A spokesman for the Sino-British Land Commission's Chinese team issued a statement on Monday criticising 'some Hong Kong officials' for making irresponsible remarks and distorting the truth about the mainland side's position on the Land Fund. The statement came just days after Chief Executive-designate Tung Chee-hwa pledged he would make a final decision during the next two months on how the fund should be managed after the handover. Before the Chinese team's statement, the Hong Kong Government had already made it clear that the staggeringly healthy $140 billion Land Fund, now managed by the mainland trustees, should go to government reserves after June 30 with the SAR government to make a final decision on its future. These are perfectly plain remarks - in line with what's been stipulated in the Joint Declaration and with what the Land Fund trustees have pledged. So where is the difference in the stance of either side that may have sparked the mainland official's unusual move in blasting local officials for their irresponsibility? A comment by a newly-appointed member of the SAR executive assembly and incumbent chief executive of the SAR Land Fund, Chung Shui-ming, gives the impression that the Chinese side anticipates problems: 'It is unreasonable for the SAR government to want the money back and not take the staff.' But his remarks have slightly distorted the truth. The future of the Land Fund was thought to have been settled by China and Hong Kong many months ago - the hugely wealthy body would merge with the Exchange Fund, while the majority of Land Fund Office staff would be transferred to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). But, the Land Fund office is dissatisfied with the position as it believes no staff should be made redundant; the HKMA should employ all Land Fund employees. It was this difference of opinion which triggered the intense Land Fund Office lobbying for the continuation of the fund's independent status after the handover. For the Hong Kong community, if the staffing issue is the sole problem blocking a smooth settlement of Land Fund arrangements then those deemed 'irresponsible' should be the individuals bringing up new issues by advocating and lobbying for the establishment of a new independent fund. It is understandable that the Land Fund Office wants to protect its staff's interests, hoping no one will lose his or her job in this merging process. But the Hong Kong administration - accountable to the whole community - has to carefully assess whether it should retain an unnecessarily expanded operation to manage the wealth of the Exchange Fund and the Land Fund. The Land Fund Office has operated without transparency or accountability. The $498 billion in assets managed by the HKMA is four times that of Mr Chung's office; the Land Fund team has an establishment of about 100 staff, doubling the size of the Exchange Fund team. People naturally will ask what justification is there for Mr Chung to maintain such a large team if a lot more can be done with a smaller staff, as demonstrated by the HKMA? Mainland officials may feel obliged to protect the welfare of Land Fund staff. But what we are talking about is public money, and every dollar and cent spent has to be justified. Feather-bedding is not the name of the game in Hong Kong's public sector. Mainland officials have to understand this. And more importantly Mr Tung, in making his final decision, has to bear this in mind.