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, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification. The decision of the UK Supreme Court to withdraw from the 1997 agreement that two serving justices of the UK’s highest court would serve as overseas non-permanent judges of our Court of Final Appeal is regrettable. The valuable contribution of the overseas non-permanent judges to the Court of Final Appeal over the last 25 years must be acknowledged and appreciated. It is hoped that the remaining overseas non-permanent judges from Australia, Canada and the UK would continue to contribute. The participation of overseas non-permanent judges in the Court of Final Appeal has many advantages: ensuring the benefit of comparative perspectives and experience, enjoying the confidence of all concerned, and enhancing confidence in the independence of our judiciary. I had hoped this unique arrangement would continue in the coming years and beyond 2047. But times have moved on and circumstances have changed. In the longer term, we have to be prepared that the level of participation of the overseas non-permanent judges may not be the same as before. However, I am confident that this would not affect the quality of the Court of Final Appeal since there is now considerable depth of talent in our judiciary and legal profession. A significant part of Lord Reed’s announcement is his recognition that the courts in Hong Kong “continue to be internationally respected for their commitment to the rule of law”. As Chief Justice Andrew Cheung Kui-nung has stated , our judiciary’s commitment to upholding the rule of law and judicial independence is wholly unaffected. I have every confidence that our dedicated judges will not waver from that commitment. Andrew Li Kwok-nang, former chief justice of Hong Kong Judges’ exit shows city has become victim of politicisation The resignation of the two serving UK Supreme Court justices sitting on Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal is disappointing. And with Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab supporting the decision, it also reflects a British government that continues to politicise Hong Kong to serve individual career interests. In doing so, they fail to understand that keeping the status quo was good for British investment in the region, something a post-Brexit Britain desperately needs. Anti-China sentiment has become a personal campaign founded on emotion and scant reasoning. The loser shall not be Hong Kong, it will be those who continue to use our city for their own ideological agenda. Mark Peaker, The Peak