LettersWhy Hong Kong’s medical schools should phase in their Cantonese requirement

Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form. Submissions should not exceed 400 words. Hong Kong has long distinguished itself through world-class universities, an internationally respected healthcare system and a reputation for excellence that attracts talent from across the globe. If the city is serious about being an international education and innovation hub, it must ensure its medical education policies are aligned with that vision while upholding the highest standards of patient care. Recently, the University of Hong Kong (HKU) revised its admission criteria to require a good working knowledge of Chinese, rather than Cantonese specifically. Cantonese remains essential in clinical practice because it enables trust, understanding and accurate diagnosis. However, requiring full Cantonese proficiency before admission to medical school risks excluding international students who have the academic ability, dedication and potential to contribute to Hong Kong’s healthcare and research ecosystem. HKU has said that it will provide language support to help those who lack Cantonese proficiency when admitted. A phased language integration model where applicants are admitted on the basis of academic excellence and aptitude for medicine while being required to achieve professional Cantonese proficiency before undertaking significant clinical responsibilities seems reasonable. Rather than lowering standards, this would simply change when the standard must be met. Medical education is already structured in stages. The first years of most medical programmes are devoted largely to preclinical sciences, where instruction is predominantly delivered in English. This provides a window during which universities can offer intensive, mandatory medical Cantonese training tailored to patient communication and clinical interactions. By the time students begin extensive patient contact, they would be expected to demonstrate the language competence necessary to communicate safely and effectively. Such a model would allow Hong Kong to compete for international talent while safeguarding patient welfare. Importantly, modern medicine extends beyond direct clinical practice. By attracting highly capable students from around the world, Hong Kong can help address future healthcare workforce needs and enhance its research capacity and innovation ecosystem. Universities and teaching hospitals can support this transition through structured language programmes, supervised clinical placements and additional communication support during the early stages of training. These would ensure patient safety remains paramount while helping talented students integrate into Hong Kong society and healthcare settings. At a time when cities worldwide are competing for the brightest minds, Hong Kong should remain confident, ambitious and open. A phased language pathway would reinforce the city’s international outlook, strengthen its medical schools and research institutions, and ensure Hong Kong continues to attract the talent needed to thrive. Ahmed Ashfaq, Tsim Sha Tsui What relationship should humans and AI have? I am an enthusiastic user of artificial intelligence (AI). Over an extended period, I have used AI as an interlocutor while conducting academic research. What has impressed me is not simply its ability to provide information or answers but the usefulness of the developing conversation: questioning assumptions, suggesting connections and challenging conclusions. AI has enhanced rather than replaced my thinking. However, this experience also makes me concerned about a public debate which concentrates heavily on which occupations AI can automate, which human capabilities it can equal or exceed and what economic gains might result. We are neglecting a more fundamental question: what kind of relationship between humans and AI should we create if AI is to augment human thinking rather than substitute for it? This in turn leads to a broader question: how can society obtain the benefits of the cognitive transformation by AI without people surrendering their intellectual, economic and political agency? I am particularly interested in whether the answers look different when considered from China and East Asia. Recent reports concerning protection of China’s labour market from AI disruption, automation designed around human workers and humans continuing to provide AI’s purpose and moral compass raise an intriguing question: do different societies have different conceptions of the relationship between technological progress, human agency and social legitimacy? Transformative technologies require legitimacy as well as effectiveness, but different societies can attach different meanings to agency, social cohesion and legitimacy. Perhaps augmentation is broadly desirable across societies, while the meaning of agency – and therefore the conditions under which AI transformation is considered legitimate – varies substantially. Whatever those differences, AI could become an extraordinary instrument of human empowerment. It need not be an artificial mind to which we progressively surrender our thinking but a capable interlocutor through which we learn to think better ourselves. These questions deserve a wider public conversation. The objective should be not merely more capable AI but more capable human beings. David Backinsell, Rickmansworth, UK

.css-1c6uqr6{color:inherit;font-weight:inherit;font-size:inherit;font-family:inherit;line-height:inherit;overflow-wrap:break-word;}Readers discuss language prerequisites at the city’s medical schools, and the promise of AI

Readers discuss language prerequisites at the city’s medical schools, and the promise of AI