Kapok: The spire hiding the temple

While presiding over a regular meeting of the Cultural Heritage Council last week, Alexis Tam, the secretary for Social Affairs and Culture, grabbed the opportunity of the genuine emotion he had felt at seeing part of the Notre-Dame Cathedral engulfed by flames to reflect on the measures needed to ensure that such a dramatic incident would be prevented in Macao. His emphasis, as reported by the press, was three-fold: strengthen communication with the people or organizations managing heritage buildings, continue to educate the public on the safeguarding of cultural heritage, and keep carrying out inspections under the supervision of the Cultural Affairs Bureau while enrolling the public at large on the matter by allowing citizens to easily notify the Bureau on the actual state of preservation of these buildings.

As a Parisian, I had always assumed that the Notre-Dame Cathedral was indestructible. After all, it had been erected in the mid-12th century and survived several invasions and civil wars. Beside the shocking images and the realization that what once was would be no more or at least will be different, it came as a relief that for the world over, Notre-Dame de Paris somehow represented part of this universal heritage going beyond the category of the most visited places in the French capital city.

A loss for the Parisians became a loss for humanity, far beyond France’s borders. The erection of such an edifice had a political dimension though: medieval historian Patrick Boucheron reminded us that the Cathedral was “a field of force, a metaphor for reason” which power was derived from its “proximity with the King of France”. Reconstruction was thus bound to be political as well: French President Emmanuel Macron immediately pledged to restore the Cathedral within five years and solemnly declared that it would be a collective effort. Without the scars? Or are scars and failures not part of history too? As Boucheron remarked, “if we were in medieval France, we would consider the latest techniques, the most modern ones so as to build the Cathedral again, only better”.

Although Mr Tam is thus to be praised for making the connection between what had just happened in France and what could occur in Macao — and try to put in place prevention measures rather than costly and traumatic cures — one can also suspect a pretty blunt political usage behind his take: if it can happen in a city like Paris and for a building like Notre-Dame, then everything is possible.

The irony is that it is under Mr Tam’s watch that the Buddhist pavilion of the A-Ma Temple caught fire in February 2016 — a previous fire had gutted the same pavilion back in 1988. At the time, a short circuit in the electrical installations was blamed, but the damage caused was considered not “irreversible” even though what was supposed to take just a few weeks to restore ultimately became more than a year. Also, it was revealed that a member of the association managing the temple had first tried to take care of the issue by himself instead of immediately calling the fire services, that eventually intervened promptly and successfully.

Moreover, it is in this very Cultural Heritage Council that the opacity of the measures designed by the government to protect historical buildings has been denounced time and time again. More recently regarding the Lai Chi Vun shipyards, and before that precisely regarding the overall policies supposed to be in place to protect Macao’s unique heritage. In 2017, a decision by the UNESCO World Heritage Committee read like this: “[the committee] regrets the lack of progress with the completion of the Management Plan [a plan to safeguard and manage the Historic Center of Macao], which was due for submission by 1 February 2015”. A new deadline was fixed for December 1, 2018 and thus in early 2018 a two-month public consultation was organized, results were compiled (but not disclosed), transmitted to the central authorities by September and supposedly sent to the UNESCO.

What has become of the Plan Mr Tam? Let’s not forget that the Ruins of Saint Paul’s became Macao’s main landmark precisely because of fire… and negligence!

Published in Macau Daily Times on April 26, 2019

Kapok: The art of euphemism

Macao has a bit more to offer than an unlucky hand at a Baccarat table on the Cotai Strip. By unlucky, I mean that although about 2/3rds of Macao’s GDP is derived from gambling, this constitutes about 4/5ths of the government’s revenues thanks to an effective tax rate of 39 percent on gross gaming proceeds: players have to lose if Macao is to win. Thus, by a bit more, I imply something that has little to do with money. First euphemism.

Heritage is what comes to mind, and a simple glance at the UNESCO World Heritage entry for our SAR — listed since July 2005 — reminds us of Macau’s unique character: “With its historic street, residential, religious and public Portuguese and Chinese buildings, the historic centre of Macao provides a unique testimony to the meeting of aesthetic, cultural, architectural and technological influences from East and West. […] It bears witness to one of the earliest and longest- lasting encounters between China and the West, based on the vibrancy of international trade.”

Yet, extensive descriptions of these “places of memory” fail to indicate that “vibrancy” comes in many guises: most of the buildings were somehow built thanks to riches derived from opium trafficking and the horrendous coolie trade, and of course from gambling activities. Lou Kau, the nineteenth-century merchant whose mansion remains part of the heritage centre, made his fortune selling opium and operating gambling dens. If the traditional Fantan game was the main deal, Lou Kau also operated the vaeseng lottery, largely based on the results of the Qing Imperial Civil Service Examinations. Opium consumption and gambling were seen by Chinese reformers and nationalists as the two vices putting China to its knees, and gambling was ultimately banned in Guangdong, pushing Lou Kau to commit suicide in 1906 because of the debts he had incurred across the border. Second euphemism.

Let’s face it, these heritage landmarks, a crucial element in the government’s supposed diversification efforts, could be better managed. This is what Sharif Shams Imon, who oversees the Heritage Management Programme at the Institute for Tourism Studies, hints at in the very interesting interview with Business Daily this week. For him, if the government has failed to provide a Protection and Management Plan, despite UNESCO’s many requests, it is simply because “the government has to go through certain procedures and it has its own political environment.” The UNESCO admonition, ever since the first concerns with the Guia lighthouse just one year after the listing in 2005, is a warning and could ultimately lead to a simple de-listing. So, the government is not doing what it should and certainly not hiring people who could help do what it should — another remark of Prof. Imon. Unfortunate delay? Third euphemism.

And then, Prof. Imon praises the role of civil society: “civic society, and intellectuals and professionals, should act like a check and balance body. So if there is a thing that the government could do in a better way, they raise their voice and talk about it.” This is all great, and exactly what the New Macau Association (NMA) — they must feel lonely! Fourth euphemism — did in December 2016 by going to the UNESCO headquarters in Paris to argue that the “visual integrity” of the Guia Hill and Monte Fortress was being threatened by the height of construction projects authorised in Calçada do Gaio, an integral part of the buffer zones defined around the World Heritage sites. This is what ultimately led the Macao government to send in March 2017 “a report on the state of conservation” that had been requested by the UNESCO early in 2015!

Commenting on the report, UNESCO is showing signs of impatience: on top of recommending Heritage Impact Assessments be carried out for all new major construction projects, it is asking for its own pre-emptive review of the Master Plan for New Reclamation currently being drafted.

Published in Macau Daily Times, June 9, 2017.