Us Hongkongers love nothing more than to watch the powerful topple and fall, which is why the ongoing drama surrounding the crackdown of rampant illegal structures has been such a delectable soap opera. There is nothing more satisfying than watching senior government officials like Michael Suen or lawmakers like Chan Wai-yip admitting they have breached the very rules they were supposed to enforce in the various ‘enhancements’ they have made to their homes.

But can we take what we dish out? Apparently not. This is especially true of the feisty New Territories residents backed by the zealous Heung Yee Kuk, who have been adamantly pushing for an exemption from the crackdown of illegal structures on their village homes. I must say, from a PR perspective, these villagers are some of the most innovative spindoctors since Machiavelli. Remember their savvy protests against the demolishing of Choi Yuen Chuen? There is nothing like staging a march involving kowtowing through the bustling streets of Central and country feast cook-offs to illicit sympathy from ‘cityfolk’ in their quest to, as they explained, preserve their heritage and legacy. What genius.

In recent weeks, we’ve noticed that nothing unites the residents of the New Territories like a common enemy. That target has been the iron-clad Carrie Lam, Secretary for Development, known for her no-nonsense, swift management skills, who has been tasked with this illegal structure clean up. In a recent interview with China Daily, the chairman of the Ping Shan Rural Committee, Tsang Shu-wo, went as far as to say that these illegal structures (say, for instance, building an extra storey or two on top of a village house), are a ‘history of legacy’ and added: “The situation is similar to a man’s being restricted from marrying more than one wife. But back in the old days they were allowed to do so, so what are they going to do with all the extra wives under the new law, kill them all?”

It is an entertaining argument and an interesting analogy, as far as what residents of the New Territories believe. If you ask me, I would say Hong Kong may have given up too much of our heritage for the sake of modernisation. I miss the days when the KCR would pass through Sha Tin and the paddy fields and farmers with their buffaloes would be seen. Today, this idyllic vision has been replaced with high rises and shopping malls. But come on, we can’t deny that many residents willingly sold their lands to developers for a healthy profit, thereby allowing their ancestral halls to be torn down, their farms to be turned into container storages or junk yards (causing constant flooding along the way) and their buffalos released to fend for themselves (these poor beasts of burden were either hit by passing cars or rounded up to meet their inevitable death. Where were those protectors of ‘legacy’ when we needed them?)

And yet despite all this, people are up in arms because they cannot have their covered terraces, illegally extended balconies or a forth storey in what should really be a three-storey home. When it comes to breaking the law, why should people who live in villages have different standards than urban dwellers? A building hazard is a building hazard wherever you live. I think the remarkable preservation of the Tang Village in Lung Yeuk Tau near Fanling is a defiant sign of the Tang Clan’s proud ancestry. And I think if people think seriously about preserving their legacy, they should feed a stray buffalo, because these are the true sufferers of modernisation.

Leslie Chan