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, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification

Back when I was studying at university overseas, I would see scribbles on restroom doors that said: university degrees are toilet paper, take one if you want.

With all due respect, I think that statement is truer now than it was then. These days, I see too many university graduates who are overly qualified for low-paid jobs, without much hope of upward social mobility.

In a matter of decades, almost all tertiary institutions in Hong Kong have essentially turned into research institutions. The trade-off has been a decline in teaching: the teachers who are more interested in teaching than doing research either change careers or get stuck in lowly teaching positions at the institutions, sometimes becoming depressed or disgruntled, venting their frustration on spouses or parents, or having to seek medical help.

It is hardly surprising to see a deterioration in teaching, and thus learning.

As it is, many students don’t see a promising future ahead, unless they are training for high-demand fields such as medicine.

There are now more than 20 tertiary educational institutions, public or private, in our city. Supply is much higher than demand. We don’t need more universities; instead, we could probably do with fewer.

Let’s not be fooled by how local universities are climbing up the global rankings compiled by companies such as Quacquarelli Symonds. Much of the research is being done to please these companies, and not really doing our society much good.

So, dear young people, if you don’t get a place in a tertiary institution, it may not be such a misfortune. Try to acquire some technical skills, instead of obtaining qualifications that were once described by my naughty fellow students as toilet paper.

Randy Lee, Ma On Shan

Work harder to cultivate patriotism

I read the letter, “Why citizenship subject will fail to cultivate patriotism in Hong Kong students” (May 6), and found it quite thought-provoking.

Your correspondent argues that the binary grading system may hinder students’ engagement with the new citizenship and social development subject, thus impacting its ability to foster patriotism. However, I am not entirely convinced by this point of view.

The introduction of citizenship and social development as a subject was a response to the social unrest of 2019, aiming to deepen students’ understanding of local and global issues while alleviating academic pressure.

Is the binary grading system solely to blame for the lack of engagement? In many high schools, subjects such as religious studies, physical education and arts are offered to senior students, many of whom actively participate in these classes, even though they are not core subjects with much bearing on their Diploma of Secondary Education results.

The true issue may be ideological influence; some students, influenced by irresponsible politicians and propaganda, may unquestioningly adopt Western values while remaining uninformed about their homeland’s development. Therefore, it is unsurprising that some students show little interest or respect during their citizenship class.

To enhance patriotic education in Hong Kong, two key approaches can be considered. First, citizenship and social development teachers should deeply appreciate the subject’s significance and engage students more effectively during class. Second, instilling patriotic values in students from a young age, as exemplified by the government’s introduction of a humanities subject integrating national history and security into the primary school curriculum, is crucial.

Fostering any ideology, particularly to rectify misconceptions, demands patience, time and concerted efforts from all stakeholders. Let us persist in advancing patriotic education so that more students can develop a profound appreciation for and contribute meaningfully to the nation’s future.

Vivian Kwok, Tsing Yi

Minimum size for subdivided flats not a good idea

I refer to the editorial, “More affordable flats the only answer to Hong Kong’s subdivided shame” (June 28).

It’s commendable that the government is looking into eliminating substandard living spaces. However, the suggestion of setting a minimum size of 75 to 108 sq ft overlooks possible consequences.

Some cage homes are as small as 20 sq ft. Doing the math, the imposition of 75 sq ft as the minimum size could lead to four such cage homes being combined into one, therefore greatly reducing the number of homes. Wouldn’t this result in fiercer competition for units? Some tenants might have to move out or be homeless for a while.

What’s more, by the law of supply and demand, setting a minimum size could drive rents up and compound the financial burden on tenants, many of whom rely on the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance scheme or are barely scraping by on meagre incomes.

It’s heartening to see the government acting to increase the supply of affordable housing, by evicting wealthy tenants from public housing units to make more room for those in need, and implementing modular integrated construction, or MiC, to speed up light public housing and transitional housing projects.

Relevant organisations like the Society for Community Organisation should meanwhile continue to voice concerns and suggestions on how the government could raise residents’ quality of life.