M Bakri Musa repeats the standard imperialist rhetoric about the 'nature' and 'benefits' of globalisation, especially for developing countries in his article 'Globalisation - bogeyman of neocolonialism' (July 5).

I was an idealist once. Back in the early 1970s, in the wake of the hippie movement with its liberal ideals of peace, love, and music, the Civil Rights movement in the United States and the popular songs which followed about love, brotherhood and international understanding - I believed that pop and rock music and culture was the way forward for racial harmony and world peace.

With memories of the racial riots of May 13, 1969 fresh in my mind, scenes of Malay, Chinese, Indian and Eurasian music lovers, all dressed in the common uniform of jeans and long hair, together finding fellowship in pop and rock music, made me feel that it was a means for building bridges between the various races in our country and worldwide.

However, 30 years later, I can now see that the rock music and culture are very much a one-way street, flowing from the advanced imperialist countries to neo-colonial countries like Malaysia, with hardly any Malaysian rock and pop music and culture flowing the other way.

Fans of globalisation will argue that language is a major factor here and indeed it is in a world where English is the de facto international language, but that has not stopped films in many different languages winning international film festivals like the Cannes Film Festival.

Globalisation's fans will also argue that a lack of creativity, imagination and style is also a major factor in Malaysian popular music not making it in the world market.

However, American and European pub patrons have commented that the Malaysian musicians play just as well as musicians anywhere and that's true, but the local market demands they play covers of music mainly by their western counterparts.

Way back in 1994, with the economy riding high and me giddy with ' Malaysia Boleh! ', I believed it was time for record companies to promote Malaysian rock music overseas. However, a Malaysian musician, the late Leo Christopher Nunis said that record companies here were not interested in doing that but instead they prefer to promote Western pop and rock music here.

That's not surprising, since most record companies here are subsidiaries of Western-based multinational recording giants.

In 1990, a Canadian consultant commented that an American musician holding a concert here at the time was not popular in the United States and he was surprised by the fuss being made about him here.

Around Christmas last year, I visited a rock pub opposite the Asia Hotel in Bangkok and every Thai band which came on played covers of songs by Western bands. Later, a Japanese rock band came on and played their own music and when someone requested they play a Western number, the lead guitarist said, "I'm sorry, we only play our own music."

Well, that certainly was heartening but they are Japanese and can afford to assert themselves but the Thais had no option but to comply with requests by fellow Thais that they play this or that cover of Western songs.

That is a harbinger of what globalisation holds for developing, neo-colonial countries like Malaysia and Thailand.

The playing field is tilted and like the imperialist multinational recording giants which have the global sources of funds to promote even mediocre Western musicians, imperialist multinational banks, manufacturers, software houses, telecommunication giants, telephone companies, airlines, hotels and service providers have the funds to overwhelm their home-grown counterparts in developing, neo-colonial countries.

Globalisation is another form of imperialism and like its earlier form - colonialism - is a means for capitalists in the imperialist nations to exploit the land, labour, resources and markets of the developing, neo-colonial countries - made more efficient with the aid of modern information and communication technology, including the Internet.

Globalisation's apologists like the writer will argue that it enables typists in India and auto workers in Mexico to do the work of their American counterparts, claiming that it's a global 'great leveller' but a 'leveller' for whom, may I ask?

Indeed, it does enable capitalists in the imperialist countries to enjoy the benefits of arbitrage between respective labour costs in various countries and to make super profits off the cheapest labour.

Also, while the writer touts the example of Indian programmers working in the Silicon Valley to show that globalisation provides opportunities for programmers from poor countries, he seems to forget that after the end of World War II, West Indian, African, Turkish, Indian and Pakistani manual workers were in demand in Westren Europe to help rebuild their shattered economies - long before 'globalisation' became a fashionable term.

The founder and chief executive officer of an Indian software developer - himself an Indian - once told me over dinner that Indian programmers working in the United States are in the main intellectual slaves, so the writer should not make such a big deal about that despite some of the great Indian success stories over there.

Likewise, some of the earlier Indian and Pakistani immigrants to Britain and Europe have been great success stories but over a generation later, most still face limited opportunities, racial discrimination, and racial violence in their adopted lands, which is especially evident from the recent racial violence and riots in Oldham, Burnley and other towns of Northern England.

The writer says: "The services of many American corporations are also increasingly contracted out to the Third World. Phone inquires are answered not by Americans but by Indians in India who have been trained to speak and respond like Americans. They even assume typical American names like Debbie and Patty, and fully prepped in the minutiae of Americana so customers at the other end of the line think they are speaking to someone in Peoria, and not Poona."

So the American corporations call the shots, even to the extent of disguising the cultural and linguistic identities of their call centre agents even in their home countries, which is an extension of the racist argument that hiring Asian sales and marketing staff in the Western countries will adversely affect their business.

A racist argument against immigrants to Europe and North America is that they don't speak English and refuse to learn, but the African Americans speak excellent English and are the most Westernised of all immigrants - having lost their native language and culture - and yet they face the worst discrimination and still are the most disadvantaged, even worse than the Asians. So much for the universal language argument.

Back in the 1980s, an advertisement on the video system at the Sultan Abdul Aziz Shah airport promoting pleasure boats of a certain brand which were made in Malaysia, clearly avoided showing the faces and bodies of the workers making them, at most showing their hands.

On the other hand, it quite clearly showed American families sipping cocktails by a beach with their boats in the background. That made me feel that the boat manufacturer wanted to avoid giving the impression that the boats were made by Malaysian workers.

And by the way, back in the 1980s when I was working as a customer service engineer with a company which also had a post-production studio for dubbing the soundtrack to TV commercials, I asked someone from one of the advertising agencies why local TV commercials hardly featured Indians and she said something about their skin shining under the studio lights which was considered 'unacceptable'.

Further on the writer says: "Globalisation is the increasing integration of markets, economies and other institutions into one world standard. While many clamour to join this mainstream, just as many resist."

Which sounds no different from the argument that the British Empire allowed for the "integration of markets, economies and other institutions into one common standard" which is quite evident from the basically British standards and laws we still use - including the Internal Security Act (ISA), which makes me wonder whether the writer would have argued for Malaya remaining in the British Empire had he been writing back then.

Back in the days of colonialism there were relatively privileged colonial subjects who saw fit to collaborate with the imperial master by helping them exploit our own people for their (the opportunists') own material gain and to gain favour with the imperial master. They were called comprador s and anyone who has seen the film Noble House can see an example of the chief comprador in the fictitious trading house in Hong Kong, which is believed to be a parody of a well-known trading house which exists till today.

Today, apologists for globalisation (perhaps we should call them 'cyber- comprador s') try to take advantage of it for their own material gain.

The writer also states: "Globalisation is enthusiastically embraced by those steeped in the ways of the new economy."

Ah! The much-touted 'new economy' - I thought that term went out of fashion following the dotcom debacle, the effects of which are still being felt as dotcom companies continue disappearing one by one, while the Multimedia Super Corridor which was predicated on concepts of the 'new economy' is floundering while the latest buzzword has become the 'new, New Economy'. How about the 'new, new, new, new, new, new, new ..., New Economy'?

With regard to the much-touted argument that the Internet is a 'great leveller', a channel to "promote global peace and understanding", I've seen some of the most, vulgar racist comments traded in discussion lists and newsgroups on the Internet, apart from it being a popular vehicle for racist, neo-Nazi groups to spread their hate propaganda.

Also, like my earlier argument about the one-way traffic in popular commercial culture, only a mere handful of Malaysian Internet-based companies has been globally successful, while Internet-based commerce is mainly a one-way street.

At the end of the day, globalisation is imperialism in its latest manifestation and despite its use of the latest in information and communications technology, nothing much has otherwise changed since the days of colonialism.

Meanwhile, I would agree that the quality of service and professionalism of local banks and other service providers needs to be improved, but the answer is not to allow competition from their imperialist counterparts but rather for Malaysian regulators to wield a big stick to force them to provide good service and punish them if they don't.