A reply to “The Asian Human Rights Commission - Impunity to do wrong..!”
(Lanka-e-News -25.Aug.2014 7.30PM) The article published yesterday(24) under the title “The Asian Human Rights Commission - Impunity to do wrong..!” is completely misleading and does not refer to any actual event.
The basic issue was that the contract of Mr. John Stewart Sloan was not renewed. Under those circumstances, and under the Hong Kong law, an employee is entitled to a long-term service payment and the law lays down the manner in which such payment should be calculated. Mr. Sloan was paid all such payments according to the law. At no stage has Mr. Sloan complained that his dues have not been paid. If that was the case, he was entitled to approach the Labour Department in Hong Kong. The Department strictly looks after the interests of employees.
Even from the article published, it is quite clear that Mr. Sloan does not make any direct complaint of not being paid any of his dues. The following statement in Mr. Sloan’s article is completely false:
“The staff member was informed of the amount that he was to receive as a long term award and was surprised as the employer has the right to deduct any contributions to the MPF. After making inquiries of Francis in the presence of the Admin manager he was told that his MPF award would NOT be affected.”
At no stage has any employee been paid more than what the law requires to paid. In any case, even the management has no authority to pay to any employee anything more than what the law requires them. If the management does so, the management is acting outside their authority and the management would be liable to pay back any such money that is given to an employee beyond their legal due.
Mr. Sloan was given, in writing, his legal rights and entitlements. Mr. Sloan has these letters with him and he has misled your publication by withholding the letters than he has in his possession. If required, we are willing to publish the letters and other official documents which have been given to Mr. Sloan.
Had your publication consulted us before publishing his version, we would have been in a position to provide you with all the written material regarding all the dealings the AHRC has had with Mr. Sloan regarding his long-term payment.
All the “facts” Mr. Sloan has published regarding whatever dues that he expected to receive but has not received is false. This is virtual blackmail, perhaps with the view to obtain more money than what the law requires an employer to pay to an employee.
I explained the matter to him in a letter, which he mentions in the article only in part. Here is the letter in full, which explains all the matters mentioned above:
19 July 2014
Dear John,
Thank you for your e-mail and what you say about me. However, as I know everything that went on, I can tell you that it was not within our knowledge as to how much a bank and MPF authority would deduct from your MPF payment, in terms of deducting the employer's contribution from the long service payment. This information was requested by us from that bank but they refused to give it.
All that we knew was the formula that is used under the Hong Kong law.
What you do not know is Bijo personally tried with the Board of the AHRC to find some other way to help you out as, from our personal point of view, the manner in which Hong Kong does the calculation for long service payment does not seem to be in the best interests of the employee.
There was nothing to gain for the AHRC or for Bijo or any of us by denying you this information if it was available to us.
I think what exists is a misunderstanding and I hope you can accept my assurance that there was no attempt to deny information or to lie to you.
The same formula that Hong Kong has used regarding you will also be applied to all of us. It is the same formula found in the Hong Kong statute that was also applied to all previous employees. In their case, too, the actual amount deducted was decided by the bank in terms of their interest rates.
Wish you well.
Thank you,
Basil
| By Basil Fernando, Director of Policy and Programmes at the AHRC |
(Lanka-e-News -25.Aug.2014 7.30PM) The article published yesterday(24) under the title “The Asian Human Rights Commission - Impunity to do wrong..!” is completely misleading and does not refer to any actual event.The basic issue was that the contract of Mr. John Stewart Sloan was not renewed. Under those circumstances, and under the Hong Kong law, an employee is entitled to a long-term service payment and the law lays down the manner in which such payment should be calculated. Mr. Sloan was paid all such payments according to the law. At no stage has Mr. Sloan complained that his dues have not been paid. If that was the case, he was entitled to approach the Labour Department in Hong Kong. The Department strictly looks after the interests of employees.
Even from the article published, it is quite clear that Mr. Sloan does not make any direct complaint of not being paid any of his dues. The following statement in Mr. Sloan’s article is completely false:
“The staff member was informed of the amount that he was to receive as a long term award and was surprised as the employer has the right to deduct any contributions to the MPF. After making inquiries of Francis in the presence of the Admin manager he was told that his MPF award would NOT be affected.”
At no stage has any employee been paid more than what the law requires to paid. In any case, even the management has no authority to pay to any employee anything more than what the law requires them. If the management does so, the management is acting outside their authority and the management would be liable to pay back any such money that is given to an employee beyond their legal due.
Mr. Sloan was given, in writing, his legal rights and entitlements. Mr. Sloan has these letters with him and he has misled your publication by withholding the letters than he has in his possession. If required, we are willing to publish the letters and other official documents which have been given to Mr. Sloan.
Had your publication consulted us before publishing his version, we would have been in a position to provide you with all the written material regarding all the dealings the AHRC has had with Mr. Sloan regarding his long-term payment.
All the “facts” Mr. Sloan has published regarding whatever dues that he expected to receive but has not received is false. This is virtual blackmail, perhaps with the view to obtain more money than what the law requires an employer to pay to an employee.
I explained the matter to him in a letter, which he mentions in the article only in part. Here is the letter in full, which explains all the matters mentioned above:
19 July 2014
Dear John,
Thank you for your e-mail and what you say about me. However, as I know everything that went on, I can tell you that it was not within our knowledge as to how much a bank and MPF authority would deduct from your MPF payment, in terms of deducting the employer's contribution from the long service payment. This information was requested by us from that bank but they refused to give it.
All that we knew was the formula that is used under the Hong Kong law.
What you do not know is Bijo personally tried with the Board of the AHRC to find some other way to help you out as, from our personal point of view, the manner in which Hong Kong does the calculation for long service payment does not seem to be in the best interests of the employee.
There was nothing to gain for the AHRC or for Bijo or any of us by denying you this information if it was available to us.
I think what exists is a misunderstanding and I hope you can accept my assurance that there was no attempt to deny information or to lie to you.
The same formula that Hong Kong has used regarding you will also be applied to all of us. It is the same formula found in the Hong Kong statute that was also applied to all previous employees. In their case, too, the actual amount deducted was decided by the bank in terms of their interest rates.
Wish you well.
Thank you,
Basil
