The US has held a virtual democracy summit in an attempt to burnish its image and rope in allies to counter China’s peaceful rise (“US opens Summit for Democracy, with Joe Biden calling for moves to counter authoritarianism as America eyes China”, December 10 ). But the outcome may well go against its wishes. Among the 110 participants that the Biden administration invited to its first Summit for Democracy was Taiwan. Taipei was clearly aware of how it should behave in such a delicate situation and did not dare to send its leader. Instead, it appointed Digital Minister Audrey Tang and de facto ambassador to the US Hsiao Bi-khim as its representatives. Can such a meeting still call itself a summit – by definition a meeting of government heads? Seeing such a neither-fish-nor-fowl title, one cannot help but cite Confucius: “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.” The Taiwan problem has been America’s “trump card” in dealing with Beijing and, normally, Washington does not play this card rashly. But recently, the US has made frequent use of the Taiwan problem to create trouble for China. This suggests there are fewer cards left for Washington to provoke China and attempt to slow down its development. The US hosting the summit may also be a response to the shift in global public opinion. Since the 2008 financial crisis, in Western countries, including the US, problems – such as governance efficiency, a widening wealth gap and economic stagnation – have become increasingly acute. In particular, there have been failures in the fight against Covid-19. In contrast, China’s economy is flourishing and its government has done a good job of containing Covid-19. While US President Joe Biden surely hopes to boost America’s image as the leader of the free world with this democracy summit, the US seems to be splitting the world into two camps: democratic and non-democratic. Yet who is to judge whether a country or region is one or the other? The state of democracy in the US is hardly inspiring. Memories of the riots after former president Donald Trump’s supporters forced their way into the Capitol building are still fresh. In addition, the democracy summit’s list of participants starkly reveals the arbitrariness of the US criteria for democracy. The list of invitees includes Pakistan, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Angola, countries which rank lower in The Economist ’s Democracy Index 2020 than those not invited, such as Hungary, Thailand, Singapore and Turkey. Meanwhile, the US is listed as one of the biggest democratic backsliders in the recently released Global State of Democracy Report 2021 by Sweden-based International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. T. Chan, Kuala Lumpur Patriotism is not a substitute for competence As this month’s Legislative Council elections draw near, the silence from candidates is deafening (“What’s a manifesto? Hong Kong Legco candidates’ simple slogans, brief statements show ‘lack of effort’”, December 5 ). However, the claim by Chief Executive Carrie Lam Cheng Yuet-ngor that a low voter turnout reflects good governance is flabbergasting. It is absolutely right for Beijing to demand that patriots govern Hong Kong. Patriotism is not, however, a substitute for competence. The youth of Hong Kong feel disinvested , they feel they cannot effect change. This could be partly because of anti-Beijing sentiment, but also because of frustration and a disdain of a local government they feel ignores them, a distrust seemingly strengthened by a chief executive with an aloof and self-congratulatory manner. Capability, communication and community are core to the foundation of our city, built upon the skills and dreams of its residents. Hong Kong deserves a local government that also represents the needs of its weakest and poorest as well as its diversity, a government that recognises and nurtures the abundance of talent and guides it towards common prosperity . Good government can, indeed, be silent. What cannot be is results. Mark Peaker, The Peak Let iAM Smart phase out ID cards We refer to the letter , “Make good on promise of Leisure Link improvements” (November 30), and agree that the government should develop a new sports venue booking system that integrates the iAM Smart identity authentication tool. To better serve the public, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department should explore how iAM Smart can be used in place of the physical identity card in the booking system. At present, when claiming a venue, a user presents his or her ID card to staff, who then check the photo to verify identity and to match the card number with the booking record. In a new system, a user could instead use iAM Smart to log in and authenticate identity through facial recognition . Verification could be automatic, involving no human staff. Yet, in response to our enquiries about whether iAM Smart could replace ID cards when claiming a venue, the department only says it will make the necessary announcement once the new service is ready. Put people at the heart of Hong Kong’s smart city plans Hong Kong’s ongoing ID card replacement scheme is estimated to cost the public nearly HK$3 billion and countless hours spent at card replacement centres. iAM Smart has the potential to replace physical ID cards and save both money and time. However, there are a range of technical, operational and legal issues to be addressed. The department should allow the use of iAM Smart in booking and claiming sports venues so as to gain more experience on how to phase out physical ID cards, an experience which may be valuable for other government departments and commercial service providers. Jinquan Zhang and Simon Wang, Kowloon Tong
