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 withdrawal of two currently serving members of the UK Supreme Court from the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal was a political decision instigated by Boris Johnson’s government in the UK, and not by the UK Supreme Court itself. It was made at a time when Johnson wishes to be perceived as a world leader standing up to “authoritarian regimes”. It is not a decision which has at its core the best interests of the people of Hong Kong or the maintenance of the rule of law. The UK Foreign Secretary claims that, by continuing to sit in Hong Kong’s highest court, UK judges “risk legitimising oppression ”. I do not agree. Judges do not make or legitimise oppressive laws; legislators do. Judges construe fairly and objectively any harsh legislation and will strive to limit and mitigate its impact on the individual citizen. Calls are being made now by UK politicians and the UK press for six other retired UK judges to resign from Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal. That would be highly detrimental to Hong Kong. The UK fought hard during the negotiations leading to the Sino-British Joint Declaration to provide for judges from the UK and other common law jurisdictions to sit on the Court of Final Appeal. Beijing did not want them but nevertheless agreed. Once the UK government made its decision to put an end to this well-established and highly successful arrangement, the two serving justices of the UK Supreme Court had no real choice but to withdraw from the Court of Final Appeal. They could not act inconsistently with the UK government’s declared Foreign Office policy position while still serving as UK Supreme Court justices. On the other hand, retired UK judges are not subject to such constraint and are free to decide for themselves whether or not to continue as members of the Court of Final Appeal. I hope sincerely that they will. It is as important now as it has ever been for Hong Kong to be seen internationally as retaining a fiercely independent judiciary, committed to maintaining the rule of law and the highest judicial standards. The continued presence of internationally renowned judges from the four corners of the common law world contribute immeasurably to this end. The UK government has done Hong Kong a grave disservice. Its independent judiciary, legal profession, and ordinary people will not thank them for it. Beijing probably will. Adrian Huggins SC, The Peak City’s next leader must find a moral compass, then use it I was glad to see one of your correspondents emphasising the importance of moral convictions in the administration. While some commentaries and observations about the government are valid, most of them miss a key point – what is the administration fighting for? This question is relevant not only during the Covid-19 pandemic, but before and after any crisis. In addition to policy agendas addressing burning social issues affecting ordinary Hongkongers, there needs to be a clear moral conviction and a sense of what we want to cultivate for the future. We did not get the rationale behind the policies implemented in “combating the virus” – that’s why people were frustrated and angry with the quarantine and social distancing measures. The utmost important task for the next administration is to communicate a clear moral appeal, with most, if not all, policies aligned with it. With time, some of us might start to feel that the government is acting on what it says; I am not sure how many people feel this way now. Moreover, the administration needs to be committed to healing a divided society. It is no easy task, to say the least. But a government that cares about its people should make this a top priority. We are sick of people in positions of power not doing what they can to alleviate the suffering of others. Leaders should continuously reach out to various communities – not because they need to meet any targets, but out of an urge to understand society’s needs. They should be in touch with residents who have no influence on policymaking but who are most affected by it. The pandemic crisis has demonstrated how out of touch the administration is. If we want to bring hope to society, now is the time to act. S. Ching Choi, Admiralty Online services can benefit more than prisoners I refer to the letter by Emily Ma and Simon Wang and agree with your correspondents that the Correctional Services Department should allow more virtual visits to protect the well-being of the prisoners, in light of visiting restrictions during the pandemic. However, the proposal to embed a videoconferencing option in the department’s mobile application may not be feasible, as the app is merely a collection of hyperlinks to the department’s website and does not offer any advanced functionality. In all fairness to the department, it might be difficult to justify the resources for developing a sophisticated mobile app for a relatively small prisoner community. In mainland China, the prison authorities engaged a Beijing-based technology company to develop a mobile app for prisoners’ loved ones to access a host of services, including video calls with the prisoners, making appointments for in-person meetings and lodging complaints. Since the app also provides community rehabilitation services for ex-prisoners as well as online lawyer consultation, video conferencing and project management services for the general public, the company has a larger customer base, making it worthwhile to devote the resources necessary for developing a cutting-edge mobile application. To better serve the community, the Correctional Services Department should consider contracting private companies to develop state-of-the-art mobile solutions that can not only better serve detainees, prisoners and their families, but also cater to a larger group of related people, such as those awaiting trials in the community, those under probation, and people with a history of incarceration. Such a smart service platform should be part of the smart prison initiative to improve the effectiveness of prison management, and also involve the Hong Kong Police Force, the Legal Aid Department, the Department of Justice and the Hong Kong judiciary to fill the justice-related service gaps for the broader community. Ying Liu, Kowloon Tong