of the cheque is necessary, we would immediately send the cheque to ABC Insurance by hand, and inform our case to you, the Mandatory provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPF Scheme Authority). It could help us to prevent the surcharge. |
| 19th to 20th August 2010: | Since we did not know that we had been considered as late submission, we followed the instruction of the reminding letter, and mails the payment slip and the new cheque to the P.O Box. |
| 21st to 24th August 2010: | Due to the fact that 21st -22nd August was Saturday and Sunday, it was not the office hour for ABC Insurance. We read from our ABC Insurance account that the payment of July 2010 was clear on 24th August 2010 (please refer to the “Cash Account Balance”). At the time we sent the cheque, we considered we have completed the MPF contribution without any surcharge, since we did not know we had been considered as late submission. |
To the issue happened above, we totally objected the surcharge payment.
In fact, ABC Insurance had the most significant liability on this issue.
They acts as the trustee of our company, they should have the responsibility of checking the validity of our cheque, and take immediate action if any problem arises. They should notify us by phone immediately, once they found the cheque was not signed. If we were informed by phone, we could prepare the payable cheque immediately and send the cheque to ABC Insurance by hand to prevent any late submission. However, ABC Insurance did not do that. Instead of notifying us by phone immediately, they mailed the un-signed cheque to us on 16th August, and we could only receive the unsigned cheque on 17th or 18th August, which was already 8 to 9 days after the contribution day. Although ABC Insurance claimed the validity of cheque was supposed to be checked by Citibank, they should not completely rely on Citibank to do so. They did not perform their own responsibility though they were the trustee of our company. As the aforesaid, they have the responsibility on the cheque checking and notifying us immediately. More than that, they did not notify us by phone once they received the notification from Citibank. Thus, we knew nothing until the reminding letter arrived in our office.
As a supplement of facts, we had sufficient fund in our bank account that we neither need nor have the intention to delay the payment. The reason causing the un-signed cheque was the unconsciousness to check the signature by our summer job intern instead of our unwillingness to pay.
As aforesaid, we have no intention to delay the payment of our employee’s MPF. ABC Insurance notified us via mail, which was not an appropriate method to deal with our case. We would have been noticed earlier but ABC Insurance failed to do so. We did not accept this result and object to the surcharge payment. Please kindly verify with our trustee and your kind consideration in this case would be very much appreciated.
Please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at 2569 2192 if you have any questions. Thank you once again for your attention.
For and on behalf of
EASY PROPERTY CO LTD
K
Encl.
|
