I think that there has been much misunderstanding and thus confusion over the staging of a sketch by MSA during the International Evening. Basically, those who criticized the sketch concentrated on two issues. One, whether the sketch was in fact a typical scene of Malaysia and two, whether it is morally right to rip-off the tourist.

I do not in the least question the typicality of the sketch. The sketch did potray to me an everyday scene in Malaysia. It was not totally divorced from the cartoons created by that increditbly perceptive Malaysian cartoonist and socio-political commentator Lat. Lat's distintively Malaysian humor is much loved by the Malaysian public. But the sketch obviously failed to match up to the political standards of Lat's cartoons.

It is at this point that I agree with the critics, that the sketch flirted completely with humor and consequently failed to add the vital and, may I add, obligatory political depth. Political commentary should have been its basis with humor touched on strategically to make the point more cogent. This would have pulled the sketch away from being just a mere comedy to a critical social commentary. It is here that the sketch failed, and failed miserably. As a side commetary, I think that the person who put the heading 'Comedy or Culture' to one of the letters needs educating i.e. that comedy is an important part of any culture and is not opposed to it.

However, perhaps this confusions can be further clarified, since all the critics are so concerned about what their "kiwi friends' would say, by referring to the introductory remarks made by the compere of the International Evening—Lindy Cassidy. I know of no other 'kiwi friend" who is more concerned and dedicated to the workers struggle in Malaysia than Lindy Cassidy. And she, as a tourist, has actually so journed in Malaysia for a few months and has even enjoyed Lat's cartoons. She in introducing the sketch to the international audience said that it was "a very witty sketch potraying a typical Malaysian scene". What other "kiwi friend" has more qualifications to say this—I ask you?

And now we come to the question about the tourist. The attitudes of the critics towards 'ripping them off would have earned them commendation medals and a bonus pal on the back from the National Tourist Board of Malaysia. The tourist industry is a cancer worm to any culture. Look at Bali, Fiji, Hawaii etc. Cultures ire diluted, bastardized and sold in the open market like any other commodity. Selling the very soul of ones country for the sake of foreign exchange is to me the lowest level of moral debasement and economic dependence upon the capitalist system. This is precisely why progressive countries like China do not encourage the tourist industry despite their needs for foreign exchange.

I, therefore, don't see why we should protect these cultural vultures who come with their glistering, jutting cameras,—the genitals with which they rape our cultures. I would strongly recommend that our hawkers instead of metaphorically cutting the tourists throat translate that into literal action. If the British syphon off 220 million pounds every year from my country, I don't see why the Char Koay Teow hawker should not charge a thousand pounds for a single bowl of that delightful dish.

May I further suggest that the concern and preoccupation on the part of the critics as regards what their "kiwi friends' will say or think of Malaysians is reflective of the colonial hangover that grips their minds. I would strongly recommend a traditional cure—a vigorous cerebral massage with Minyak Angjn and a quick lobotomy by a Bomoh.