Why are there no results for the Malay community? — Rama Ramanathan

JUNE 30 — According to the Constitution of Malaysia, a Malay is someone who professes the religion of Islam, habitually speaks the Malay language and conforms to Malay custom.

The constitution requires the government to favour Malays and other Bumiputras (indigenous groups and certain Eurasians). The constitutional provision was made – and enhanced – because many who were poor belonged to the Malay and Bumiputra ethnic groups and had limited access to the means of production. The constitution entrenches ethnicity-based policy-making and measures.

Policies are made by the government. The government is a coalition of mostly ethnicity-based parties. These parties exist in order to protect and promote the interests of unique ethnic groups. This is another reason why all censuses and surveys must be stratified according to ethnicity: the census and surveys tell party members whether the policies supported by their leaders do in fact protect and promote their interests.

In Malaysia, a Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey is performed twice every 5 years. The last two surveys were performed in 2009 and in 2012.

A ratio called the “Gini coefficient” is calculated using the survey data. The Gini coefficient measures the gap in income between the rich and the poor. For 2012 this ratio was calculated using data obtained from data for 44,106 households (HH) spread across West Malaysia (30,848 HH), East Malaysia (12,735 HH) and Labuan (523 HH).

In the “ideal case,” every household has the same income and the Gini coefficient is zero. The 2012 survey found that the overall Gini coefficient changed from 0.441 in 2009 to 0.431 in 2012. I haven’t seen any statistical measures of significance (e.g. 95 per cent confidence intervals). Nevertheless, experts say the difference of 0.010 is meaningful.

For Chinese the Gini coefficient was unchanged between 2009 (0.425) and 2012 (0.422). For Bumiputra the gap became smaller (2009: 0.440; 2012: 0.421). For Indians the gap became bigger (2009: 0.424; 2012: 0.443).

The Mean Household Income (MHI) is calculated using the survey data. The 2012 survey found that the MHI for Malaysia is RM5,000 per month (RM5.742 in urban areas and RM3,080 in rural areas), up from RM4,025 in 2009.

There is wide disparity in MHI's between the “states;” for 2012, the range is RM8,586 (Kuala Lumpur) to RM3,168 (Kelantan).

The data shows household income is very high in Malaysia’s administrative capital, Putrajaya, with a high concentration of civil servants. The elite civil servants who live in Putrajaya are doing well: Putrajaya’s MHI at RM8,101 is second only to Kuala Lumpur.

For Chinese the MHI is RM6,366; for Indians it is RM5,233; for Bumiputera it is RM4,457. Mysteriously, the data is not reported separately for Malays. Since the Constitution specifically provides Malays with a special position, the decision not to report the numbers separately for Malays needs to be explained.

The MHI is also stratified according to the top 20 per cent, middle 40 per cent and bottom 40 per cent. These (2012) figures illustrate what the Gini coefficient means in terms of income disparity:

Income distribution (average/month)

According to the results, under the Malaysian Chinese Association the Chinese elite benefited most; according to election analysts, in the last General Election the majority of the Chinese didn’t vote for MCA. According to the results, under the Malaysian Indian Congress the Indian elite benefited the most; according to election analysts, in the last General Election the majority of the Indians didn’t vote for the MIC.

There are no results for the Malay community. Why aren’t members of the United Malays National Organization and others who are ethnically Malay clamouring for published data to know how successful Umno has been in protecting and promoting the interests of the Malay community?

Also, there is no Gini and 20/40/40 income disparity data for Sabah and Sarawak – which, unlike the eleven states and two Federal Territories, are members of the Federation together with West Malaysia. Why aren’t Sabahan and Sarawakian leaders clamouring for their data to be reported separately?

Another puzzling thing about the Survey is that it does not say what the average household size is. Don’t our policy makers need to know what the average household size is, and how it varies according to ethnicity?

I’ve use “ethnicity” interchangeably with “community.” In doing this I'm following the lead of the Statistics Department. However, I'm not convinced this is a valid equation. What do you think?

*Rama Ramanathan blogs at http://write2rest.blogspot.com/

**This is the personal opinion of the writer and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malay Mail Online.