It’s a wonderful tourism concept to promote Macau as the perfect place for a heavenly break but if we told tourists the whole truth about the city, would it be economic suicide?

Many of us, for whatever reason, can be “economical with the truth” by withholding material facts. In a court of law, witnesses swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. In the more mundane world of tourism, is telling the whole truth such a good thing?

Should Macau make its millions of tourists more aware of its negative features, rather than presenting only its best side, so they can gain a better idea of what to expect when they visit or try to understand Macau?

The city enjoys brand-good shopping malls, gift shops, gaming to satisfy any preference, heritage sights and centres, entertainment, upmarket hotels, international cuisine, jewellery and fashion shops to suit all tastes, grand prix races, and the bright and soft lights that add romance to the brochures.

Macau has an enviably wide range of museums, from fire engines and military equipment to wine and racing cars. It has a plethora of churches and a clutch of old-style Portuguese-era buildings.

The city is not without its drawbacks. There are serious air quality problems caused by pollution, downtown flooding almost every year, environmental degradation, roads dug up, shoulder-to-shoulder crowds everywhere, high-rise buildings that dwarf the slums all around them, narrow sunless streets, desperate poverty, human trafficking, petty crime, pick-pocketing, loan sharking, in-your-face prostitution, gambling addiction and grave social problems.

To cap it all, the monthly tourist population outnumbers residents by a factor of three, so a tourist is actually rather unlikely to see Macau as much as just other tourists.

Full-colour fantasy

The breezy, open spaces in tourism brochures, the calm sea or the crest of a wave, belie the reality of massive overcrowding, a concrete jungle, inescapable noise and luminosity everywhere. If you do not visit during a few days in June, you are unlikely to see the bright blue sky and white fluffy clouds plastered on the publicity posters.

Tourists could be forgiven for thinking that Macau has endless empty beaches. In reality, there are only a couple, and they are often nightmarishly packed and noisy. The sea is brown and scientific reports indicate that the Pearl River estuary is a marine “dead zone”.

The brochures will not tell tourists about the high-decibel restaurants, the appalling taxi drivers – if they can find a taxi at all – or the stinking streets, the screaming hordes at the ferry terminal, the thronging thousands at St Paul’s ruins, or the casinos at every turn. They fail to let them know about the clogged traffic system or the choking, burning exhaust fumes in the city streets.

Most tourists will find that out for themselves, when it hits them in the face.

But wait. Tourists are keen to relax, to have a flutter at the casinos. They want to take a break “away from it all” and leave their troubles behind.

Why would we tell or show them about Macau’s shadowy side, the side of the city that nobody likes? Why spoil their holiday? The city’s downside is for social researchers, politicians and journalists to ponder.

Important questions

All cities have a dark side, right? If you publicise what is wrong with Macau, it would be economic suicide, reputation self-destruction and political inanity all in one. Why should a city condemn itself? What exactly is in the public interest here? Actually, who is the “public” in the “public interest”?

Indeed, if you accentuate the seamy, salacious side of Macau, will that not attract the very people you do not want to visit; the sex tourists and others keen to turn a quick trick from exploitation and pandering to more base human drives?

And what if – as actually happens – something goes wrong? For example, if tourists are ripped off, left without guides, transport or accommodation, or forced to buy goods from shady shops? Does not Macau suffer when such stories leak out? Is Macau culpable for not having warned tourists in advance?

Macau is a wonderful example of the Chinese concern for “face”, with different faces being turned to different groups.

Should one put on a bright face that conceals Macau’s dark underside? Should one simply stay silent and allow tourists to enjoy their escapism into Macau’s tacky materialism? Small wonder, perhaps, that Chinese culture is rich in masks.

Is it really acceptable to say nothing about the downside of Macau? Is such silence ethical or does it breach the responsibility for telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

By Keith Morrison

Author and educationist – kmorrison.iium@gmail.com