A recent health scare has reminded me of just how well served we in Hong Kong are by our professionals in most sectors, particularly medical care. Unfortunately, it has also reminded me how badly served we are by our professional politicians on both sides of the reform divide. Let's start with the positive. One morning I woke up early, worked out in the gym and went on to work at the office. Everything was fine. But by mid-afternoon, I was sweating, had a fierce headache and felt nauseous. Having been taken home, I went to bed thinking I may have the flu, and slept for 24 hours. Unfortunately, when I woke up, it was clear something more serious was wrong. One of my legs was seriously infected. To cut a long story short, soon afterwards I walked into the accident and emergency department of one of our major hospitals and watched while our medical professionals swung into action. I was registered and seen by the triage nurse within five minutes. Less than half an hour later, I was in front of an experienced doctor who recommended admission. Two hours later, I was in a public ward, blood had been taken for testing and I was receiving powerful antibiotics by intravenous injection. Luckily, the results of the blood tests proved negative for the really nasty options, and after five days of treatment, I was ready for discharge. Follow-up treatment was arranged before departure, and I went home. The key points here are that this standard of treatment is available to all Hong Kong citizens at very modest cost, and if something even more serious had been wrong, it would have been detected in time to do something about it. The focus thus far has been on health care, but there are other sectors where Hong Kong people enjoy world-class standards, and take them for granted. Our underground railway system is the envy of cities everywhere for its efficiency and cleanliness, all credit to our engineers. Our crime rates are extremely low, and our detection rates very high, in comparison to those of most other major cities. Full credit to our police force. The list goes on. Unfortunately, we are not well served by our political elite. Take the government's conduct in the recent exercise to gauge the appetite for political reform. A one-sided issues paper was backed up by a refusal to meet many of the groups advocating reform during the consultation phase, and the final product was a paper which claimed to set out what the public wanted while its authors must have known that it was hopelessly biased and less than frank. Even today, the government is still pretending that corporate voting is fine, the functional constituencies are wonderful and democratic, and the Election Committee is magnificently representative and a fine model for the nominating committee. The pan-democrats are no better. They continue to ask for what they know cannot and will not be granted, while resolutely turning their backs on meaningful reform options which are achievable. They express a willingness to discuss matters with central government representatives, while making clear they are not going to accept anything they might say. Is it asking too much for our democrats to calm down, think rationally and contribute some ideas for modest practicable reforms? Is it really expecting too much for the official side to search their hearts and see what changes in the electoral arrangements for the Legislative Council in 2016 and the chief executive in 2017 might be made that could attract moderate support? I am sure our academics and relevant professionals could conduct a balanced exercise to gauge public opinion (not a referendum!) on the government's final package as published. If a majority of the public reject it, then the democrats would be entitled to stand their ground and veto it. If a majority of the public say, "Look, we don't like it, but we'll take it", then the democrats have to stand aside and let it be voted through. Our system of governance is sick. Is there a (political) doctor in the house? Mike Rowse is managing director of Stanton Chase International and an adjunct professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. mike@rowse.com.hk