I don't believe it to be a condemnation of Captains flying abilities at all and I think the premise is accurate.
Think of it this way, if the f/o is flying, and starts to get a fraction low or a fraction slow, how far will the Captain let it develop before he/ she verbalises the deviation?
If the Captain is the PF and starts to get a fraction low or a fraction slow how far will the f/o let it develop before he/ she verbalises it?
In an ideal world the answer to both questions would be the same but we don't live in an ideal world and the answer is not normally the same.
Some might be tempted to reply with " if the f/o did their job correctly then that wouldn't be a problem etc etc" but saying that doesn't change the reality that the answers are different, it doesn't change human nature, and therefore doesn't reduce the chances of dirt coming in the windows.
If you want to reduce the likelihood of CFIT then a step in the right direction is to have the f/o fly the approach while the Captain monitors it's progress and calls any deviations. The Captain will have more available mental processing power than he/she would have if they were PF and that fact combined with their presumably greater experience also helps to reduce the CFIT risk.
So.....how do you follow the Flight Safety Foundations recommendation to have the f/o as PF in this situation when your regulator allows the bean counters running the operation to employ pilots of such low experience and flying ability that an SOP is created to prevent them flying below 5000ft? The answer is that you can't and both the regulator and the airline management are negligent in their responsibilities to the travelling public.