Like all columnists, I want to be read. And the only way I know that I am being read is when I receive feedback. I have received my share of hate mail and, while it is unpleasant, it does reassure me that I am being read. The worst thing is to get no feedback at all to a column. It is as though it was never written, never existed. And so I was happy to see a letter from James O'Neil, deputy solicitor general in the Department of Justice, commenting on my recent column on the Hong Kong government's proposal for implementing the 'state secrets' provision of Article 23 of the Basic Law. Mr O'Neil must have been writing in an official capacity, since he cited his title in the letter. That being the case, the contents would have been approved by the Justice Department. That is to say, the views expressed are those not just of an individual but of the Department of Justice. To recap, I had pointed out that the Hong Kong government has carefully avoided using the term 'state secrets' in the national security bill because of the mainland's notoriously loose definition of the term. However, I said, if the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress were to issue an interpretation of Article 23, Hong Kong's efforts would be for naught because the Standing Committee would no doubt apply the mainland's concept of state secrets. I do not see how the mainland's definition of state secrets can be avoided, once the Standing Committee is involved. Article 23 uses the term 'theft of state secrets', and the special administrative region (SAR) says it is implementing Article 23, so clearly the concept of state secrets is central. No doubt, the Standing Committee would employ the mainland's definition of state secrets to interpret Article 23, even if the term itself is missing in the Hong Kong legislation. After all, the Basic Law is a national law, while the Official Secrets Ordinance is merely a local law. It is not possible for a local law to override a national law. If the Justice Department and Mr O'Neil think that my position is 'far-fetched' and 'fanciful', I wonder if it would be willing to make a binding commitment that the SAR government would never, under any circumstances, seek an interpretation of Article 23 from the NPC Standing Committee. That is the only way to ensure that the scenario I put forth will never occur. Mr O'Neil says the Official Secrets Ordinance was approved by the Sino-British Joint Liaison Group before it was enacted in 1997. That is to say, it was endorsed by both the British and Chinese governments. Perhaps he means China has already endorsed the existing Official Secrets Ordinance as the implementation of the 'state secrets' part of Article 23. That, if true, would be good news. But that would mean there is no need for Hong Kong to take additional action. Why are we being asked now to pass new national security legislation? There is another problem. Article 23 says Hong Kong shall enact such legislation 'on its own'. Having legislation approved by Britain and China is clearly inconsistent with the idea of Hong Kong drafting such legislation 'on its own'. Presumably, the bill before Legco was drafted entirely in Hong Kong by the SAR's own legal draftsmen, and has not been approved by the central government, since Hong Kong is meant to enact the legislation 'on its own'. Or perhaps I am mistaken. Perhaps the central government has already approved the draft. If it has, then Hong Kong would have violated the Basic Law injunction to draft such legislation 'on its own' instead of getting the central government's approval. If it has not, then it is irrelevant that the Official Secrets Ordinance in 1997 received central government approval. If the Department of Justice wants to ensure that the national security legislation currently being considered by Legco will be treated as a piece of Hong Kong law, not subject to mainland interpretation, it has only one choice. It will have to make a binding public declaration, preferably in Legco, saying the SAR government would under no circumstances either ask the Court of Final Appeal to seek an interpretation from the Standing Committee; or, as it did in 1999, ask the State Council to ask the Standing Committee for an interpretation of the relevant provision of the Basic Law. If the SAR government is willing to make such a declaration, I am sure it would set the minds of many people at ease. If it is not, then I am afraid that the significance of letters written by officials of the Department of Justice will not amount to much more than a hill of beans. Frank Ching is a Hong Kong-based journalist and commentator frankching1@aol.com