Annual spending cap protects the medically and financially at risk

Readers discuss the healthcare revamp, greater public usage of the Central Kowloon Bypass, and higher education

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at [email protected] or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words

Hong Kong is gearing up for the launch of the healthcare revamp on January 1. While many people are worried about the rise in medical fees, I believe more people will come to see the benefits of the new fee structure. In particular, the HK$10,000 (US$1,300) annual spending cap will ensure that no Hongkonger in need faces crippling medical costs.

Eligible people can apply for the cap through the Hospital Authority’s mobile app. About 70,000 people are set to benefit.

Do you have questions about the biggest topics and trends from around the world? Get the answers with SCMP Knowledge, our new platform of curated content with explainers, FAQs, analyses and infographics brought to you by our award-winning team.

The spending cap is designed to ensure equitable access to public medical services. For eligible Hongkongers, the cap provides predictability and financial security. Even as gazetted fees rise, patients know their total annual liability will not exceed HK$10,000, with any excess carried forward to the following year.

For vulnerable groups, particularly families facing chronic or critical illnesses, the cap functions as a lifeline. These individuals often require intensive and repeated treatments. The cap ensures they can continue receiving care, reducing the likelihood of delayed treatment or medical avoidance due to financial hardship.

At the systemic level, the cap strengthens social equity and trust in public healthcare. Having clear eligibility criteria reassures Hongkongers that the system protects them equally, while still prioritising the most medically and financially at risk. This dual approach balances fiscal sustainability with social justice.

Ivy Lai, Shau Kei Wan

New bypass must benefit more public transport users

On December 21, government officials celebrated the opening of the new HK$42 billion (US$5.4 billion) Central Kowloon Bypass. We saw television news videos of excited private car drivers and only the occasional goods vehicle tearing into the tunnel, their occupants waving excitedly.

I hope this massive expenditure is not being spent almost entirely for the benefit of private car owners and a handful of commercial logistics companies.

Eight bus routes are using the tunnel. Three are additional and five are existing routes which are being adjusted to make use of the bypass. However, all of them are routes with suffixes X, S or P. The X services (KMB 33X, 258X and 259X, and Citybus A28X) all have pathetically dismal frequencies, and one of these operates only during morning peak hours. The P and S services are also disappointing, running very limited services either at peak hours only or on public holidays.

Why are there not subsidised shuttle buses running every five minutes along this new bypass with bus interchanges at either end to facilitate passengers changing conveniently onto other bus routes? The government must not prioritise road infrastructure spending for the benefit of the richest 15 per cent of the population who can afford to own and drive private cars.

P. A. Crush, Discovery Bay

Are Asia’s universities asking the right questions?

In recent years, governments across Asia have raced to announce new blueprints for higher education, formulate AI policies and set aside billions in investment. As we usher in a new year, I believe it’s time to revisit a more fundamental question: what is a university for?

Consider Malaysia, which I know best. As chair of Asean (Association of Southeast Asian Nations), it hosted several higher education forums and drafted a new blueprint in the past year. The government has also allocated about US$16 billion in its budget for education. Policymakers have been busy, but are they asking the right questions?

Not just in Malaysia, but from Singapore to Seoul, Hong Kong to Hanoi, certain questions dominate. How do we improve rankings? How do we boost employability? How do we integrate AI? These are “how” questions – practical, technical, measurable. They assume we already know what education is for.

In convocation speeches, education leaders speak of wisdom, character and truth. Graduates applaud. Then everyone turns to rankings and key performance indicators.

In the rankings race, institutions of higher learning can lose sight of what “higher” means. Confucius spoke of cultivating junzi, or the exemplary person, through learning that transforms the self. Al-Ghazali, the Islamic scholar, warned that knowledge without ethical formation was dangerous. For millennia, to become educated is to be transformed, not merely trained. Too many Asian universities have drifted from this inheritance.

In 30 years working in international education, I have seen many societal views on what universities should do. But the contemporary trend is unmistakable: the “how” questions dominate; the “why” is relegated to the background.

The AI debate proves this. Universities treat AI as a detection problem – how do we catch students using ChatGPT? – rather than as a chance to ask: how do we cultivate wisdom when information is infinite and cheap?

If Asia is serious about improving its universities, we must make them more effective, not just more efficient. Efficiency optimises what exists. Effectiveness asks whether something should exist at all.

So what is the purpose of a university? To form persons capable of asking that question, and to whom the answers matter.

Dr Syed Alwee Alsagoff, fellow, National Council of Professors (Majlis Profesor Negara), Malaysia