The letter by Mr Ron Ng Yong Kiang needs further elucidation (Is China the threat or the threatened?, Oct 20).

The United States has imposed sanctions on senior officials in the International Criminal Court (ICC), including chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo accused the court of "illegitimate attempts to subject Americans to its jurisdiction".

The Hague-based ICC is currently investigating whether US forces committed war crimes in Afghanistan. The US has criticised the court since its foundation and is one of a dozen states that do not accept the ICC's jurisdiction.

Yet not one word from the US' allies - Australia, New Zealand and Canada - on this injustice.

Imagine the same reaction if China were to do it.

Britain is now on the verge of breaking international law over Brexit in a very "specific and limited" way, but there is zero condemnation from Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the US.

Yet they were up in vociferous condemnation of China and Hong Kong when they implemented their own security laws. Why is that?

Breaking a law, be it a little bit or wholly, is the same. If Britain does not respect international law, how can it expect others to do so.

By the same means, can China "break international law in a very specific and limited way"?

Some examples of how international law has been used or broken in the past year include how Britain condemned China for its new security law.

British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said China was in "serious violation" of the country's international obligations. Yet it seems that it is acceptable to everyone for Britain to break international law and undermine trust. Why the double standards?

Likewise, Myanmar should follow the lead of the US by not entertaining any investigations by ICC representatives into the country. If US soldiers cannot be brought to task for their actions in Afghanistan, why the different treatment for Myanmar soldiers, who are accused of committing atrocities against the Rohingya?

Ramoo Puru