Daniel Beitler
The most recent controversy involving New Macau Association’s (ANM) president, Scott Chiang, kicked off at the end of last week when he and his colleague were arrested on suspicion of being behind the hoisting of a black flag, styling the Secretary for Social Affairs and Culture as a “heritage killer”.
Compared with some of the more “noble” endeavors undertaken by Chiang and other ANM members in the past, the question is whether the future of Hotel Estoril is really a battle worth fighting?
The issue stems from a disagreement over the historical worth of the building, which the government and the Cultural Heritage Council have determined does not meet the definition of “heritage”. The subsequent plans for demolition were condemned by Chiang at the time as another example of the “bulldozer impulses” of the government.
While the initial plans to transform Hotel Estoril into a youth leisure center were at best pointless and at worst a farcical waste of public funding (since the existing Tap Seac Multi-Sports Pavilion is right next door), its current use – as some sort of cumbersome and fading monument in a central and useful location – is hardly worthy of preservation.
At a press conference held yesterday by New Macau, president Chiang made it clear that he has no particular vision of what Hotel Estoril might be repurposed into in the future. He wants “preservation” – presumably of the hotel’s iconic façade – but what about the rest of the building? Is it to be preserved as a derelict structure?
The lack of an answer provides an insight into the protest’s lack of purpose.
New Macau provides a crucial service in Macau that is increasingly in short supply; a ready and seemingly limitless source of government criticism in the otherwise bleak desert of Macau’s political “yes-men” and vested interest parties. Criticism of the government (and of authority in general) is an essential part of a healthy and functioning society that in the past has resulted in innovative, industrious, and culturally-
progressive civilizations.
Indeed, freedom of expression and open discussion were invariably an important factor in the cultural and political rise of late-17th century Britain, 19th century Germany and China’s Tang dynasty, which is still today regarded as a “golden age” of cosmopolitan culture.
So opposition to the government is crucial. However, the problem with groups that operate in total and permanent opposition is that we are never really sure what they stand for. This is perhaps especially true for New Macau, which ceaselessly voices a point of contention with every government policy that comes their way. Where does opposition based on values and principles end and opposition for its own sake begin? And is the latter even a problem?
The title of this piece and its purpose attempts to address whether this issue was a battle worthy of New Macau’s attention. With all of the pressing social problems in Macau today and the enduring hypocrisies in the conduct and behavior of local authorities, the answer is no.
Much like traffic offences, Chiang only has so many “strikes” before he’s out. Given the trouble the ANM president has found himself in before, he would do well in future to choose his battles more wisely.
After all, he is the president of one of the few groups willing to take a public stand against the government on a wide range of issues.
Chiang knows that unlawful acts cannot go unpunished indefinitely, but the fact that he is willing to take these risks – and over an issue like heritage – is revealing of the extent that the New Macau president believes he is essential to the group. But if not, then why stand for the position in the first place?
No Comments