I REFER to the contrasting views expressed by Dr Chandra Muzaffar of Penang (”Too sweeping a comparison” — NST, Nov 11) and John Chang (”Obama’s triumph: Seek what can bring us together” — NST, Nov 12) on the election of Barack Obama as president of the United States and what it means to Malaysia and Ma-laysians.

Chandra’s analysis showed a firm understanding of US politics as well as the more complex Malaysian ethnic, religious and socio-economic fabric.

In my opinion, Chandra is one of the few academics and socio-economic commentators who transcend ethnic and religious boundaries and speak boldly on inter-ethnic and inter-religious relations.

Unfortunately, many Malaysians, despite having the good intention of seeing improved race relations, fail to realise the complexities or the sacrifices that are required to achieve that objective in a multiracial, multi-cultural and multi-religious society like Malaysia’s.

It is only to be expected that those who are still trapped in a communalistic mindset would have difficulties in accepting frank opinions expressed by the likes of Chandra.

While I don’t disagree that Obama’s win has some good lessons for us to ponder, I concur with Chandra that it is too simplistic and sweeping to compare the US situation with the Malaysian context, which is made of a more complex and delicate palette.

It does reflect positively on the American people that they have made their choice for their next president by being blind to race and colour.

However, this result must be also viewed in the perspective that the main difference between a white and a black American is merely the colour of their skin as they do share a common religion, language and culture.

Yet it has taken the Americans more than 200 years to elect a black president despite having one of the most meritocratic and democratic societies in the world.

It’s worth noting that even Singapore, the poster boy among some Malaysians of a utopian society built on meritocracy, feels it is not ready to accept a prime minister from a minority group.

This despite the efforts of the Singaporean government to de-emphasise the ethnic, cultural and religious identities of the minority groups and to form a national identity based on the Confucian ethos coupled with Western ideals.

On the other hand, Thailand had no qualms about having a member of minority group (Thaksin Shinawatra, an ethnic Chinese) as its prime minister.

Even more significant than Obama’s victory were the successes of Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, Benazir Bhutto, Margaret Thatcher, Sheikh Hasina Wajed and other women who had overcome far higher odds, prejudices, disadvantaged backgrounds and other challenges to become the prime ministers of their countries.

It also must be noted that Obama triumphed because he had consistently promoted a message of “change” which found resonance and acceptance among white and non-white Americans.

Had Obama run a campaign that emphasised his racial roots and more assertive racial rights, it is unlikely that he would have even been considered for the candidature of the Democratic Party.

What the above examples show us is that it is not unprecedented in the history of the world for a member of a minority group to rise to the top political position.

However, such an ascension requires assimilation into the majority group in terms of culture, religion, language and policies.

The path is much harder for a member of a minority community which prefers integration to assimilation, due to the very nature of the democratic process, irrespective of meritocracy.

CALVIN SANKARAN, Bukit Mertajam

Source: NST – November 20, 2008