So there is an article in the SCMP by commentator Mike Rowse lamenting the state of HK politics as it arguably reaches it nadir with this Beijing imposed election changes. But there is one sentence he wrote which neatly encapsulates the whole problem, when he argues that Bejing is frustrated by the fact that:
" the patriots are not competent and the competent are insufficiently patriotic."
https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion...ys-future-must
That in a nutshell is the root cause of many of the govenrance problems in HK since the handover. But there is a bigger question raised by the above sentence that the article didn't really acknowledge adequately, Beijing's own complicity in creating that problem in the first place. Beijing shot down any attempt to introduce wider democracy and more representative government. It instead insist on unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the diktats of the CCP. But the problem is, many "competent" HK folks do not enjoy working as a mere "cog in the machine", especially to a "machine" that is unaccountable, demanding and unyielding to reason, one that disposes of you when you when you are no longer deemed "useful", no matter how much loyalty you gave to it previously. So the CCP demands total loyalty but disposes of (or even punish) the people that worked for it the moment their usefulness is up, without so much as a blink or acknowledgement of their past contribution. How would "competent" people enjoy working for such an organization in HK?
So the only loyal people that Beijing could attract are of course lapdogs, scums and scoundrels. These people know they cannot amass power or influence based on their own merit or ability, so they have to do it through displays of fealty to Beijing. Problem is, as Beijing openly have said, in their own words, these are "pro-establishment garbage", short on intelligence and ability and only capable of being yes-men, and not competent yes-men at that. But again, Beijing never stopped to think why that is the case? It only see a problem, it never questions why that is the case, or its own role in contributing to this problem.
And of course, the ever more radical action by pro-democrats is also caused by their frustration over Beijing's own broken promises in greater democratic representation. Even so, the pro-democrats are not without faults of their own, that I can acknowledge too. Some of them advocated extreme positions and oppose anything the government does, not based on substantive issues, but simply to win votes. But again, why is that the case? Again, Beijing has a share of blame here. They explicitly made sure the opposiiton can never win power or form a government in HK. So with the prospect of actually being responsible for governing HK ruled out, some of the radical pro-democrats can act irresponsibly, because they don't have to face the consequences of their action when they are actually have to govern the city.
Unless Beijing develops some self-reflection ability (fat chance of that happening), I don't see how this "incompetence" issue will go away with these "election reforms".
Or am I...wrong?