The revision of the $2 scheme to the “$2 flat rate or 80 percent discount” scheme will be implemented starting from the coming Easter holiday (April 3). This means that elderly and disabled passengers will have to pay higher fees for more expensive routes when taking public transport.
This policy change was first announced in last year’s budget plan and officially announced on March 23 this year. Under the revised transport fare concession scheme, beneficiaries will continue to pay only HK$2 for trips with an adult fare of HK$10 or less, but will be charged 20 percent of the fare for journeys exceeding HK$10.
The Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Chris Sun Yuk Han, believes that such adjustment strikes a balance between enhancing the sustainability of the scheme and minimising impacts on beneficiaries. He said that the new scheme preserves the policy intent of the original $2 scheme, which aims to encourage elderly and eligible individuals with disabilities to get out of their homes and engage more in community activities, ultimately fostering a caring and inclusive society.
Ms. Cheng, a 68-year-old who lives in Tai Po, sometimes travels to the Kowloon district to look after her grandsons and to enjoy ‘yumcha’ sessions with friends. She mentioned that the increase in long-distance transportation costs wouldn’t change her habits of going out. “Although the increase in price affects my mood, there’s nothing I can do about it.” She said, “I will still travel far when I need to. She also expressed that she is a bit unhappy with the reduction in subsidization, as it feels like “having something given and then taken away”.
The revision of the scheme this time was prompted by the financial burden it imposed on the Hong Kong government’s treasury. When it was initially introduced in 2012, The $2 scheme subsidised elderly people aged 65 or above and eligible persons with disabilities. In 2022, the government expanded the age range for elderly beneficiaries to include individuals aged 60–64. The rapid rise in scheme expenses soon aroused social concerns amid budget deficits for several fiscal years. According to official statistics, the actual expenditure on the scheme surged from around HK$1.4 billion in the 2021–2022 fiscal year to around HK$3.1 billion in the 2022–2023 fiscal year after the age threshold expansion, more than doubling.
It has been observed that the growth in scheme expenditure was largely due to the expansion of the age threshold, as many in the 60–64 age group are not retired and have higher travel needs, especially crossing districts for work. Regarding this, the government did not raise the eligibility age threshold again. Instead, it revised the scheme by reducing transport fare discount as a compromise solution, which is expected to save around HK$550 million in the next fiscal year.
There has also been criticism in society regarding the abusive use of resources by elderly individuals taking short rides on long-route buses and minibuses, and one of the goals of revising the $2 scheme is to address this issue. When asked if Ms. Cheng would now be more cautious in planning long-distance transportation routes, for example by following the cost-saving tips shared by news platforms, she honestly said she would not, saying, “That’s too much trouble. At my age. it’s inconvenient to change my travel pattern.”
Ms Wong (52), who works in Sheung Wan, thinks that the adjustment from a HK$2 to a 20 percent discount means the elderly only have to pay a few extra dollars, and hence the improvement on the issue of taking long routes for short trips will be limited.
Meanwhile Amy, a university student, said, “The elderly won’t casually hop on airport buses and get off after a few stops now.” She believes that adjusting the transport fare can effectively address the serious issue of taking long rides for short distances, while ensuring that elderly people still don’t have to pay a significant amount for transportation.
With an ageing population, Sun projected that the number of beneficiaries under the scheme will reach 3 million in five years and 3.2 million in ten years. Although citizens like Amy support the scheme revision, some others argue that the government should not view welfare policies that benefit the elderly and the vulnerable groups as a target for cost-saving measures.
The long-term and continually increasing expenditure, along with the recent challenges faced by the authorities in balancing expenses and caring for the elderly, shows a hostility and a lack of long-term planning in the initial policy decision. The government’s re-evaluation and changes made in this scheme may serve as a lesson for decision-makers on the importance of long-term planning.