How will Hong Kong’s pro-establishment camp perform now that the opposition legislators have resigned ? The camp is not uniform. Its members represent different political parties and leanings. With the opposition gone, these differences will become more obvious. Yet this is an opportunity for the remaining legislators to distinguish themselves. They need to show they are not Beijing’s stooges. They are “patriotic” in that they respect the nation, uphold the motherland’s exercise of sovereignty, and will not harm Hong Kong’s prosperity and stability. There is no reason not to act in the public interest. Hong Kong politics is often framed by the narrative of the “good” pro-democracy camp vs the “evil” pro-establishment camp because of ideological differences. The opposition rides on fears about the mainland’s one-party system, which plays into the hands of those who want to demonise China at a time of geopolitical shift. With the long and violent protests last year, US-China conflict over trade and technology, Beijing’s imposition of the national security law to ensure widespread disruption does not happen again, and local activists running to foreign countries calling for sanctions , Hong Kong politics has been trapped in a “good” vs “evil” narrative that does not advance Hong Kong’s interests either within “one country” or the evolution of “two systems”. Between now and the next legislative election in the autumn of 2021 – Covid-19 pandemic allowing – pro-establishment legislators have the opportunity to show us their better side. The biggest pro-establishment party, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), has 13 members in the legislature. Together with two trade unions that have a total of five legislators, they are considered pro-Beijing because they are seen as backed by the mainland. The Business and Professional Alliance for Hong Kong (BPA) has eight legislators, Liberal Party (LP) has four, New People’s Party has two, Roundtable and New Century Forum have one each, and together with unaffiliated legislators, this group of pro-establishment politicians are, on the whole, professionals and entrepreneurs, including some who represent vested interests in functional constituencies – a unique but controversial aspect of the Hong Kong political system. As national security law looms, here’s what truly ails Hong Kong politics Functional constituencies are Hong Kong’s albatross. They hang uncomfortably around our political system because they protect the interests of specific groups, such as real estate companies, rural landowners, catering businesses, those in agriculture and fisheries, and owners of transport businesses. Functional representatives make it difficult for their parties to take views that are free of consideration of the vested interests. For example, seven of the BPA’s legislators are representatives of functional constituencies, as are all of Liberal Party’s legislators, so they may well oppose government policies and legislation that negatively affect their functional interests even if they are right for the community. It is also important to scrutinise DAB’s behaviour even though the bulk of its legislators are directly elected in geographical constituencies. It tends to be against policies that may require the public to change its habits, especially if a fee is involved, such as in waste management , on the grounds that the new way of doing things is too troublesome or that households have to pay. Party members worry that such changes may cost them votes at election time. If the pro-establishment camp continues to be constrained by vested interests and the fear of losing votes, it will never win the respect of the general public. Worse, it will not even keep up with the mainland’s many reforms in the coming years. This is the greatest threat to Hong Kong’s socio-economic development. Take one example. President Xi Jinping’s announcements at the United Nations General Assembly on September 22 and 30 on achieving carbon neutrality by 2060 and protecting biodiversity have stimulated broad action on the mainland. Many new policies and regulations are in the pipeline. Will Hong Kong be able to keep up? The Hong Kong government has the primary responsibility to craft the right policies, and its stated aim is for the city to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050 . Proper land use planning and building regulation reforms are vital to decarbonisation. This means that rural land and real estate interests will be affected. All forms of transport will have to be electrified, which will affect the interests of taxi and public light-bus owners, and bus and ferry operators. Charging for municipal solid waste and using price as a mechanism for managing water and effluent will affect the catering sector. Better biodiversity protection will affect land management and those with commercial fishing permits in local waters. It will also affect the government’s plans – extensive reclamation can no longer be the first option, which means officials have to face rural and commercial land interests in developing land in the New Territories instead. Government officials often blame their failures on opposition from legislators. They have effectively created their own stalemate. The simplistic “good” vs “evil” narrative of Hong Kong politics presents yet more inertia and a lack of focus. It is time for the pro-establishment camp to show that it is not hopelessly mired in gridlock but can free itself to serve wider public interests. Christine Loh, a former undersecretary for the environment, is an adjunct professor at Hong Kong University of Science and Technology