I refer to the letter Long Benalih: Negotiation, dialogue Samling's tradition .

Firstly, I did not interview only one person for the article. The article makes it clear that the Long Benali community is behind the blockade. Long Benali villagers say they refused to believe Kho Thien Seng, or ‘Sio', when he lied about Henneson Bujang accepting a bribe to take down the blockade.

Wouldn't it be hard going for one man to keep a timber blockade going, for two decades, against a trans-national logging giant, with backing from government officials and the police?

Secondly, the writer claims that the blockade is still going on because of ‘the company's ongoing efforts in trying to engage the community', and ‘if the company had been as aggressive as the article suggests...the flimsy blockade would most likely not still be present to this day'.

These claims appear illogical. If the company has been successful at establishing a noble tradition of ‘engagement and assistance', as she puts it, why has the Long Benali blockade remained standing? Why are there blockades against logging and oil palm plantation companies throughout Sarawak?

It takes sweat and tears, and sometimes blood, to keep the blockades going. Villagers take turns to stand in the sun at the blockades while other villagers farm and hunt to provide food.

Communities at blockades all over Sarawak, have said they face police action, teargas, beatings, arrests, and worse. The Long Benali blockade has been dismantled forcibly many times, according to the Long Benali villagers but they put up a new blockade within a day or two.

Thirdly, I agree that rural communities throughout Sarawak say they welcome ‘progress and improvement to their living standards', as the writer points out. If logging brings development - and not destruction, as these communities claim - then why have they put up blockades against development?

I suppose the expected answer might be the cliché offered by the Sarawak government and logging companies - these people are half-naked, they run around in the forest, they have no minds of their own, they are instigated by ‘white people'.

How many ‘white people' have been seen standing at the blockades? How many ‘white people' have the wondrous persuasive ability to keep communities manning blockades for 20 years?

Fourthly, I find the writer's declaration that loggers have ‘profound respect for the villagers' somewhat odd, when read together with national news reports that rural girls from Penan and other ethnic groups, have been raped by loggers. Samling has denied any knowledge of its workers being involved in these crimes.

Finally, the writer's protest that Kho Thien Seng, or ‘Sio', is not a Samling employee, raises more questions than answers. If Sio was not acting for Samling, why did the Long Benali people say he arrived and left by Samling helicopter? Why did he allegedly offer a large sum of money, RM22,000, to Henneson Bujang to take down the blockade?

Why did Sio try to bribe Nick Kelesau with another huge sum of money, to retract Nick's police report, that Nick suspected foul play in the death of his father, Long Kerong Chief Kelesau Naan? Kelesau Naan has filed a legal suit against Samling's logging on the community's land.

The Long Kerong villagers have alleged that Samling employees, surveyors from Long Siut, had threatened Long Kerong and Long Sait villagers with violence in July 2008. Tua Kampung Kelesau Naan disappeared three months later.

Sio must be an uncommonly generous man to allegedly offer large bribes to Henneson Bujang and Nick Kelesau, if he is using his own money.