Coexistence of Tradition and Modernity for Cultural Sustainability: The Teochew Opera Approach in Malaysia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a relevant proposal that contributes to a better connection with multi-georeferenced audiences, contextualized in different cultures. It is a significant contribution to the understanding of performances, discussed here in their genesis and revitalization in a transposed equation—migrant cultures that regulate socio-artistic enrichment and broaden the range of sustainable aesthetic experiences.

It would enrich the article if we had access to links and watched at least video excerpts. Specifically, to visually understand more directly the differences between the original/traditional version (China) and the versions currently developed (Malaysia) – which were the subject of observation and study.

Author Response

Comment 1 :

This is a relevant proposal that contributes to a better connection with multi-georeferenced audiences, contextualized in different cultures. It is a significant contribution to the understanding of performances, discussed here in their genesis and revitalization in a transposed equation—migrant cultures that regulate socio-artistic enrichment and broaden the range of sustainable aesthetic experiences.

It would enrich the article if we had access to links and watched at least video excerpts. Specifically, to visually understand more directly the differences between the original/traditional version (China) and the versions currently developed (Malaysia) – which were the subject of observation and study.

Response 1:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. As videos cannot be uploaded within the paper, I have now incorporated more figures and analysis into the revised version to better reflect the distinct performance characteristics of Teochew opera within sacred and secular contexts.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The article focused on Teochew opera in Malaysia offers an important contribution to the discourse on intangible cultural heritage, particularly in terms of recognizing its cultural significance and addressing the challenges of safeguarding it in a contemporary context, especially with regard to sustainability of traditional arts, cultural tourism, education, and the preservation of traditional social, cultural, and aesthetic values.

 

2. The paper is well-structured, however, a clearer definition of the main hypothesis and the research question would be highly beneficial.

 

3. This study grounds its methodology and objectives in the theory and practice of cultural resilience. Accordingly, it is essential to identify and reference recent scholarly works and empirical research that explore the notion of cultural resilience within the domain of intangible cultural heritage (ICH). Contextualize this research in comparison to other relevant studies on Teochew Opera in Malaysia by highlighting its unique contribution and the scholarly gap it seeks to address, particularly in relation to the concepts of cultural resilience and sustainability.

Moreover, it is important to delineate the conceptual distinction between sustainability and resilience, since these terms are interrelated but not synonymous, and to critically assess how this distinction is reflected in the findings of the present study—particularly in terms of outlining the dual nature of Teochew opera as both a sacred ritual and secular entertainment.

 

4. It is particularly important to clearly highlight how this study advances knowledge in the given topic area.

 

5. The objective (b) stated in lines 118–120, which refers to “the strategies practitioners employ to balance tradition and modernity”, is not clearly implemented in the paper. It remains unclear which specific strategies are ultimately examined in the results section of the study. Likewise, the results of the conducted interviews are neither clearly presented nor sufficiently documented in the results section or the discussion - It would be helpful to summarize the interview results in the form of a table.

 

6. Additional photographs of Teochew Opera scenes and performers would be beneficial and would enhance both the clarity and significance of the research.

 

7. Pay special attention to the implementation and critical analysis of UNESCO’s "5Cs" strategic objectives (Credibility, Conservation, Capacity-building, Communication, and Communities), with particular emphasis on “Communities”. This should be especially examined in the context of Teochew Opera in Kuala Lumpur (cultural resilience aspects, in contrast to Penang), focusing on its cultural, multicultural, and intercultural transformation, as well as its adaptation to modern influences within the broader framework of cultural resilience.

 

8. The comparison between Teochew Opera in Penang and Kuala Lumpur is not sufficiently emphasized (perhaps include illustrations that document these two examples).

 

9. Explain in more detail in the Results section: Penang cultural policy, how the measures for safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) function with regard to Teochew Opera in Malaysia, regarding dual nature in the contemporary era, which encompasses both the ritual context and the secular performance context. Discuss how this duality reflects on the resilience of national, ethnic, and cultural identity.

Furthermore, analyze how differences in symbolic and aesthetic meanings are reconciled and interpreted, and what risks the introduction of interculturality and modernization pose to Teochew Opera. Does this process in any way threaten the centuries-old traditions of the Chinese community in Malaysia, given that elements such as costuming, classic scripts, and performance techniques have remained unchanged? Or do these elements resiliently undergo transformation?

 

10. Teochew Opera continues to attract younger generations today, both among performers and audiences. What are the aspects of its safeguarding in terms of educational programs within schools and other educational institutions, considering that it is intangible, dynamic, and living cultural heritage?

 

11. The paper highlights the duality of the sacred and the secular in Teochew Opera as the foundation of its resilience in the contemporary era. However, there are also risk factors that need to be specifically identified, perhaps presented in the form of a risk table, to provide a more in-depth and documented analysis.

Author Response

Comment 1:

The article focused on Teochew opera in Malaysia offers an important contribution to the discourse on intangible cultural heritage, particularly in terms of recognizing its cultural significance and addressing the challenges of safeguarding it in a contemporary context, especially with regard to sustainability of traditional arts, cultural tourism, education, and the preservation of traditional social, cultural, and aesthetic values.

Response 1:

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions to the paper.

Comment 2:

A clearer definition of the main hypothesis and the research question would be highly beneficial.

Response 2:

Revised, please refer to p.3 (line 107-118).

Thank you for your helpful comments. In response to your suggestion, I have revised the introductory section to present both the main research question and the central hypothesis more clearly. Specifically, the research now explicitly asks how the sustainable development of Teochew opera is achieved in Malaysia through community-based practices, and what enables its continued relevance in a pluralistic cultural landscape.

Correspondingly, I have articulated the hypothesis as follows: the sustainability of Teochew opera depends on strategies developed within the Chinese Malaysian community that negotiate between tradition and modernity, ensuring cultural continuity through adaptation, reinterpretation, and intergenerational transmission. I hope this revision provides a clearer conceptual foundation and addresses your recommendation effectively.

Comment 3:

This study grounds its methodology and objectives in the theory and practice of cultural resilience. Accordingly, it is essential to identify and reference recent scholarly works and empirical research that explore the notion of cultural resilience within the domain of intangible cultural heritage (ICH). Contextualize this research in comparison to other relevant studies on Teochew Opera in Malaysia by highlighting its unique contribution and the scholarly gap it seeks to address, particularly in relation to the concepts of cultural resilience and sustainability. 

Moreover, it is important to delineate the conceptual distinction between sustainability and resilience, since these terms are interrelated but not synonymous, and to critically assess how this distinction is reflected in the findings of the present study—particularly in terms of outlining the dual nature of Teochew opera as both a sacred ritual and secular entertainment.

Response 3:

Revised, please refer to pp. 2-3 (line 54-105).

Thank you for your helpful comments. In response, I have revised Sections 1.2 (Literature Review) and 1.3 (Problem Statement) to more clearly define and differentiate the concepts of cultural resilience (the capacity to adapt while preserving identity) and sustainability (long-term cultural viability), which were previously underdeveloped. Specifically, I now refer to key scholars such as Hafstein and Tavares to better contextualise resilience within the safeguarding of intangible cultural heritage (ICH). These sources allow the study to engage critically with global debates on heritage governance and the limitations of state-centric models of preservation.

In addition, I have clarified how Teochew opera in Malaysia offers a distinctive case: unlike state-driven heritage practices seen in China, the Malaysian context reveals how cultural resilience can emerge through community-based, decentralised responses. This contrast not only addresses the research gap concerning minority-led ICH sustainability but also strengthens the study’s conceptual framing.

Finally, the revised text now more explicitly links the dual structure of sacred and secular performance to different expressions of resilience. Ritual contexts embody symbolic continuity, while secular adaptations reflect strategic innovation. This theoretical clarification enhances the alignment between the study’s conceptual framework and empirical findings.

Comment 4:

It is particularly important to clearly highlight how this study advances knowledge in the given topic area.

Response 4:

Revised, please refer to p. 3 (line 119-126).

The research advances current scholarship by shifting the analytical focus from state-led heritage preservation—commonly studied in the Chinese context—to a bottom-up, community-driven model observed in Malaysia’s diasporic and multicultural setting. This empirical focus allows the study to illuminate how Teochew opera has managed to persist and evolve despite the absence of formal ICH recognition or centralised policy intervention. By documenting the grassroots mechanisms of adaptation, reinterpretation, and intergenerational transmission, the study contributes to broader debates on cultural resilience and sustainability. It also provides a framework potentially applicable to other traditional art forms facing similar pressures in plural, globalised societies.

Comment 5:

The objective (b) stated in lines 118–120, which refers to “the strategies practitioners employ to balance tradition and modernity”, is not clearly implemented in the paper. It remains unclear which specific strategies are ultimately examined in the results section of the study. Likewise, the results of the conducted interviews are neither clearly presented nor sufficiently documented in the results section or the discussion - It would be helpful to summarize the interview results in the form of a table.

Response 5:

Revised, please refer to p. 3 (line 119-126), p. 9, 12, 15 (Table 5, 7-8).

The research objective has been revised to critically analyse how Teochew opera persists and transforms in the absence of official heritage recognition. It offers a sustainable approach that may be applied to other traditional art forms facing similar pressures in globalised and multi-ethnic settings.

Furthermore, the interviews presented in the results section have been restructured into a table format to present the data and coding more clearly.

Comment 6:

Additional photographs of Teochew Opera scenes and performers would be beneficial and would enhance both the clarity and significance of the research.

Response 6:

Revised, please refer to p. 7, 10, 14, 17, 19, 20-21 (Figure 2, 4, 7-9, 12-15).

Thank you for your helpful comments. Figures have been added to highlight the distinctive performance characteristics of Teochew opera across different contexts (sacred and secular).

Comment 7:

Revised, please refer to p. 6-26.

Pay special attention to the implementation and critical analysis of UNESCO’s "5Cs" strategic objectives (Credibility, Conservation, Capacity-building, Communication, and Communities), with particular emphasis on “Communities”. This should be especially examined in the context of Teochew Opera in Kuala Lumpur (cultural resilience aspects, in contrast to Penang), focusing on its cultural, multicultural, and intercultural transformation, as well as its adaptation to modern influences within the broader framework of cultural resilience.

Response 7:

Thank you for your most valuable suggestions. The revised “3. Results” and “4. Discussion” sections now place greater emphasis on the distinctive characteristics of Teochew opera across different contexts, alongside approaches (policy, community) to its practice, resilience, and sustainability.

Indeed, the focus of this paper is not the comparison of Teochew opera in Kuala Lumpur and Penang, but rather an examination of its sustained practice within Malaysia, with these two sites serving as representative locations.

Although Kuala Lumpur, as the capital, benefits from greater policy support enabling more public performances of Teochew opera in “modernised” venues (cultural festivals, theatres), Penang relies primarily on “traditional” performances sustained within the Chinese community. This does not imply Kuala Lumpur lacks traditional performances or that Penang lacks modernised ones.

Comment 8:

The comparison between Teochew Opera in Penang and Kuala Lumpur is not sufficiently emphasized (perhaps include illustrations that document these two examples).

Response 8:

Revised. For details, please refer to the amended sections mentioned in no. 5-6 of this list.

Comment 9:

Explain in more detail in the Results section: Penang cultural policy, how the measures for safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) function with regard to Teochew Opera in Malaysia, regarding dual nature in the contemporary era, which encompasses both the ritual context and the secular performance context. Discuss how this duality reflects on the resilience of national, ethnic, and cultural identity.

Furthermore, analyze how differences in symbolic and aesthetic meanings are reconciled and interpreted, and what risks the introduction of interculturality and modernization pose to Teochew Opera. Does this process in any way threaten the centuries-old traditions of the Chinese community in Malaysia, given that elements such as costuming, classic scripts, and performance techniques have remained unchanged? Or do these elements resiliently undergo transformation?

Response 9:

Revised, please refer to p. 6-26, 24-25 (line 570-582).

Relevant analysis is added in the Results and Discussion section. In fact, Malaysia's cultural policies (such as the Cultural Development Policy and ICH List) do not directly propose how to protect Teochew opera, as it has not yet been officially recognised as intangible cultural heritage in Malaysia. However, practitioners of Teochew opera have drawn upon certain protective approaches already implemented for recognised Chinese cultural heritage. These form the foundation for Teochew opera's sustainable development and future application for official ICH listing. 

The paper has emphasised the duality of Teochew opera in Malaysia: on the one hand, its preservation within the Malaysian Chinese community through spontaneous, internally driven efforts to maintain traditions in rituals; on the other, the Malaysian government's inclusive multicultural policies have provided a more modern performance platform, enabling its continuous adaptation and relevance to contemporary society.

Moreover, the paper has added the risks and challenges posed to Teochew opera by cross-cultural influences and modernisation processes, as recommended. It must be emphasised that Teochew opera is not unchanging. Although within sacred contexts (rituals) it largely preserves traditions in a static, unchanged form (costumes, scripts, music, performance elements), yet within secular contexts (multicultural exchange settings) it continues to draw upon elements from other cultures. Practitioners, while preserving its essential traditions, continually innovate and transform it.

Comment 10:

Teochew Opera continues to attract younger generations today, both among performers and audiences. What are the aspects of its safeguarding in terms of educational programs within schools and other educational institutions, considering that it is intangible, dynamic, and living cultural heritage?

Response 10:

Revised, please refer to p. 26 (line 618-627).

Embedding Teochew opera into the national education system would significantly strengthen its transmission. Primary and secondary schools could host co-curricular activities or arts appreciation classes featuring Chinese opera, supported by age-appropriate learning materials. Meanwhile, universities could develop elective courses or research-based modules within performing arts or cultural heritage programmes. These initiatives would expose students from different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds to Teochew opera, fostering intercultural respect while ensuring broader generational reach. Collaboration with the Ministry of Education and local school councils would be essential to realise these efforts in a sustainable and inclusive manner.

Comment 11:

The paper highlights the duality of the sacred and the secular in Teochew Opera as the foundation of its resilience in the contemporary era. However, there are also risk factors that need to be specifically identified, perhaps presented in the form of a risk table, to provide a more in-depth and documented analysis.

Response 11:

Revised, please refer to pp. 24-25 (Table 11).

Risks of sustainability for Teochew opera have been put forward in a table according to the recommendations.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) bring the theme of viability of traditional Chinese minority Teochew Opera in Malaysia with an original ethnographic and cultural anthropological view based on a year-long observance at the field. The main ideas, such as the significance of the Opera to its bearers today, the changes it has gone through until today and the possibilities for its safeguarding in contemporary time are clear, although theoretical basis and discussion need to be improved. With editing as suggested in this review, I recommend its publishing as it would be a significant contribution to the discussion on intangible cultural heritage (ICH) in present time, ways of safeguarding minority ICH and recent challenges its bearers face in order to transmit their knowledge and skills to younger generations.

So, the introductory part which should rely on more sources is lacking, as well as the discussion that needs to bring more details to the reader. As for literature, there has been a great deal of (mainly Western) literature that critically viewed the whole idea od ICH listing within the framework of the 2003 Convention and its launch, as well as state governance of traditions, minorities vs. more powerful/majority nations and Indigenous issues, challenges of safeguarding today etc. Some names are V. Hafstein. B. Kirschenblatt-Gimblett, N. Akagawa and L. Smith, and there are others. Also, there are significant theoretical overviews of the subtheme of resilience and ICH, e.g. see Tawares et al., 2021. The authors should add them to the theoretical basis and go a bit deeper into the relevant issues for this case of Teochew Opera. As for the discussion, the author(s) should more clearly and in depth explain the current state, then problems and then provide the solutions to those issues, as well as clearly mention the questions that still remain open (e.g. problems of motivating younger generations etc.). Voices of the bearers should be more clear throughout the text, as it is not sure whether the author(s) suggest the solutions with the agreement of the Opera bearers or is it only their expert opinion. This is extremely important from the ethical point of view when dealing with and writing about any ICH element, such as this opera is. Besides informed consent, there is the issue when proposing measures to safeguard the tradition, it should be done with the utmost care towards the people and their expectations, wishes and possibilities. The authors would make it a bit more clear in the text.

Here are some details also that need clarification:

• line 55 pointed outed - pointed out
• lines 56-57 - When did China listed the Teochew Opera and how? Does this listing contain the mention of the Opera in Malaysia as those are two different states? Is the Opera also protected in Malaysia and how (what is the national procedure, document, list)?
• line 70 - Vital roles in what? In sustaining the practice? In making it viable (relevant for today's cultural context)?
• line 88 - please explain what are clan associations in a footnote or in the text
• line 94 - may I suggest: "...to contemporary and local sensibilities."
• line 99 remarkably - maybe "still unexplored..." And also, according to the author'(s) opinion, what might be the reasons of this "underexplorerdness"? Does it say something about lack of interest in minority themes in Malaysia or maybe, lack of interest of Chinese researchers in diaspora themes?
• line 150 - it is not the "opera" which navigates but "the holders of the Opera navigate..."
• lines 248-49 - "Each... play is..." Not "plays".
• line 340 - the salary for the performers needs more explanation: how it affects the holders (are they more proud of their tradition when supported?, later you mention they are not that keen on performing - try to discuss more on their feelings and this effect of national funding); the performance: do representatives of the (local, national) government come to see the performance, what is the strata of the audience? A bit clearer explanation is needed on how Chinese minority differently experiences the Opera than the Malaysian audience. Are tourists mainly from Asia, or are there Westerners, and how they all perceive the various Opera performances; sacred and secular? Do tourists have access to the sacred opera performance?
• line 358 - where are the subtitles provided, on stage screen, printed on the paper, online?
• line 370 classroom-based - how this teaching and learning is done, where does it take place (in the Institute, Centre, public schools?), what is the Malaysian state policy on ICH and education - the whole subtheme of education needs a bit more explaining
• line 373 - what is Guangdong T. Opera Institute? How is it different from the Centre? Who has opened and why both of those institutions? Who runs them now? Who oversees their work, finances etc.? Something was said about fund raising, but it needs a clearer overview.
• line 463 - what does Malaysian multiculturalism policy consists of? How is it implemented and by whom - directly from the government institutions or via local offices etc.? Please explain shortly in the text.
• Figure 6 - in description add the year of establishment (2022?).

Author Response

Comment 1:

The introductory part which should rely on more sources is lacking, as well as the discussion that needs to bring more details to the reader. Also, there are significant theoretical overviews of the subtheme of resilience and ICH. The authors should add them to the theoretical basis and go a bit deeper into the relevant issues for this case of Teochew Opera.

As for the discussion, the author(s) should more clearly and in depth explain the current state, then problems and then provide the solutions to those issues, as well as clearly mention the questions that still remain open (e.g. problems of motivating younger generations etc.). Voices of the bearers should be more clear throughout the text, as it is not sure whether the author(s) suggest the solutions with the agreement of the Opera bearers or is it only their expert opinion. This is extremely important from the ethical point of view when dealing with and writing about any ICH element, such as this opera is. Besides informed consent, there is the issue when proposing measures to safeguard the tradition, it should be done with the utmost care towards the people and their expectations, wishes and possibilities. The authors would make it a bit more clear in the text.

Response 1:

Revised, please refer to p. 2 (line 54-81), pp. 13-21, 24-26.

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. In response, we have significantly strengthened the introduction by incorporating key critical literature on the 2003 Convention, state governance of traditions, and safeguarding challenges, including works by Hafstein (2008) and others. We also included recent research on resilience and ICH, such as Tawares et al. (2021), to deepen the theoretical framework (refer to section 1.2). The discussion section has been restructured to clearly outline the current state of Teochew opera, identify specific challenges and risk (refer to section 4.1), and present feasible solutions (refer to section 4.2). We have explicitly distinguished which suggestions come from the bearers and which are our interpretations, and we integrated direct voices of the bearers throughout the text to ensure their agency is foregrounded. Ethical considerations, including informed consent and alignment with bearer expectations, have been clarified to reinforce the integrity of the safeguarding proposals.

Comment 2:

line 55 pointed outed - pointed out

Response 2:

Due to content adjustments, this was deleted and therefore requires no modification.

Comment 3:

lines 56-57 - When did China listed the Teochew Opera and how? Does this listing contain the mention of the Opera in Malaysia as those are two different states? Is the Opera also protected in Malaysia and how (what is the national procedure, document, list)?

Response 3:

Revised, please refer to p. 2 (line 74-81), p. 13 (line 338-364).

Thank you for your thoughtful questions, these ambiguous statements have been amended in the paper.. Teochew opera was officially inscribed as a National Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) of China in 2006, as part of the first batch of entries recognised under the national-level ICH safeguarding framework. This listing pertains solely to China and does not include references to Teochew opera practices in Malaysia, as the two are distinct sovereign states with separate cultural heritage systems.

In Malaysia, Teochew opera has not yet been formally recognised as an item of national intangible cultural heritage. There is currently no specific national procedure, document, or policy that directly addresses the protection or preservation of Teochew opera. However, broader cultural frameworks such as the National Development Policy (1991) and the Malaysian National Cultural Policy (DAKEN 2021) provide general support for the development of Chinese cultural traditions, including opera. Protection and promotion efforts for Teochew opera in Malaysia therefore operate largely through community-based initiatives rather than through formal state recognition or intervention.

Comment 4:

line 70 - Vital roles in what? In sustaining the practice? In making it viable (relevant for today's cultural context)?

Response 4:

In Malaysia, the support of the Chinese community plays a pivotal role in sustaining the traditional performance of Teochew opera. This is because they continue to maintain the tradition of presenting Teochew opera during traditional rituals or festivals. This is not an officially-led initiative, but rather one organised spontaneously within the community.

Comment 5:

line 88 - please explain what are clan associations in a footnote or in the text

Response 5:

Revised, please refer to p.4 (line 153-154).

Such as the Penang Teochew Association, the Kuala Lumpur Teochew Federation, as well as the Kwun Yin Temple and the Xuantian God Temple

Comment 6:

line 94 - may I suggest: "...to contemporary and local sensibilities."

Response 6:

Revised, please refer to pp. 2-3 (line 83-105).

Thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions.  As the “1.3 Problem Statement” section has been revised, this sentence has been omitted.

Comment 7:

line 99 remarkably - maybe "still unexplored..." And also, according to the author'(s) opinion, what might be the reasons of this "underexplorerdness"? Does it say something about lack of interest in minority themes in Malaysia or maybe, lack of interest of Chinese researchers in diaspora themes?

Response 7:

Revised, please refer to p.3 (line 96-105).

Revised as suggested. Scholarly attention to such localised adaptations remains limited. Existing literature tends to focus on the opera’s historical development in China or its general diasporic presence, with scant analysis of how Malaysia’s multicultural context shapes its evolving performance practices and sociocultural meanings. While community-led initiatives are central to the opera’s endurance, their role in enacting cultural resilience and sustainability has received insufficient critical attention. Unlike state-mediated preservation in China, Teochew opera in Malaysia survives through decentralised, context-responsive practices grounded in everyday life. These reflect resilience—the capacity to adapt while preserving identity—and sustainability, defined as long-term cultural viability.

As for the reasons behind this underexplored status, I believe it stems from a combination of factors. On the one hand, as you suggested, national cultural policies in Malaysia have historically prioritised the development and protection of Malay cultural heritage, which has, to some extent, led to the marginalisation of minority cultural forms. On the other hand, Teochew opera has not yet been officially recognised as part of Malaysia’s national intangible cultural heritage. Compared to other Chinese cultural practices that have received such recognition—such as lion dance and the 24 Festival Drums—Teochew opera has had limited access to funding and institutional support, which has in turn contributed to its relatively low visibility in academic research.

Comment 8:

line 150 - it is not the "opera" which navigates but "the holders of the Opera navigate..."

Response 8:

Revised, please refer to p. 3 (line 139).

Comment 9:

lines 248-49 - "Each... play is..." Not "plays".

Response 9:

Revised, please refer to p. 8 (line 249).

Comment 10:

line 340 - the salary for the performers needs more explanation: how it affects the holders (are they more proud of their tradition when supported?, later you mention they are not that keen on performing - try to discuss more on their feelings and this effect of national funding); the performance: do representatives of the (local, national) government come to see the performance, what is the strata of the audience? A bit clearer explanation is needed on how Chinese minority differently experiences the Opera than the Malaysian audience. Are tourists mainly from Asia, or are there Westerners, and how they all perceive the various Opera performances; sacred and secular? Do tourists have access to the sacred opera performance?

Response 10:

Revised, please refer to p. 12, 15 (Table 7-8).

The perception and experience of performers and audience are presented in a table format within the revised document (see Table. 7-8).

Besides, thank you for these important observations. I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate further. National funding and recognition—whether financial or symbolic—play a crucial role in shaping performers’ attitudes towards their cultural heritage. Even when material support is limited, official endorsement can instil a sense of pride and legitimacy. For many Teochew opera performers, this external validation reinforces a deeper sense of responsibility to preserve and pass on the tradition.

However, as noted in the text, performers often show limited enthusiasm when participating in ritual-based performances. This apparent contradiction can be explained by the nature of the ritual context itself. For many Chinese communities, maintaining tradition serves as a kind of "protective net"—the priority lies in ensuring that the performance occurs within the ritual, not necessarily in how well it is executed. Sponsors of these ritual events are typically more concerned with whether the performance fulfils the traditional obligations to the deities, rather than with artistic quality. As a result, even minimal or perfunctory performances are considered acceptable, and performers are compensated regardless. Because the audience is often disengaged or entirely absent—and the primary recipient is the deity—there is little external motivation for the performers to refine their skills or fully invest in the performance.

In contrast, secular performances take place in more public and formal settings, where the dynamics shift. Government or local representatives may attend, and the audience tends to be more diverse, including Malaysians of various ethnic backgrounds as well as international tourists. These secular shows are often received with curiosity and interest, especially among audiences unfamiliar with the form.

Tourists—primarily from other Asian countries, though occasionally from Western contexts—can access both secular and sacred performances. However, their experience of ritual-based opera is usually limited. Unlike theatre settings, ritual contexts lack interpretive aids such as narration or subtitles, and performances are rich in symbolic gestures and allusions that require insider cultural knowledge to fully understand. As a result, while tourists may witness sacred performances, they often struggle to grasp their meaning, making these experiences more observational than interpretive.

This layered reception highlights how differently the opera is experienced: for insiders, particularly within the Chinese community, it is a living expression of cultural continuity and obligation; for outsiders, it is often an aesthetic or anthropological curiosity, appreciated more for its form than its function.

Comment 11:

line 358 - where are the subtitles provided, on stage screen, printed on the paper, online?

Response 11:

Revised, please refer to p. 7 (Figure 9).

The subtitles are displayed via LED screens. The revised document now adds relevant figure (see Figure. 9) to better illustrate the situation.

Comment 12:

line 370 classroom-based - how this teaching and learning is done, where does it take place (in the Institute, Centre, public schools?), what is the Malaysian state policy on ICH and education - the whole subtheme of education needs a bit more explaining

Response 12:

Revised, please refer to pp. 18-21 (line 391-449), pp. 24-26.

Thank you for highlighting this important point. At present, Teochew opera has not been officially recognised as Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH) in Malaysia. As a result, both financial support and integration into formal education remain limited.

The transmission of Teochew opera largely takes place in informal settings, primarily through apprenticeships within practitioners’ personal workshops rather than in public schools or government-backed institutions. Learners are typically individuals with a personal interest in performance, rather than students pursuing opera as a formal or professional track. Currently, there are no structured collaborations between cultural bearers and educational institutions at the state level, nor is there a policy framework that actively promotes the teaching of Teochew opera in the national education system.

This lack of institutional support contributes to the challenges surrounding the art form’s long-term sustainability. The revised manuscript addresses these concerns in Sections 4.2 and 4.3, where it discusses the risks involved and proposes education-related improvements—such as fostering school-community partnerships and advocating for broader recognition of minority cultural forms within heritage education policy.

Comment 13:

line 373 - what is Guangdong T. Opera Institute? How is it different from the Centre? Who has opened and why both of those institutions? Who runs them now? Who oversees their work, finances etc.? Something was said about fund raising, but it needs a clearer overview.

Response 13:

Revised, please refer to pp. 18-19 (line 391-408).

The Guangdong Teochew Opera Institute is an official, state-run institution based in Guangdong Province, China. It functions as a comprehensive hub for Teochew opera, integrating research, training, performance, and creative development under one roof. As a government-backed organisation, it receives stable funding and oversight from relevant cultural authorities in China.

In contrast, the Malaysia Teochew Opera Heritage Centre is a privately established initiative based in Penang, founded by Ling Goh, a veteran Teochew opera performer and cultural advocate. The Centre was created out of Goh’s personal commitment to preserving and promoting Teochew opera within the Malaysian context. It is independently operated by Goh and her family, without direct funding or administrative support from the Malaysian government.

While the Centre does not receive formal public funding, it has gained recognition from both the Guangdong Teochew Opera Institute and cultural departments in Malaysia. This recognition has led to invitations for Goh to perform at cultural festivals and public events, but financial sustainability continues to rely heavily on self-funding and occasional community-based fundraising efforts.

The key distinction lies in their institutional structure: the Institute in China is a state-funded, multi-functional cultural body, while the Centre in Malaysia is a grassroots, performer-led initiative driven by individual passion and community engagement.

Comment 14:

line 463 - what does Malaysian multiculturalism policy consists of? How is it implemented and by whom - directly from the government institutions or via local offices etc.? Please explain shortly in the text.

Response 14:

Revised, please refer to pp. 13-14 (line 338-360).

I have now included a clearer explanation in the text.

Malaysia’s multiculturalism policy is shaped by national frameworks such as the National Development Policy (1991), Wawasan 2020, and the Malaysian National Cultural Policy (DAKEN 2021). These policies promote unity while recognising the country’s ethnic and cultural diversity. Although their main focus is on economic and national development, they also encourage support for minority cultures through funding for cultural events, festivals, and community programmes.

Implementation happens both at the national and local levels. While the federal government sets the overall direction, cultural departments, municipal councils, and tourism agencies at the state or city level are responsible for putting programmes into action.

The National Heritage Act (2005) provides legal tools for protecting cultural heritage. Although Teochew opera is not yet officially recognised under this Act, other Chinese cultural traditions are, and this has encouraged further efforts in preservation.

More recently, DAKEN 2021 has supported the inclusion of minority cultures, like Teochew opera, into national events, tourism projects, and educational activities. This has helped Teochew opera become more visible in public spaces such as theatres, community halls, and cultural parks.

Comment 15:

Figure 6 - in description add the year of establishment (2022?).

Response 15:

Revised, please refer to p. 18 (line 405).

Teochew Opera Heritage Centre was established in Penang in 2022.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the paper has been excellently improved and could be published as this new version. Also, photos and additional data in form of tables are now clearly described and presented.

There remains only one remark, in lines 372-373 please refer here to the work of Hanna Schreiber on soft power at the end of the sentence.