比較滿意的文章選集(371)

再說論點的質感(1)

(原文發表於2011723)

 

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201093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:

 

1.         2010810日下午約二時半,我司的辦公室助理L小姐帶同20107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 boxL無奈之下,唯有照辦。

 

2.         2010818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2010816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(2010819日,星期四)補簽上述支票,然後按ABC保險的指示照辦。

 

3.          ABC保險電腦上的強積金賬目,我司得知上述支票在2010824(星期一)已完全過數到ABC保險的我司強積金戶口。

 

4.          201093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2010810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。

 

©.     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810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;811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812日或813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811日或812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(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811日或812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818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822823日是星期六及日,銀行不辦公,使支票過數日期遲至824日。

 

5.         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。

 

6.         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。

 

7.         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

 

2010105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 che­que­to 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, 18th 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. If we knew the imme­di­ate sub­mis­sion of the cheque is nec­es­sary, we would imme­di­ate­ly send thecheque 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 ourcheque, 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 chequeim­me­di­ate­ly 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 thecheque 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.