Ethnic and

Social Stratification

In Peninsular Malaysia

by

Charles Hirschman

Ethnic and

Social Stratification

In Peninsular Malaysia

by

Charles Hirschman

Department of Sociology

Duke University

The Arnold and Caroline RoseMonograph Series of the American Sociological Association

ASA ROSE MONOGRAPH SERIESOther publications in this series

Deviance, Selves and Others, Michael Schwartz and Sheldon Stryker (1971)Socioeconomic Background and Educational Performance, Robert Mason

Hauser (1972)Black and White Self-Esteem: The Urban School Child, Morris Rosenberg

and Roberta G. Simmons (1972)Looking Ahead: Self-conceptions, Race and Family as Determinants of Ado-

lescent Orientation to Achievement, Cad Gordon (1972)Black Students in Protest: A Study of the Origins of the Black Student Move-

ment, Anthony M. Orum (1972)Attitudes and Facilitation in the Attainment ofStatus, Ruth M. Gasson, Archi-

bald 0. Haller, William H. Sewell (1972)Patterns of Contact with Relatives. Sheila R. Klatzky (1972)Interorganiiational Activation in Urban Communities: Deductions from theConcept of System, Herman Turk (1973)

The Study of Political Commitment, John DeLameter (1973)Ambition and Attainment, A Study of Four Samples of American Boys, Alan

C. Kerckhoff (1974)The Greek Peasant, Scott G. McNall (1974)Patterns ofScientific Research: A Comparative Analysis of Research in Three

Scientific Fields, Lowell L. Hargens (1974)

Available from the American Sociological Association, 1722 N Street, N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20036.

Pre-paid costs: Members, $2.75 per titleNon-members, $5.00 per titleComplete Set, 20% discount

THE ARNOLD AND CAROLINE ROSEMONOGRAPH SERIES IN SOCIOLOGY

A gift by Arnold and Caroline Rose to the American Sociological Associa-tion in 1968 provided for the establishment of the Arnold and Caroline RoseMonograph Series in Sociology. The conveyance provided for the publicationof manuscripts in any subject matter field of sociology. The donors intendedthe series for rather short monographs, contributions that normally are beyondthe scope of publication in regular academic journals.

The Series is under the general direction of an editorial board appointedby the Council of the American Sociological Association and responsible tothe Publications Committee of the Association. Competition for publicationin the Series has been limited by the Association to Members and StudentMembers.

Arnold Rose was my teacher and my friend. was fully aware, before his

untimely death, of his sense that sociology needed a publication outlet of thesort provided by this Series; and was dimly aware of his hope that his andCaroline’s gift would meet that need. am grateful to the American Socio-logical Association for providing me the opportunity to help fulfill Arnold’shope.

Sheldon StrykerEditor

Copyright American Sociological Association 1975Library of Congress Number 75-135-44

International Standard Book Number 0-912764-12-0

American Sociological Association1722 N St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036

in

TO MY MOTHER AND FATHER

IV

PREFACE

This study is an attempt to describe and explain the socioeconomic in-equalities among the ethnic communities of Peninsular Malaysia. While thereare significant socioeconomic and cultural differences between ethnic com-munities, there are also many similarities. All the peoples of Malaysia, nomatter what their ethnic identity, share the basic needs and desires of man-kind. The delights of children, family, friends, and good food find expressionin every community. Problems of poverty and economic hardship are theoverriding concern of the majority of Malaysians of all communities. It isto be hoped that from a clearer understanding of both the differences andsimilarities, the problems of inequality both within and between ethnic com-munities may be solved.

A note on terminology is necessary. Peninsular Malaysia is that pan of thenation ofMalaysia which is on the mainland of Southeast Asia. It was formerlyknown as West Malaysia and prior to the formation of Malaysia in 1963, itwas known as Malaya. In order to be consistent, will refer to the area asPeninsular Malaysia, even for earlier periods when it was known as BritishMalaya or the independent Federation of Malaya. The term, Malaysian, refersto all residents of Malaysia, be their ethnic community Malay, Chinese, orIndian.

This monograph is a revision of my Ph.D. dissertation which I completedat the University of Wisconsin in 1972. The advice and criticism of a numberof my teachers and colleagues during my years of study at the Departmentof Sociology and Center for Demography and Ecology at the University ofWisconsin have contributed immeasurably toward my education and this re-search. During the analysis of the data and writing of the original disser-tation, received valuable advice from Professors Henry Finney, Robert

Hauser, Judah Matras, James Scott, James Sweet, and Hal Winsborough. AtWisconsin, I was supported by a traineeship from the Center for Demographyand Ecology and a fellowship from the Population Council. My trip to Malaysiaand work there were made possible by a research grant from the Center forDevelopment of the University of Wisconsin.

am indebted to a number of people who assisted me in carrying out thisresearch, particularly in obtaining access to the data from the 1966-67 WestMalaysian Family Survey. The use of these data, which were collected by theMalaysian Department of Statistics under the auspices of the National FamilyPlanning Board of Malaysia, was kindly given to me by Dr. Arriffin binMarzuki, former Director of the National Family Planning Board, and Pro-fessor James A. Palmore, under whose supervision the survey was conducted,kindly provided the data. Several other Americans and Malaysians were veryhelpful during my period of work in Malaysia, particularly Mr. RameshChander, Chief Statistician of Malaysia, Dr. Agoes Salim, Professors MiltonBamett, and J. Yuzuru Takeshita.

have rethought, reanalyzed, and revised much of this monograph durinothe year and a half that have been in the Department of Sociology at DukeUniversity. have benefited from the advice and comments on this researchfrom my colleagues, Richard Campbell, James House, Alan Kerckhoff, andWilliam Mason. am also indebted to Sharon Poss for her advice and assistancewith the computer. have had the help of two very able research assistants,Sharifah Sabariah binte Syed Aiwi in Malaysia and Lanier Rand at Duke. Thefinal typing of the manuscript has been expertly done by Madge E. Lee andJamilah binte Mohd Ali. My wife, Jo, has been a constant source of adviceand encouragement at all stages of the research.

Charles HirschmanKuala Lumpur, MalaysiaDecember, 1974.

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PagePreface v

List of Tables vii

List of Figures x

Chapter1. Social Stratification and Ethnic Relations

2. Peninsular Malaysian Society: Data and Description 63. The Process of Structural Assimilation 154. Intergenerational Occupational Mobility: Ethnic Differences .37

5. The Socioeconomic Life-Cycle Model andEthnic Stratification .49

6. The Socioeconomic Life Cycle: The Process ofOccupational and Income Attainment .62

7. Discussion and Conclusions .77

Appendix A Problems of Comparability in MeasuringOccupational Trends 84

Appendix B 1957 Malaysian Occupation ClassificationBy One- and Two- Digit Level .89

Appendix C Comparable Categories From 1931, 1947, and 1957Censuses, Based Upon the Ten MajorOccupational Categories of the 1957 Census .92

Appendix D Occupational Composition of EmployedMales by Ethnic Community: PeninsularMalaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 .94

Appendix E Indexes of Dissimilarity Between OccupationalDistributions (Without Agriculture) ofEmployed Males, by Ethnic Community:Peninsular Malaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 .97

Appendix F Six Sequential Models of the Effects of SocialBackground on Occupational Attainment ofMarried Men, by Occupation: PeninsularMalaysia, 1966-1967 .98

vii

Appendix G Comparison of Variance Explained in AdditiveModels of Educational, Occupational andIncome Attainment of Married Men, andModels with Additional Ethnic InteractionTerms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 103

References 107

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page2.1 Ethnic composition of the population: Peninsular Malaysia,

1911, 1921, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 9

2.2 Percentage of population of Peninsular Malaysia bom inPeninsular Malaysia or Singapore, by ethnic community,1921, 1931, 1947, 1957 .10

2.3 Sex ratio of Chinese and Indian population: PeninsularMalaysia, 1911, 1921, 1931, 1947, 1957 .12

2.4 Percentage of the total population and of each ethniccommunity in urban areas: Peninsular Malaysia, 1911,1921, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 .13

3.1 Mean years of schooling, by ethnic community, sex, and agegroup: Peninsular Malaysia, 1957 16

3.2 Ranking of major occupational categories of married men,by mean monthly income and mean years of schooling, byethnic community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 19

3.3 Occupational composition of employed males, by ethniccommunity: Peninsular Malaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 .22

3.4 Age distribution of the Chinese population, by sex:Peninsular Malaysia, 1921, 1931, 1947 .24

3.5 Detailed occupational composition of employed Chinesemales in agricultural and fishing occupations: PeninsularMalaysia, 1931, 1947 .25

3.6 Detailed industrial composition of employed males inagricultural and fishing industries, by ethnic community:Peninsular Malaysia, 1947, 1957, 1967 27

3.7 Detailed occupational composition of employed males inprofessional and technical occupations, by ethnic community:Peninsular Malaysia, 1967 .28

3.8 Indexes of dissimilarity between occupational distributionsof employed males, by ethnic community: Peninsular Malaysia,1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 .31

3.9 Employment status of employed males, by ethnic community:Peninsular Malaysia, 1967 .35

viii

3.10 Distribution of establishments and paid employees inmanufacturing industries, by number of employees:Peninsular Malaysia, 1968 .35

4.1 Occupational composition of married men and their fathers,by ethnic community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .40

4.2 Comparison of the observed occupational distribution ofmarried men and their expected occupational distribution, byethnic community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .43

4.3 Transition percentages, father’s occupation to currentoccupation of married men: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .45

4.4 Transition percentages, father’s occupation tocurrent occupation of married men, by ethnic community:Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 ,47

5.1 Socioeconomic characteristics of married men, byethnic community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .54

5.2 Effects of social background of married men on the numberof years of schooling and the probability of having anEnglish-medium education: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .60

6.1 Seven models of the effects of social background of marriedmen on monthly income: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .64

6.2 Effects of ethnicity of married men on occupationalattainment in six sequential and cumulative models of socialbackground variables in eight occupations:Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .68

6.3 Comparison of variance explained in additive modelsof educational, occupational and income attainmentof married men, and models with additional ethnic X father’soccupation interaction terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .73

6.4 Comparison of variance explained in additive modelsof occupational and income attainment of married men, andmodels with additional ethnic X years of schooling interactionterms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .75

A. Comparison of the occupational composition of employedmales, age ten and above, and of employed males, age 15to 64, by ethnic community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .86

D.I Occupational composition of employed males, by ethniccommunity: Peninsular Malaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 .94

E. Indexes of dissimilarity between occupational distributions(without agriculture) of employed males, by ethnic community:Peninsular Malaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 .97

F. Six sequential models of the effects of social backgroundon occupational attainment of married men, by occupation:Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 .99

ix

G. Comparison of variance explained in additive modelsof educational, occupational and income attainmentof married men, and models with additional ethnic Xbirthplace interaction terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 103

G.I Comparison of variance explained in additive modelsof occupational and income attainment of married men andmodels with additional ethnic X English education interactionterms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 104

G.3 Comparison of the variance explained in additivemodels of occupational and income attainment of married menand models with additional ethnic X current residenceinteraction terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 105

G.4 Comparison of variance explained in an additivemodel of income attainment of married men and modelswith additional ethnic X sales occupation and ethnic Xagricultural occupation interaction terms:Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967 106

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

5.1 The basic model of the socioeconomic life-cycle .50

5.2 Socioeconomic life cycle model of the process ofstratification: Peninsular Malaysia .53

CHAPTER

SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND ETHNIC RELATIONS

This study draws its intellectual heritage from two of the oldest areas ofsociological inquiry, social stratification and race and ethnic relations. Fromthe field of social stratification arises the central concern with the distributionof inequality in the population; the concepts and techniques developed overthe past decade have guided much of the empirical analysis. From the fieldof race and ethnic relations arises the question of the factors accounting forthe inequality between groups. The blending of these two perspectives hasbeen a stimulus to some of the most significant work in contemporary sociol-ogy-

Theoretical IssuesThere is no shortage of ideas regarding race and ethnic relations in sociologi-

cal literature. Since the birth of modem sociology with the Chicago schooland the writings of Robert Park (1950), the theme of racial and ethnic in-equality and associated topics has been dominant in theory and research.The editor of a collection of articles on intergroup relations chosen from theissues of the American Sociological Review, (van den Berghe, 1972), counted230 relevant pieces published between 1936 and 1969. Although most of thework on race and ethnic relations has been focused entirely on the UnitedStates and has been social-psychologically oriented, a comparative macro-sociological tradition of theory and research does exist.

Robert Park’s theory of the race relations cycle has been the landmarkstatement until quite recently. Park expressed his ideas most succinctly inan article first published in 1926 (Park, 1950: 150):

In the relations of races there is a cycle of events which tends every-where to repeat itself. The race relations cycle which takes the

form, to state it abstractly, ofcontacts, competition, accommodation,and eventual assimilation, is apparently progressive and irreversible.Customs regulations, immigration restrictions and racial barriers mayslacken the tempo ofthe movement; may perhaps halt it altogether fora time; but cannot change its direction; cannot, at any rate, reverse it.

In spite of his prolific writings Park never produced a complete and syste-matic exposition of his theory of race relations. The definitive work on racerelations theory in his tradition was written by E. Franklin Frazier, whomEverett C. Hughes has called Park’s most complete student (G. FranklinEdwards, 1968:xvi). Frazier’s Race and Culture Contacts in the ModernWorld was published in 1957, but its theoretical roots seem to extend backtwo decades earlier. Frazier extended and elaborated Park’s ideas with asystematic consideration of the variation in racial encounters and relations,and how they are affected by ecological, economic, and political factors.But at the heart of Frazier’s theory is Park’s race relations cycle. Perhapsthe process of eventual assimilation is retarded by European imperialismand racist doctrine, but eventually the association of race and culture withsuperiority and inferiority will disappear (Frazier, 1957: 338).

The criticisms of the theory of the race relations cycle have been amplydocumented in recent years (Berry, 1965; Lyman, 1968; Barth and Noel,1972). Basically it is a grand theory which does not lend itself to generatingtestable hypotheses. Since there are no time limits to the various stages of thecycle, it is impossible to refute the theory. Also it is not exactly clear whatsocietal forces during the process of social change or modernization willcontribute in what degree to the progress of the cycle. Much of the discussionof the Park-Frazier theory suggests that the processes of urbanization andindustrialization will increase interracial and interethnic contact. While theseprocesses may lead to conflict and ethnic-racial stratification in the short run,the eventual process will be assimilation. It is interesting that another studentof Park, Herbert Blumer (1965), strongly challenged the idea that industrial-ization will lead to a reduction of racial and ethnic divisions.

However, the contribution of the Park-Frazier theory cannot be under-estimated. They offered a dependent variable-interracial and interethnicinequality-which has been the focus of most recent empirical research. Theyalso emphasized the importance of considering societies as units of analysis,doing cross-cultural research, and taking account of historical forces. In fact,most of the significant theoretical work of the past twenty-five years (Cox,1948; Lieberson, 1961; Shibutani and Kwan, 1965; van den Berghe, 1967;Schermerhom, 1970; and Barth and Noel, 1972) draws heavily upon thegroundwork done by Park and Frazier. All these more recent theoreticalperspectives posit new typologies of racial-ethnic outcomes, or a new em-

phasis on certain societal factors as the most important determinants in theprocess.

Modem sociological theory in the field of race and ethnic relations is muchmore sensitive to the question whether assimilation is a very likely outcomein multiracial societies or even a socially desirable goal (see Metzger, 1971on ideological influences in American race relations theory). A significantdevelopment is the recognition of assimilation as a multidimensional concept

(Gordon, 1964). For instance, there could be changes in the assimilationprocess toward increasing cultural homogeneity yet little interethnic inter-action in primary groups.

To achieve a true sociological theory explaining the determinants and thepatterns of the evolution of multiracial or multiethnic societies will necessitateboth historical and comparative research, a task which staggers the imagina-tion. The process of change is sometimes only incremental over generations,presenting a problem which is not readily encompassed by the standard tech-niques of data collection. Additionally, the interaction of political, economic,cultural, and familial institutions in the process of change in interracial orinterethnic relations almost requires a general theory for the understandingof the interaction of subpopulations within society-a theory which is still farfrom being formulated. Perhaps the wisest course is to pursue an inductivestrategy, analyzing the more limited questions or hypotheses with data thatare available.

The Study of Ethnic StratificationTwo questions which may invite systematic investigation of issues relevant

to a more general theory are: (1) What was the social process which led to theintroduction of socioeconomic differences among racial and ethnic communi-ties soon after encounter? (2) What are the social mechanisms which allowsocioeconomic differences to be maintained over time, or alternatively, whatare the social changes which led to a reduction or elimination of such dif-ferences over time? This first question, regarding the origins of ethnic strati-fication, has not been a focal issue in the literature, though there have beensome attempts to deal with it.

Shibutani and Kwan (1965:147) state that "the group whose culture is bestsuited for the exploitation of the resources of a given environment tends tobecome dominant". Later (1965:174), they refer more closely to occupationalor economic differences in stating "the niche that each ethnic group wins inthe new web of life depends largely on the competitive advantages providedby its culture and leadership". Noel (1968) has attempted to develop a generaltheory of the origin of ethnic stratification based upon the independent var-iables, ethnocentrism, competition, and differential power, which he thenapplies to the emergence of slavery in seventeenth-century America. willnot examine this first question in any great detail, other than to review theorigins of the multiethnic society (chapter 2).

The second question regarding the process ofchange in interethnic inequalityis more directly amenable to empirical analysis, at least ofperiods since modemcensuses and surveys have been providing adequate empirical data. From suchsources it is possible to analyze the process of change in the distribution ofsocioeconomic attainment and rewards. While some of the explanation ofchange or lack of change in such measures of inequality between ethnic groupsmay lie outside the scope of census or survey data, a number of importantconclusions can be reached.

Structural Assimilation

The inequality in the distribution of some valued social status between ethnic

groups can be interpreted as a measure of "structural assimilation". Taeuberand Taeuber (1964:375) characterize ethnic assimilation as the process ofdispersion of members of each group throughout the social structure. Theyuse such indicators as educational attainment, occupational distribution, in-come, and residential segregation as measures of participation. Eisenstadt’sperspective is similar in his study of the assimilation of immigrants to a newcountry; using his concept of institutional integration and dispersion (1953:167-168), he examines the "extent to which immigrants were ’disseminated’within the main institutional spheres-family, economic, political, and relig-ious-of the new country". Although it might seem at first glance, to be asimple exercise to chart empirically and interpret the trend of "structuralassimilation" in a multiethnic society, the task can become complicated. Firstof all, the various indicators may not all point in the same direction. Theremay be trends towards a more equal distribution of education, while residentialsegregation is increasing. The interpretation of the trends is particularly hazar-dous, especially if the causal mechanisms are unclear. Yet some of the .mostsignificant work in the study of race and ethnic relations has been from theperspective of investigating "structural assimilation’, and with the use ofcensus or national survey data at several points in time (Lieberson, 1963;Taeuber and Taeuber, 1965; Price, 1969; Parley and Hermalin, 1972). Suchstudies have clearly established the trend of "social facts" of ethnic inequalityor segregation. Chapter 3 of this monograph attempts to examine the pattern ofstructural assimilation in Peninsular Malaysia by examining the pattern ofoccupational differentials among the three major ethnic groups from 1931 to1967.

The Model of the Socioeconomic Life-CycleA second question related to structural assimilation is the explanation of

ethnic socioeconomic differences by reference to the pattern of intergenera-tional social mobility. This line of research follows from the development ofmodels of the process of stratification introduced by Blau and Duncan (1967).The basic form of the model of the socioeconomic life-cycle (Duncan, 1967)measures the impact of father’s socioeconomic status on son’s socioeconomicattainment. This relationship can be shown in a standard table of social mobility(Blau and Duncan, 1967:28) or it can be reduced to the correlation coefficientbetween father’s occupation and son’s occupation. However, the real importof the model of the socioeconomic life-cycle is the analysis it allows of theprocess whereby status of origin influences adult socioeconomic attainment.This is made possible by elaborating the model with the introduction of addi-tional social background variables (father’s education, birthplace, mother’scharacteristics, etc.), intervening variables (education, social-psychologicalattributes, etc.), and attainment variables (income, participation, etc.). Mostof this work followed from the research of Otis Dudley Duncan and his stu-dents, and other sociologists utilizing the basic paradigm (Duncan, Feather-man, and Duncan, 1972; Duncan, 1968a; Featherman, 1971a; Featherman,1971b, Hauser, 1969; Hauser, 1971; Kelley, 1973; Jones, 1971; Sewell andHauser, 1972).

A growing literature has applied this model of the socioeconomic life-cycle

to the study of ethnic stratification (Duncan and Duncan, 1968; Duncan, 1969;Duncan and Featherman, 1972; and Featherman, 1971c). Basically the modelallows one to investigate the net effect of ethnicity as a determinant of ethnicinequality, after controlling for differences in social background characteris-tics.

Ethnic differentials in achievement, which are independent of differentialsin social background, can be accounted for by several alternative explana-tions. The two major competing explanations are the discrimination hypothesisand the cultural hypothesis (discussed in chapters 5, 6, and 7). Most often,discrimination is thought to occur in the job market, as when, in choosingbetween two men of equal educational qualifications, an employer bases hisdecision upon ethnicity, and presumably, chooses a member of his own com-munity.

The other explanation, one very common in certain sociological circles(Rosen, 1959), is that of differential motivation or different cultural goals.Thus the members of a disadvantaged ethnic group are often said to have alower propensity to achieve because their culture does not inspire them to beambitious and calculating. How does one distinguish between these two ex-planations? Ideally, it would be necessary to have independent measures ofthe psychological orientation toward achivement in each ethnic group. If theeffect of ethnicity upon achievement were completely mediated by this psy-chological orientation, the cultural explanation would have support. (Analysisof ethnic stratification in the United States did not support this theory; seeFeatherman, 1971c). Lacking such information, one must make inferences ofthe basic explanation from other patterns. However, much of the subsequentanalysis shows that the net effects of ethnicity in Malaysia are relatively smallas determinants of educational and income attainment, although ethnicity doesappear to be an important factor in entry into several occupations. In theseoccupations, I argue that discrimination by employers is the most plausibleexplanation.

In sum, will examine the magnitude and persistence of ethnic occupationaldifferentials in Peninsular Malaysia and attempt to account for ethnic dif-ferentials in terms of differing social backgrounds. If social background doesnot account for ethnic differentials, I will examine the alternative explana-tions of discrimination and cultural propensities to achieve.

CHAPTER 2

PENINSULAR MALAYSIAN SOCIETY:DATA AND DESCRIPTION

The chief ethnic communities of Peninsular Malaysian society are Malays,Chinese, and Indians. These three form a plural society’, segmented alongcultural as well as structural lines. In this chapter, discuss some major dif-ferences among them, and in tandem introduce the sources of data to be usedin the subsequent analysis.

Origins of a Multiethnic SocietyThe migration-of the Malay peoples to Malaysia was so long ago that they

are generally considered the indigenous population. Probably they first arrivedon the peninsula between 2,500 and 1,500 B.C. (Hodder, 1968:22). Theydisplaced an aboriginal population from the seacoasts and plains to the jungle,where scattered communities of aborigines exist to this day. There has been amore recent stream of immigration in the past century of Malay peoples fromJava and Sumatra. It is almost impossible to estimate the magnitude of this

’The term "plural society" was first used by J.S. Fumival (1948) in his work on theDutch East Indies (now Indonesia). He was concerned with the segmentation conse-

quent upon the imposition of the colonial economic system upon a traditional society.Gradually the term came to signify any society which had strong social divisions alongethnic, racial, religious, or linguistic lines. Some social scientists have tried to maintainthe distinction between social pluralism (involving separate social institutions) andcultural pluralism (van den Berghe, 1967; M.G. Smith, 1960), while others have usedthe term without making theoretical distinctions (Haug, 1967). Recently the concepthas been attacked because of the lack of consistency of interpretation (Cox, 1971; Cross,1971). The use of the sociological concept, "plural society", is quite different fromthe political theory of pluralism (see Gillam, 1971).

movement because most of the migrants have become assimilated into theMalay population. But this was a substantial movement that has continuedinto the present century (Smith, 1952: 15-20; Saw Swee Hock, 1963: 110-113).

From the earliest recorded times there has been contact between variousethnic and nationality groups on the Malaysian peninsula. As the extension ofmainland Southeast Asia into island Southeast Asia, lying along the main searoute between China and the West, Peninsular Malaysia has been the histori-cal cross-road of Southeast Asia (Lamb, 1964:99). Most of the early contactsarose from trade relationships. Indian traders and Indian civilization left aheavy imprint on Malay culture, a circumstance which during the early cen-turies of the Christian era brought about what is often referred to as the "Indian-ization" of Southeast Asia (Lamb, 1964:104). If there were any permanentsettlements of Indians on the Malaysian peninsula during this period, theyhave long since blended with the Malay population.

There was also early contact with China, the first visitors being Buddhistmonks, while traders from China are reported to have come to Malaysia inthe fourteenth century (Purcell, 1967:16). The coastal city of Malacca, whichhad already become the center of an important empire about 1400, containeda diverse population of many nationalities, many of whom came to engagein trade and commerce.

Contact with European peoples began with the capture of Malacca by thePortuguese in 1511. Then the Dutch captured it in 1641 and ruled it for about150 years. The activities of early European colonialists were probably notvery different from those in other Asian empires which rose and fell in thepreceding 1,000 years. They were interested in trade and the control of navi-gation. Perhaps the most important legacy of this early colonialization is thePortugese Eurasian community. In the 16th and 17th centuries Portuguesesoldiers intermarried with local women, and their descendents still live invillages near Malacca (Hodder, 1968:24-25).

Most important in the creation ofMalaysia’s present day multiethnic societywas the period of British colonial rule. The British first arrived in Penang, anisland oflf the West Coast, in 1786. Within 40 years they had gained controlof the island of Singapore and the city of Malacca, and by the second decadeof the twentieth century the entire peninsula came under direct British rule.The arrival of the British coincided with and perhaps stimulated the migrationof Chinese to Malaysia. (They also migrated to other Southeast Asian coun-tries.) Both the Chinese and the British began to exploit local resources,especially tin, and to engage in trade. Among their other economic ventureswas the planting of various cash crops such as pepper, spices, sugar cane,and coffee on a commercial basis, first in the Straits Settlements (Penang,Malacca, and Singapore) but soon in nearby areas of the Malaysian penin-sula. To obtain sufficient labor for the new agricultural plantations, the colonialgovernment as well as private interests encouraged Indians to immigrate.Although many of the crops as well as tin mining were not new to the Malaypopulation, what was new was their greatly increased scale.

This period of colonial economic expansion and international migration

transformed the country. In about 1800 the population was estimated at aquarter of a million, but by the end of the century it reached two million(Hodder, 1968:26). The causes of migration from India and China as well asthe terrible working and living conditions to which the early migrants toMalaysia were subjected have been the subject of considerable historicalresearch (Purcell, 1967; Jackson, 1961; Blythe, 1957; Farmer, 1960; KemialSingh Sandhu, 1969). Immigration increased throughout the 19th century andfor the first three decades of the 20th century, until the 1930’s, when theDepression and restrictive legislation slowed it. As a point of reference,BIythe (1947:66) names 1850 as the beginning of large-scale immigration ofChinese to the mainland of Malaysia. The major flow of Indian migrationbegan in the 1880’s and increased sharply in the second decade of the 20thcentury when the rubber plantation sector began to expand very rapidly(Kemial Singh Sandhu, 1969:312-313). The impact of international migrationon Peninsular Malaysian society may be discovered by examining the chang-ing ethnic composition of the country.

The Data BaseA basic of British enterprise was the establishment of a govemmentally-

sponsored census of the population. The colonial authorities first began to takea census of British Malaya in 1871 and continued every decade with the yearending in "one" until 1931. (Saw Swee Hock, 1968:2-3). Not surprisingly,this date (year ending in "one") was also census year in England. The planned1941 Census was never taken because the Japanese during World War IIcontrolled most of Southeast Asia, including what is now Peninsular Malaysia.In 1947 after World War II and the resumption of British colonialism, anothercensus was taken. The next one was a decade later, in 1957. The 1957 Censusof Population was the last taken during colonial rule. The next and most recentcensus was that of 1970.

The early censuses of 1871, 1881, 1891, and 1901 did not include all ofwhat became British Malaya or what is now Peninsular Malaysia. Britishrule spread slowly over the Malayan peninsula (Gullick, 1969:44-52; Cowan,1961), and these early censuses covered only the states of the country whichthe British controlled at the time.

Thus the only population censuses for the entire area now known as Penin-sular Malaysia are the 1911, 1921, 1931, 1947, and 1957 censuses. Since the1970 Census data were not yet available at the time of this analysis, madeuse of two important surveys taken in the late 1960’s. One survey is knownas Malaysian Socioeconomic Sample Survey of Households 1967-1968(Choudhry, 1970) which, because it was a survey of households and not ofthe total population, is not completely comparable with the earlier censuses(Appendix A). However, used the 1967-68 Socioeconomic Survey data toextend the time-series analysis of population trends (see below and chapter 3).The other important source is the 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey

(see National Family Planning Board of Malaysia, 1968), a survey of 5,457married women in the reproductive years. In addition to data on fertility andfamily planning, which were the primary interest, this survey also gatheredinformation on the social background of the husbands of the women inter-

viewed. (Analysis of the socioeconomic characteristics of these husbands isreported in chapters 4, 5 and 6.) was able to analyze the Family Surveyfrom the original data file which was on a computer tape. The followinganalysis and that in chapter 3 is based upon published tabulations of the cen-suses and the 1967-68 Socioeconomic Survey.

Ethnic CompositionThe data from the 191 1, 1921, 1931, 1947, and 1957 censuses and a 1967

estimate (Dept. of Statistics, 1969a), reported in Table 2.1, show the popula-

Table 2.1: Ethnic Composition of the Population: PeninsularMalaysia, 1911, 1921, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967

Community

MalaysChinese

Indians and Pakistanis

OthersTotal

Popula1911

1370693239

372339

tion in 11921

1569856439

432907

’housanc1931

18641285571

683788

Is1947

2428

1884531

654908

1957

31262334

707

1126279

1967

438932571004

1378787

Percentage Distribution

Community

MalaysChinese

Indians and Pakistanis

Others

Total

1911

58.6%29.610.21.6

1921

54.0%

29.415.1

1.5

1931

49.2%

33.915.1

1.8

1947

49.5%38.4

10.81.3

1957

49.8%37.2

11.31.8

1967

50.0%37.111.4

1.6100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Sources:Department of Statistics, 1971b 3.Department of Statistics, 1969a 39.

tion by ethnic community from 1911 to 1967. During this period, the totalpopulation grew from 2.3 million to 8.8 million. Of the 8.8 million in 1967,50 percent were Malays, over one-third were Chinese, and over one-tenthwere Indians. The small "others" category of less than two percent includesCeylonese, Thais, Eurasians, Europeans, and other small ethnic or nationalitygroups.

The Malay proportion declined from 58.6 percent in 1911 to 49.2 percentin 1931 and has been stable at about 50 percent over the last 40 years or so. TheChinese proportion grew from 29.6 percent in 1911 to 38.4 percent in 1947and has declined only slightly since then. The Indian population grew by 50percent from 191 to 1921: their proportion of the total population increased

from 10.2 to 15.1 percent, a figure which held steady until 1931, declined to10.8 percent in 1947, and has increased only slightly since then. During theperiod 1931 to 1947, when the Indian proportion declined from 15.1 to 10.8percent, the absolute number of Indians declined by 40,000 as a result in theDepression of substantial out-migration of both males and females.

From the limited statistical and historical accounts, it seems that immigra-tion has had a significant influence upon ethnic composition since early in thenineteenth century (Jackson, 1961; Kemial Singh Sandhu, 1969). Not untilthe 1930’s did the colonial government’s restrictions and the declining demandfor labor as a result of the Depression slow down the flow of migration.

The Immigrant CommunitiesMost immigrants (Javanese, Chinese, and Indians) came to Malaysia not

as permanent settlers, but only to earn some money and return to their home-lands. Farmer (1960:17) estimates the average length of stay to have been twoto three years, but over time many immigrants became permanent settlers.What proportion of migrants became permanently settled cannot be estimated,but there are data for several dates in the 20th century on the proportion oflocally-bom Chinese and Indians living in Malaysia.

Table 2.2 shows the proportion of each ethnic community that was bom

Table 2.2: Percentage of Population of Peninsular Malaysia Bornin Peninsular Malaysia or Singapore, by EthnicCommunity, 1921, 1931, 1947, 1957.

Community 1921 1931 1947 1957Malays 96.0% 97.4%Chinese 20.9 29.9 63.5 75.5Indians 12.1 21.4 51.6 65.0Total 56.4% 58.9% 78.3% 84.8%

Source: Fell, 1960:15.

in Peninsular Malaysia or Singapore from 1921 to 1957. Since many of thosenot bom in Peninsular Malaysia have come to be permanent residents, locally-bom" is probably a conservative estimate of the number of permanent immi-grant settlers. The major increase in the proportion of the locally-bom occurredfrom 1931 to 1947. A decrease in new migration, a return emigration of theforeign-bom, higher mortality among older persons who are more likely to beforeign-bom, or a change in the age structure as a result increasing fertilitycould account for the fact that by 1957 over three-fourths of the Chinese popu-lation and two-thirds of the Indian population had been bom locally.

In retrospect, several events and issues in Malaysian social history appearimportant in determining the character ofthe contemporary multiethnic society.Although the initial British control of the Straits Settlements stimulated thebeginnings of modem Chinese and Indian migration to Peninsular Malaysia,

10

the major flow occurred in the latter pan of the 19th century. Between 1874and 1914 the British consolidated their rule over all the states of PeninsularMalaysia, the effect of which was to assure political and economic stability.Moreover, they created a structure of government-assisted opportunitiesthrough which British and also Chinese businessmen could increase theireconomic exploitation of the country. This, in turn, required more labor andmore immigration. In the last years of the 19th century, rubber supplantedall other commercial agricultural crops and became the most important ele-ment of the economy. As other economic enterprises lost ground on the worldmarket or required less labor (in the tin industry as a result of technologicalchange) rubber plantations continued to absorb more labor.

IntermarriageIn many multi-ethnic societies, such as Hawaii (Schmitt, 1965:465),

Mexico, and Brazil (van den Berghe, 1967, chapters 2 and 3), there has beenextensive intermarriage and racial amalgamation. But intermarriage, whilenot unknown in Malaysia, is extremely rare; indeed, a study ofMalay marriageand kinship in Singapore reported almost no intermarriages (Djamour, 1957:11). A subcommunity ofChinese called "Baba Chinese" or "Straits Chinese"has acquired a great deal of Malay culture, including cuisine and dress. Theyspeak Malay as their mother tongue, but keep their Chinese ethnic identityand have not become Muslims. They are reported to be the descendants ofearly Chinese immigrants who, perhaps before 1850, married local women.Freedman (1955:376) estimated the Straits Chinese as constituting about 15percent of the total Chinese population in Peninsular Malaysia. They arepredominately located in the old Straits Settlements of Penang and Malacca.

Malaysia was generally free of the virulent racism-except among someEuropean colonialists-that infects some multi-ethnic societies. In formertimes Chinese parents sometimes used to sell unwanted female babies to

Malay couples. They were raised as Malays and were completely acceptedinto the Malay community in spite of their physical appearance (Freedman,1955:398). In fact, any non-Malay who converts to Islam is usually acceptedas a member of the Malay community.

A factor which might have led to more intermarriage was the unbalancedsex ratio of the early immigrant communities (Table 2.3). In the early decadesof the 20th centuries there were only from 2 to 4 females for every 10 malesof the Chinese and Indian population. Of course, there were alternatives tomarriage in Malaysia: there was reportedly a great deal of prostitution, es-

pecially in the Chinese community (Purcell, 1967, chapter 9). Since most

migrants did not plan to stay permanently there was probably minimal moti-vation to marry and launch upon family life. Moreover, intermarriage was

discouraged by the geographical separation of the ethnic groups. Many Chineseand Indians lived in isolated tin-mining communities or on rubber plantations,while the majority of Malays lived in rural villages. Towns and cities werepotential sites of interethnic contact, but there most of the inhabitants werenon-Malays. The most popular explanation of the infrequency of interethnicmarriage is the religious barrier. Practically all Malays are Muslims, and Islamrequires the conversion of potential non-Malay mates. In ethnic communities

11

Table 2.3: Sex Ratio of Chinese and Indian Population: PeninsularMalaysia, 1911, 1921, 1931, 1947, 1967.

Females Per Thousand Males

Year1911

19211931194719571967

Sources:Del Tufo, 1949:57-58.Fell, 1960:9.Choudhry, 1970:15.

Chinese

215371486

815926999

Indian

320

424514687746896

with strong national and cultural traditions such as those of the Chinese andIndians, conversion is not common. The span of 100 to 200 years is possiblytoo short to yield evidence of possible eventual ethnic amalgamation inMalaysia.

Differences Between Ethnic Communities

Perhaps the major process of acculteration in the 20th century has been thecreation of a common culture within each of the three primary ethnic com-munities. The common bond of being Chinese in Malaysia has created a com-mon identity among the diverse linguistic, occupational, and clan groups ofChinese. Similarly, although Tamil-speakers from Ceylon and Indian are wellaware of their differences, most other Malaysians regard them both as Indians.The regional differences in the Malay community between the East and WestCoast, as well as the differences between indigenous Malays and those whomigrated a generation ago from Sumatra or Java are secondary to the moresalient differences between the three major ethnic communities. Most Malaysare of the Islamic faith, Chinese are predominantly Buddhist, and the majorityof Indians are Hindu. There is some religious diversity in the Chinese andIndian communities, both of which have sizeable Christian minorities. Thereare many Indian Muslims, particularly in the Pakistani community.

Language has been a major barrier. For the most part, each communityhas kept its mother tongue. This is also true of subcommunities of Chineseand Indians who speak different languages. Among middle-class persons(teachers, professionals, government workers, and the like) in the cities,English is the interethnic medium, while Malay is the basic vehicle of com-munication among the masses (U.A. Aziz, 1960:27). Most non-Malays, how-ever, have a limited mastery of the Malay language. In 1957, only threepercent of the Chinese population above age ten, and only five percent ofthe same Indian population said they were literate in Malay (Fell, 1960:94-95).

12

But perhaps most significant are socioeconomic divisions that have oftenbeen along ethnic lines of which an example is the pattern of urbanization.Living in an urban area permits access to educational and occupational oppor-tunities as well as exposure to modernizing influences (Schnaiberg, 1971).In this the Chinese and Indians have had the advantage over the Malays.

As shown in Table 2.4, the proportion of the population which is urban has

Table 2.4: Percentage of the Total Population and of Each EthnicCommunity in Urban Areas:* Peninsular Malaysia, 1911,1921, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967.

Year CommunityTotal Malay Chinese Indian

191 10.7%

1921 14.0%1931 15.1%1947 18.9% 7.3 31.1 25.8

1957 26.5% 11.2 44.7 30.6

1967 32.3% 17.6 51.8 35.1

*An urban area is defined as a gazetted area whose population numbers 10,000or more.

Sources:Del Tufo, 1949: 39 and 47.Fell, 1960: 6 and 11.Choudhry, 1970: 68.

greatly accelerated in recent years. The Chinese were the most urban com-munity in 1967 followed by the Indians and the Malays. Yet, although eachethnic community became more urban, ethnic differentials have persisted.

The dramatic rise of the proportion of Chinese in urban areas between 1947and 1957 is usually attributed to the forced relocation of rural squatters orderedby the colonial government during the "Emergency" of the early 1950’s(Fell, 1960:7). At that time, over half a million rural settlers, mostly Chinese,were resettled into "new villages", many of which became small towns(Hamzah Sendut, 1962). ’The Emergency’’ was the popular name of a periodof warfare between guerilla forces and the government, which officially lastedfrom 1948 to 1960, although most of the active fighting had ended by themid-1950’s (Short, 1964).

Almost any measure of socioeconomic status, whether education, occu-pation, or income reveals significant differences between the ethnic communi-ties of West Malaysia (Aries, 1971). By and large, non-Malays (Chineseand Indians) have attained higher average levels of education and incomethan Malays. Among Chinese and Indians, also, a higher proportion of their

13

employed population is engaged in managerial, sales, and other occupationsof higher status. The majority of Malays remain rural agriculturalists. Muchof the analysis in the succeeding chapters is directed toward explaining thesepatterns. Nonetheless, while there are important differences in the mean valuesof socioeconomic status between ethnic groups, there is a great deal of overlapin the distributions. Not all Malays are peasants in rural areas, and not allChinese are businessmen in the towns and cities.

Just as there are popular stereotypes linking ethnic memberhip with occu-

pation, there are equally misleading stereotypes regarding the ethnic divisionof power. It is often argued that the Malay community is the dominant politicalgroup in Malaysia while the Chinese control the economic sector. During thecolonial era, the British were supposedly administering the country for thebenefit of the indigenous Malay community. Since Independence, Malayshave been over-represented in their proportion: in political and some govern-mental positions, including the cabinet, the parliament, the military andpolice, and the basic administrative civil service of the country. Similarly,most shops and businesses in the cities and small towns throughout Malaysiaare run by Chinese entrepreneurs. These popular stereotypes, however, haverarely been subjected to empirical analysis.

The popular belief that the Chinese community controls the economy iscast into doubt by some recent data published in the Second Malaysia Plan(Malaysia, 1971:40) showing the distribution of share capital in limited com-panies (corporations) in Peninsular Malaysia by ethnicity and nationality ofshare holders. Malays and Malay interests owned only 1.5 percent of suchshares by value. Indians held less than one percent, and Chinese owned 22.8percent. But most interesting was the fact that 62 percent of the value ofshares were held by foreign interests, either individuals or companies.

While limited companies produce only 21 percent of the total GNP ofPeninsular Malaysia (Department of Statistics, 1969b:2), they are the most

modem sector of the economy, one which will grow as Malaysia becomesmore industrialized and economically developed. The Chinese community,or at least some segment of it, has a firm stake there and has an advantage,compared with the other communities. However, the dominant power andperhaps ultimate control of this part of the economy is in non-Malaysianhands of individuals and companies from abroad. This means that this studyof social stratification in Malaysia is ignoring a major element of the politicaleconomy-the foreign community. While negligible in terms of numbers,their socioeconomic position and influence is probably the highest in the socialstructure. But since data on the characteristics of foreigners are not availableseparately, it is not possible to include them in our analysis. In any case, theanalysis made here of the distribution of status characteristics, is probably not

appropriate to measure the participation and influence of the upper echelonsof Peninsular Malaysia society. There has been some preliminary research onthis topic (Puthucheary, 1960), but much more is needed for an understandingof these aspects of Malaysian social stratification.

14

CHAPTER 3

THE PROCESS OF STRUCTURAL ASSIMILATION

As here defined, structural assimilation is the process of dispersion through-out the social structure of different ethnic or immigrant communities. Whileethnic groups may be initially in various social strata and residential areas, inPark’s model the shifting and sorting of people over time comes to dependmore on individual characteristics than on ethnicity. The major social institu-tions that serve as indicators of structural assimilation have been economic,educational, and residential. Thus the investigator looks at trends in the dis-tribution of ethnic groups by occupation, educational attainment, or residence.(Taeuber and Taeuber 1964; Eisenstadt, 1953; Lieberson, 1963; Parley andHermalin, 1972). If the distribution of status characteristics becomes moresimilar or more equal overtime, one may conclude that structural assimilationis occurring.

The major social institutions mentioned above are generally thought of asspheres where secondary relationships predominate. This means that peopledo not form close personal ties, but generally come together in an office,school, or factory for reasons other than friendship with others in that location.In contrast, in other social structures, such as the family, social clubs, andinformal groups, primary group relationships predominate, and in these struc-tural assimilation has been investigated by using such measures as rates ofintermarriage and informal association (Heer, 1967; Bumpass, 1970; Molotch,1969).

National data on structural assimilation in primary group associations,especially of secular trends, are relatively rare; occupation, education, andresidence are much more likely to be routinely reported in censuses andsurveys. It should also be noted that an equal distribution of ethnic groups

15

in terms of educational attainment or occupation does not necessarily meanthat they are engaged in secondary relationships in the same institutions:equal educational attainment may be achieved in separate schools, and anequal occupational distribution could be possible even if the ethnic groupsworked in different industries at diverse locations. At best, these measuresof structural assimilation give a rough idea of the relative level of interethnicinequality.

Trends in Educational Attainment

In earlier research, examined the differential distribution of ethnic groupsby educational attainment in Peninsular Malaysia (Hirschman, 1972b). Datafrom the 1957 Population Census of the Federation of Malaya were usedto measure the trend in educational attainment, age groups being treated asrepresentative of successive cohorts passing through the educational systemduring the 20th century. The oldest, 60-64 years old, had passed throughthe educational system from 40 to 50 years before 1957, while most of theyoungest, 20-24, had completed their education in the few years preceding1957, and a few may still be attending institutions of higher learning.

Table 3.1 shows the mean years of schooling of nine five-year age groups

Table 3.1: Mean Years of Schooling, by Ethnic Community, Sex,and Age Group: Peninsular Malaysia, 1957

Mean Years of Schooling

Age Group Males Females

Malay Chinese Indian Malay Chinese Indian

20-24 3.9 4.7 4.7 1.5 2.4 2.1

25-29 3.5 4.1 5.0 1.1 1.6 2.1

30-34 3.3 4.6 4.7 0.8 1.7 1.6

35-39 3.0 4.5 4.0 0.5 1.3 1.040-44 2.8 3.9 3.4 0.3 0.9 0.7

45-49 2.4 3.4 3.0 0.2 0.6 0.5

50-54 1.9 2.9 2.7 0.1 0.4 0.5

55-59 1.7 2.6 2.4 0.1 0.3 0.4

60-64 1.3 2.4 2.2 0.1 0.2 0.4

Source: Calculated from tables in Fell, 1960:87-90.

in 1957, by ethnicity and sex. It is clear that there has been a general trendtowards higher educational attainment among all Malaysians. However, cer-tain significant ethnic differentials have not declined. In the oldest age group,the mean educational attainment of Malay males was 1.1 years less than thatof Chinese males; in the youngest, the Malay-Chinese difference was .8 of ayear. From this table education does not seem to indicate a great deal of struc-tural assimilation during the first half of the 20th century.

16

More detailed analysis showed that the ethnic differential persisted becauseMalays encountered a problem of access to schools. The Malays’ rates ofentry into primary schools and of progression from primary to secondaryschooling were lower than were the Chinese’ and Indians’. However, in pri-mary or secondary schools, Malays were just as likely to go on to completionas were Chinese or Indians. These ethnic differentials in education seem tohave resulted from the relative accessibility of schools: Malays were morelikely to live in rural areas, but most schools, during the colonial era, werein the towns and cities.

Trends in the Occupational StructureThere were major shifts in the occupational structure of Peninsular Malaysia

between 1931 and 1967, when the proportion of all adult males employed inagriculture declined from 58 to 43 percent. There have been accompanyingincreases in the proportion of white-collar workers as well as craftsmen andproduction process workers (operatives). These changes correspond to well-known shifts in the occupational structure in the course of economic develop-ment (Farrag, 1964; Moore, 1966; Treiman, 1970). Concealed in these broadpatterns, however, is considerable ethnic variation. Each ethnic communityhad its particular occupational structure in 1931, the first year in our analysis.While some patterns of change in occupational distributions were similar inall three, there were differences in rates of change, and occasionally in thedirection of change. The patterns of ethnic occupational structure continuedto show wide variation in 1967.

As in most other longitudinal research, a satisfactory explanation of theprocess of change in the occupational structure or structural assimilation isextremely difficult to find. The causes of any social change or lack of change,are intertwined in historical conditions, to measure whose relative impactrequires data far beyond the census material used to measure the trends. Inthe attempt to relate these patterns to the historical circumstances from whichthey arise shall put forth hypotheses which require more investigation thanis possible here, for one of the tasks of the research worker is to ask questionsand suggest hypotheses for further investigation.

Data and MethodsData on the occupations of employed males by ethnicity has been assembled

from the Population Censuses of Malaya (the eleven states which at presentcomprise Peninsular Malaysia) of 1931, 1947, 1957, and of 1967/68 from theSocioeconomic Survey of Households. These pose several problems of com-parability (see Appendix A). For one thing, the age boundaries of the varioustables on occupations varied from none, 10 plus, to 15-64 years. This meansthat raw numbers in an occupation from one time to another are not comparablenonetheless, the numbers at either end of the age distributions arc relativelysmall and seem to have only minor effects on the percentage distributions.Accordingly, occupational trends are measured with data in percentage form.Then the definition of the workforce was based on the "gainful worker" con-cept in the 1931 and 1947 censuses, but somewhat different variations of theconcept of the labor force were used in the 1957 Census and 1967/68 Socio-economic Survey. This gave rise to the problem that unemployed and perhaps

17

some retired workers are classified as in the occupational distributions (basedonly on employed population in 1957 and 1967) in the earlier sources and notin the later ones; however, suspect this to exert little influence and sincedo not try to interpret small differences or changes it should not interfere

with the analysis. Perhaps the most important problem lies in the variousschemes of occupational classification of the four sources of data. Workingwith the most detailed categories of each scheme ofoccupational classification,constructed a roughly comparable series of occupational trends by ethnicity.

The list of categories in the comparable classification was limited to the tenmajor occupations in the most recent (1957 and 1967/68) classification (seeAppendix B). While such a short list of occupations lacks much of the flavorand diversity of the detailed tables, it does assure the relative comparabilityof a variety of schemes of classification. Occasionally, data on the detailedcategories within a major occupational classification are presented to showinternal variation.

To indicate trends and differentials, the occupational composition of eachethnic group is presented for each of four periods in percentage form, whichallows for a detailed discussion of comparative stability and change in theoccupational structure ofeach community. The ethnic diversity in occupationalcomposition is summarized with "delta" indexes of dissimilarity. A deltaindex, a measure of the inequality or unevenness of two percentage distri-butions, can be interpreted as the minimum percent of one population whichwould have to be redistributed to achieve equal percentage distributions acrossall categories. (For a more detailed discussion of the delta index and similarmeasures, see Duncan and Duncan, 1955 and Taeuber and Taeuber, 1965:195-245).

Occupation and Social InequalityBecause occupation is both the main activity of adult men and usually

the main determinant of social rewards, including income, the occupationalstructure is often considered equivalent to the opportunity structure; in otherwords, entering an occupation usually entails reaching a position in a socio-economic hierarchy. However, the construction of an occupational hierarchy,a task of ranking essentially nominal categories, has proved troublesome.An occupational hierarchy based on prestige scores, however, is largely con-sistent across time and space (Hodge, Siegel, and Rossi, 1966; Hodge,Treiman, and Rossi, 1966). In turn, the prestige ranking of an occupationalcategory shows a strong relationship to income and education (Duncan, 1961).

Since occupation is to be used to indicate comparative social status or socialinequality, the socioeconomic correlates of different occupational positionsmust be demonstrated. Since did not have access to an independent measureof prestige rankings of occupations in Malaysia, calculated the average in-come and education in different occupations from the 1966167 West MalaysianFamily Survey data. Education would seem to measure level of skill whileincome is a major determinant of level of living.

Table 3.2 shows the mean education and income in eight major occupa-tional categories. ’Mean education’’ is the average number of years of school-ing completed, and mean income shows the average monthly income in Malay

18

Table 3.2: Ranking ofMajor Occupational Categories ofMarried Men, by Mean Monthly Income’and Mean Years of Schooling, by Ethnic Community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967.

TotalOccupation Population2 Malay Chinese Indian Number of Men3

Inc. Ed. Inc. Ed. Inc. Ed. Inc. Ed. Inc. Ed.

Professional, Technical,Administrative, Executive,and Managerial Workers $357 8.2 $280 7.3 $459 9.2 $491 10.5 358 344

Clerical Workers 309 9.0 291 8.4 336 9.5 308 0.6 224 211Sales Workers 217 5.3 107 4.4 267 5.8 242 4.8 433 431Service Workers 208 5.9 201 6.0 203 6.1 200 4.5 314 294

Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers 179 4.9 125 4.1 207 4.7 214 6.7 444 416Transport andCommunication Workers 152 4.8 138 4.5 186 5.0 127 5.1 322 304Laborers, including Miners 108 4.0 100 4.7 127 3.4 96 3.8 344 329Agricultural Workers 67 3.2 57 3.1 136 3.7 101 3.8 2873 2847

Total 135 4.4 98 3.9 232 5.6 160 5.0 5312 5174

’In Malaysian dollars (in 1967, one U.S. dollar three Malaysian dollars)^he total population includes Malays, Chinese, and Indian men plus those (2 percent of total) of other ethnicgroups."Ni is the weighted number of cases (married men) reporting both income and occupation.N2 is the weighted number of cases (married men) reporting both education and occupation.

Source: 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey

sian dollars; both measures are shown by occupation of the total populationof married males as well as of each ethnic community. have arranged theeight major occupations in rank order from highest mean income and educa-tion to lowest. Although the general pattern of a socioeconomic hierarchyemerges, there are a number of inconsistencies. For the total population themean income of professional and administrative occupations is almost $50more than that of clerical occupations, while the mean education of clericalworkers is almost a year longer than that of professionals and administrators.Similarly, education and income yield different ranks between sales and serviceoccupations. There is also considerable variation in the pattern of differentialsbetween occupational categories. There are sizable differences between someoccupations and only minor differences between others. One of the problemsin using a crude occupational classification is the considerable socioeconomicheterogeneity within each major occupation category. Nevertheless, the overallpattern shows that occupation is an important indicator of such other socio-economic measures as education and income.

For most occupations, the mean income and education of Malay men is be-low that of Chinese and Indians. This may suggest that the same occupationalcategory represents a different composition of specific occupations in differentethnic communities. There are also a few occupations in which the hierarchyis not the same in all ethnic groups. Among the Malay population clericaloccupations rate, in general, above the professional and administrative; salesoccupations rank much lower in the Malay socioeconomic hierarchy than inthe total population. suspect that most Malay men engaged in sales or com-merce work in very small rural shops.

There is a sharp break between the lowest urban occupation, laborers,and agricultural workers in the Malay population. There are almost no socio-economic differences between laborers and fanners among the Chinese andIndians; if anything, agricultural occupations rate above laborers. believethe explanation lies in the differences between the agricultural workforce ofthe Malay and non-Malay population, most Malays among them being smallland owners or tenant farmers in the village economy, while most of theChinese and Indians are rubber tappers or laborers, who work on plantationsand receive cash income. The average cash incomes of Chinese and Indiansin agriculture are twice those of Malay farmers, though they may receiveless income in kind.

In spite of these variations. Table 3.2 may be taken as evidence that thehypothesis of a socioeconomic hierarchy of the Peninsular Malaysian occu-pational structure is valid.

Socioeconomic Change, 1931-1967To place occupational changes in the context of socioeconomic conditions

as shown in data of 1931, 1947, 1957, and 1967, examined three periods:1931 to 1947, 1947 to 1957, and 1957 to 1967.

The period from 1931 to 1947 contains both the world-wide economicDepression of the 1930’s and World War II. The economic Depression emanat-ing from the industrialized nations hit Peninsular Malaysia particularly hard

20

because the foundation of the Malaysian economy was the export of rubberand tin to the West, the decline of which caused the economy to shrink sharply.In late 1941, the Japanese captured the country and occupied it until 1945.Cut off completely from foreign sales except to Japan, Malaysia probablyendured prolonged hardship. From 1931 to 1947 there was only a small in-crease in the proportion of the population living in urban areas.

The second period, 1947 to 1957, encompassed the last decade of Britishcolonial rule as well as a protracted jungle war with indigenous guerilla forces.It was also, however, a period of economic recovery from the Depression andthe Japanese occupation. Although economic progress was modest in the im-mediate post-war years, the rubber boom from 1949 to 1952, coinciding withthe Korean War, resulted in a doubling of the Gross National Product ofMalaya (both Peninsular Malaysia and Singapore) (Silcock, 1963b: 243). Theprice of rubber had a major impact on the Malaysian economy: over one-fourthof the employed population worked directly in rubber industries in both 1947and 1957 (Fell, 1960:31). The price of rubber rose by over four hundred per-cent from 1949 to 1951 (Silcock, 1963b:247). Then, too, between 1947 and1957, as mentioned earlier, the jungle warfare or "Emergency" of the 1950’sled the colonial government to relocate hundreds of thousands of rural in-habitants, largely Chinese, into "new villages" which were or became smalltowns, and their compulsory urbanization appears to have had the effect inwidening occupational differences between the Chinese and the Malays.The final period, 1957 to 1967, saw the dawn of the independent era in

1963. The independent government played a more active role than did thecolonial government in promoting economic development, especially in in-creasing public investment in education and rural public works (see Ness,1964; and Malaysia, 1965). Economic growth was much more stable, averag-ing about six percent annually in Gross Domestic Product (Department ofStatistics, 1971a). Also in the first decade of independence, the governmentset up the objective of improving the social and economic condition of theMalay population. Because of the sensitive nature of this issue, the publicpolicy was often phrased without naming any one particular ethnic community,such as in the announcement: "The first major objective of the plan is to pro-vide facilities and opportunities for the rural population to improve its levelsof economic and social well being" (Malaysia, 1963:2). Although this policydoes not necessarily imply it, it seems that change in occupational pursuitswould be an inevitable consequence of increasing incomes and educationalopportunities in rural areas.’

Occupations and Ethnicity, 1931-1967Table 3.3 shows the trends in the occupational structure by ethnic group

of employed males in Peninsular Malaysia in 1931, 1947, 1957, and 1967.The trend in the overall occupational patterns of the total employed malepopulation is shown in the first column under each period. In agriculturaloccupations the percentage rose slightly from 1931 to 1947, then declined by

’In recent years, government policy has been explicit. The Second Malaysian Plan1971-1975, (1971) includes specific objectives to restructure the Malaysian societyand economy to correct the ethnic economic imbalance.

21

i^j Table 3.3: Occupational Composition of Employed Males, by Ethnic Community: Peninsular"-’ Malaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967.

1931 1947Occupation* Total Malay Chinese Indian Total Malay Chinese Indian

Professional and TechnicalWorkers 1.5% 1.5% 1.2% 1.1% 1.9% 1.7% 1.6% 2.1%

Administrative, Executiveand Managerial Workers 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.9 0.6 1.3 0.7Clerical Workers 1.9 0.9 2.4 1.7 2.4 1.1 3.5 2.7Sales Workers 8.0 2.1 14.1 7.7 9.3 2.8 16.4 9.9Service Workers 5.8 2.5 6.5 9.6 6.5 4.1 7.3 10.9Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers 6.7 2.6 10.9 4.6 8.9 4.1 13.9 9.4Transport andCommunication Workers 4.8 4.3 4.2 7.2 4.5 4.0 4.0 7.6Miners 5.1 0.2 10.5 1.9 2.1 0.6 4.0 1.7

Laborers 7.4 2.8 8.1 14.3 3.9 2.8 2.8 10.2

Agricultural Workers 57.8 82.4 40.8 50.9 59.5 78.2 45.1 44.7Not Reported 0.5 0.2 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Total Employed 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

*This list contains the ten major occupational categories (one digit level) in the 1957 classification (see Appendix B). Thecategories have been slightly re-worded for consistency and ranked according to the socioeconomic hierarchy in Table 3.2.Two categories from Table 3.2 are here divided into separate categories: Professional and Administrative is now Professionaland Technical, and Administrative, Executive, and Managerial; also in the Laborers category. Miners are separated fromother Laborers.

Table 3.3: CONTINUED

1957

Occupation Total Malay Chinese Indian

Professional and TechnicalWorkers 2.9% 2.7% 2.8% 2.6%Administrative, Executive,and Managerial Workers 1.5 0.2 2.6 1.3Clerical Workers 3.6 2.2 4.4 5.3Sales Workers 10.3 2.8 19.3 13.4Service Workers 9.1 8.7 5.9 8.9Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers 11.6 4.9 20.2 13.4Transport andCommunication Workers 4.1 3.7 4.6 4.7Miners O.I 0.0 0.2 0.1Laborers 6.5 4.3 7.3 12.8Agricultural Workers 50.1 69.8 32.3 37.2Not Reported 0.4 0.3 0.4 0.3Total Employed 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

1967

Total Malay Chinese Indian

5.1% 5.1% 4.6% 5.4%

2.2 1.0 4.0 1.64.8 3.2 6.2 6.610.5 4.4 19.7 9.36.1 5.8 5.7 8.0

12.6 6.9 20.3 13.4

5.2 4.7 5.5 6.21.1 0.4 2.0 0.99.1 8.7 8.5 13.5

43.2 59.8 23.5 34.90.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Sources: The percentages are based upon figures reported in Appendix Table D.I, drawn from:Vlieland, 1932:252-324.Del Tufo, 1949:477-505.Fell, 1960: 128-137.

^ Choudhry, 1970 (Appendix): 62-67.

almost ten points from 1947 to 1957 and then by seven more points from1957 to 1967. This was accompanied by increases in the percentages em-ployed in professional and administrative as well as clerical and craft occupa-tions, but in most other categories the percentage of the total employed seemsrather stable. Service occupations rose in 1957, then declined. think this isdue to the large number of armed forces personnel, including many Britishand other Commonwealth troops, who were still mobilized for the "MalayanEmergency". Laborers declined between 1931 to 1947, then rose steadilyin the rest of the time period being considered.

The occupational trends in each ethnic group are similar, but there are dif-ferences in the magnitude and timing of shifts in the occupational structure.Malay men were much more likely to be in agricultural occupations, over 82percent appearing in this category in 1931, dropping to slightly below 60 per-cent in 1967, most of the decrease occurring after 1947. However, the pro-portion of Chinese and Indian males in agriculture also declined, leavingonly 24 and 35 percent, respectively, in this occupation in 1967. The case ofChinese employment in agriculture is especially interesting. The proportionof Chinese employed in agriculture rose from 40.8% in 1931 to 45.1 % in 1947,then declined sharply during the next intervals. The decline after 1947 seemsto be readily explained by the relocation of rural Chinese during the "Emer-gency" in the early 1950’s as well as by the rural-to-urban migration normalin a time of economic development. However, the increase during the 1930’sand 1940’s is puzzling. Two potential factors need to be considered, thepeculiar age distribution of the Chinese population and the possibility of urban-to-rural migration during the Depression and war years.

The male Chinese age structure during the first part of the twentieth cen-tury was unbalanced due to the heavy inflow of adult immigrants which con-trasts with growth by natural increase (Table 3.4). There was a sharp relative

Table 3.4: Age Distribution of the Chinese Population by Sex:Peninsular Malaysia, 1921, 1931, and 1947.

1921 1931 1947Age Males Females Males Females Males Females0-14 14.3% 33.5% 20.3% 35.4% 37.6% 40.7%15-49 75.1 56.7 69.2 55.0 49.5 48.450+ 10.6 9.8 10.5 9.6 12.9 10.9Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Source: T.E. Smith, 1952:70.

as well as an absolute decline in the number of male Chinese in the workingages (defined here as 15 to 49) from 1931 to 1947, the result of a restrictionof male Chinese immigration during the 1930’s. As large cohorts of maleChinese left the working ages by death, retirement, or emigration, they werereplaced by relatively smaller cohorts of locally-bom Chinese who had comeof working age. These additions to the Chinese work force were perhaps more

24

likely to be rural and agricultural than those who left the work force for theabove reasons. Another possible explanation of the relative increase ofChinesemen in agriculture is that the hard years ofthe Depression and the war "pushed"many marginal Chinese urban workers and tin miners to unclaimed jungle landto eke out a subsistence living or to engage in small-scale agriculture. It isriot possible to test this hypothesis; however, have compared the types ofagricultural activities of Chinese men in 1931 and 1947 (Table 3.5). The total

Table 3.5: Detailed Occupational Composition of Employed ChineseMales in Agricultural and Fishing Occupations*: PeninsularMalaysia, 1931, 1947.

Occupation

Rice FarmersRubber FarmersCoconut FarmersOil Palm FarmersFruit and Vegetable FarmersRearers and Poultry & Livestock

Forresters and WoodcuttersOther Agricultural Workers

Fishermen

Total Employed

1931

5,174158,4433,755

11741,5146,22112,87729,90113,496

271,496

1947

33,94018,0363,3422,070

68,9914,2778,2986,95717,491

263,402

*The Malaysian occupational classification for these years included non-agricultural activities such as forestry and woodcutting under "Agricultural."Sources: Vlieland, 1932:294 and 319.

Del Tufo, 1949:477.

number of Chinese men in agriculture and fishing declined, but there weresubstantial increases of them in the cultivation of rice, fruit and vegetables,and in fishing. This would seem to be consistent with the explanation of urbanto rural migration by the Chinese. Another influence on this process mighthave been the Japanese mistreatment of Malaysian Chinese during the Japaneseoccupation of the country from 1941 to 1945. Both because the Japanese werethen waging an active war in China and because most of the local resistancefighters in Malaysia were Chinese, the Japanese occupation forces were saidto be more hostile to Chinese than to either Malays or Indians, and this mayhave led some Chinese to migrate to rural areas to escape mistreatment. Ofcourse, much happened between 1945 and 1947, and it is risky to concludethat the 1947 data reflect only the experience of the Depression and the War.

The decline in agriculture since 1947 affected all three ethnic groups: theMalays and Chinese showed a reduction of twenty percentage points, whilethe Indians were fewer by ten percentage points (Table 3.3). Since the Indianand Chinese had a smaller share in agricultural occupations in 1947, theirdecline from 1947 to 1957 was a greater percentage of their initial agricultural

25

population than was the case of the Malays. In each ethnic community thecommon losses in agriculture reflected different kinds of agricultural activity.Most Malays in agriculture were subsistence farmers working their own landor tenants on the land of wealthier villagers. Almost all Indian agriculturalistswere laborers on large rubber estates and more recently .on oil palm estates.The Chinese were both: many worked as laborers on estates, but there werealso many small Chinese farmers who grew vegetables, tobacco, or some othercash crop. Table 3.6 presents evidence that the sharp decline in Malay farmerswas due to a decrease in the proportion of Malays classified as primary ricecultivators from 46 percent in 1947 to 20 percent in 1967. There was in in-crease in proportion of Malays in rubber cultivation. Among the Chinese, thechange from 1947 to 1957 was a decline in the growing of rice and "othercrops", (both generally subsistence crops), while the 1957-1967 drop was

largely in the rubber sector. Among the Indians, the decline has been almostcompletely in the rubber industry, the most rapid decrease occurring from 1957to 1967. It seems evident the trend out of agricultural employment is notlimited to any particular crop or subdivision within it.

Table 3.3 shows increases in all groups in white collar occupations (pro-fessional and technical, administrative, executive, and managerial, and cleri-cal). In professional occupations, it appears that general parity has persistedamong the three ethnic groups overtime. For instance, in 1931, professionalsamong the three ethnic group ranged from 1.1 to 1.5 percent and in 1967, itwas from 4.6 to 5.4 percent. However, within this major occupation internaldifferences appear in the detailed occupational categories, classified by eth-nicity (Table 3.7). While the majority of professionals from each group wereteachers and "other professionals", Chinese and Indians were more likelyto be in medical and other professions high in status than were Malays.

For administrative and clerical occupations, there has been a growing dif-ferential between Malays and non-Malays (Table 3.3). Both classes of occupa-tion increased, especially from 1947 to 1967, but the ethnic differentialsremained. think there are two major factors affecting the ethnic differentialin white-collarjobs. First, in many white-collar occupations, paper credentialsor education is a major determinant of who gets a job, so that much of theethnic differentials in white-collar jobs reflect unequal educational qualifica-tions. (This is a hypothesis which will be directly tested in chapter 6). Theother consideration is the role of recruitment in the public and private sec-tor. Many of the establishments in the private sector may give preference to

relatives or clan members in hiring white-collar workers, and this is probablytrue of other jobs as well. Since Chinese and Indians are more urban and morelikely to be employers, such a policy would effectively discriminate againstMalays. It should also be noted that even if preferential hiring of non-Malayswere not practiced, but widely believed to be practiced, it would discourageMalays from applying. Within the public sector the government must generallyrely on more the universalistic criteria of paper qualifications, although thereare practices which give preference to Malay applicants on certain governmentjobs. Basically, this is a quota system to maintain a balance between Malaysand non-Malays-but these were flexible since only "qualified" applicantswith proper educational credentials could be considered.

26

Table 3.6: Detailed Occupational Composition of Employed Chinese Males in Agricultural andFishing Occupations*: Peninsular Malaysia, 1931, 1947.

IndustryRiceRubberCoconutOil PalmTeaOther CropsForestry and HuntingFishingTotal Employed2

Percer

1974

45.7%19.33.7

0.2

3.0

0.66.578.8%

itage of

Malay1957

33.7%24.13.4

0.20.1

3.10.95.4

70.9%

the Tota

1967

19.7%

24.43.01.0

5.5

{5.359.1%

Employ

1947

5.9%21.5

0.60.4

13.81.6

3.146.8%

fed Popi

Chinese

19571.3%

20.10.70.40.17.51.93.435.7%

ilation

1967

1.0%14.1

0.50.60.16.7

{3.126.0%

1947

0.4%42.2

3.21.9

2.20.1

0.3

50.3%

Indian

1957

0.2%38.52.72.00.61.3

0.10.2

45.6%

19670.2%

30.81.95.60.3

1.9

{0.240.9%

Because these data are based upon an industrial rather than an occupational classification, both the categoriesand figures are slightly different from the earlier tables based upon occupational composition.^he Malaysian industrial classification for these years includes some non-agricultural activities under themajor category of agriculture.

Sources: Del Tufo, 1949:442.Fell, 1960:102-103.Choudhry, 1970 (Appendix): 52

Table 3.7: Detailed Occupational Composition of Employed Males in Professional and TechnicalOccupations, by Ethnic Community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1967.

OccupationArchitects and EngineersScientists

Physicians and Dentists

Other Medical

Teachers

LawyersOthersTotal Employed

Source: Choudhry, 1970

IV

Number

522433

299

2,04528,379

34

8,57040,282

(Appendix):

lalay% of TotalEmployed

0.1

0.10.00.3

3.60.01.1

5.1%

62-67.

Chi

Number

1,93450

8202,03313,207

203

8,18926,436

nese

% of TotalEmployed

0.3

0.00.10.42.30.0

1.44.6%

Inc

Number

421239

7921,6914,670

10

3,35011,273

lian

% of TotalEmployed

0.20.1

0.40.82.20.1

1.6

5.4%

Perhaps the widest differential in the whole structure is in sales occupationswhere in 1967 the percentage of Malays was less than one-quarter of thepercentage of Chinese and less than one-half of the percentage of Indians(Table 3.3). Overall sales employment grew only from 8.0 to 10.5 percentfrom 1931 to 1967, allowing not much flexibility to narrow this differential.The comments made above about hiring in the private sector may apply morestrongly here, for much of the employment in trade is in small non-Malayshops were the hiring of children and relatives would prevent any reductionin the ethnic differential.

Service occupations is a residual category whose composition has beenchanging. While personal service occupations, especially that of domesticservant, were the major part of this category in earlier periods, police andmilitary personnel have been a growing and important segment since 1957.Thus that the armed forces and police are largely Malay may account for thechange in the ethnic composition.2

The proportion in transport and communication occupations has been fairlysteady in spite of tremendous technological changes that occurred from 1931to 1967 (Table 3.3). Indians show a slightly higher propensity to enter transportand communications occupations than do the other ethnic groups. The dif-ferential has narrowed only slightly.

The other major area where there has been a substantial ethnic differentialhas been among craftsmen and production process workers, a category whichalso includes overseers and equipment operators. There was a considerableincrease of Malay craftsmen between 1931 and 1967, but a much greaterincrease among the Chinese and Indians, and although the differential be-tween Malays and non-Malays decreased slightly between 1957 and 1967,the margin remained wide.

One occupation where the ethnic differential seems to be narrowing sig-nificantly is that of laborer: by 1967 the involvement of Malays had increased,but that of the other communities had decreased (Table 3.3).What conclusions can be drawn from these data? There seems to have been

a general upgrading of the occupational structure in all three ethnic communi-ties with reductions in agricultural employment and increases in the white-collar and craft occupations. However, there are substantial differences be-tween groups, particularly between the Malays and non-Malay communities,some of which, such as those found in sales and craft occupations were evidentin 1931 and continued until 1967. Other differentials, such as those in ad-ministrative occupations, have emerged during the period under study.

Among workers in services, transport and communication, as well as labor-ers, there seems to have been a narrowing of the ethnic differentials. Doesall this mean that there has been a trend towards ethnic equality in the occu-pational structures?

’The 1967/68 Socioeconomic Household Survey missed the institutional populationwhich included large numbers of military and police living in barracks.

29

Differences in Occupational StructuresTo describe the pattern of similarities and differences presented in Table

3.3 in occupational structures of three ethnic groups at four points in time isa complex and sometimes confusing task. While all the important informationis there, it is not very easy to see the overall pattern or trend because of themass of detail. An alternative way to analyze these data is to summarize theinformation by means of an index which measures the differences between twopercentage distributions. One such measure will be used here, the Index ofDissimilarity or Delta Index (see previous references). The delta index has atheoretical range from "0" which indicates complete similarity between twodistributions to "100" which indicates complete dissimilarity. The delta in-dex can be interpreted as the minimun percentage of one group which wouldhave to be redistributed in order to match the percentage distribution of theother group.

Table 3.8 shows delta indexes for comparisons among the three ethnicgroups at four points in time. The upper panel shows the deltas for within-ethnic group comparisons, that is, the indexes which measure the shift in theoccupational composition in each community over time. The diagonal of eachethnic matrix contains zeroes to indicate the comparison of a population withitself. The row off the diagonal (which is underlined) indicates the shifts be-tween one date and the next. In the first two inter-period comparisons, theoccupational structures of the Chinese and Indians changed more than did theMalays’ while the reverse is true in the most recent period, 1957 to 1967.

A number of studies have shown that the occupational structure of a societyundergoing economic and social development becomes increasingly diversifiedwith a decreasing proportion of agricultural occupations and a growth ofindustry and of urban occupations (Farrag, 1964; Moore, 1966). If this isoccurring, then the secular changes in the occupational structure should befollowing an evolutionary path from a traditional to some modem structure.

While this model need not be taken as completely predictive of change,it does give a useful empirical expectation-that is, that the changes in theoccupational structure are cumulative overtime. In terms of the measure usedhere, the delta index which compares distributions across two or three timeperiods should be equal to the sum of the delta indexes for each inter-periodcomparison. While this evolutionary model is usually posited in theories whichrelate changes in the occupational structure to economic development, it isclear from Table 3.8 that there were occasional reversals. For the Malayoccupational structure, there were a total of 27 percentage points of shifting(sum of 4.6, 9.2, and 13.2) from 1931 to 1967, however, this resulted in a netredistribution of only 22.8 percentage points in that interval. For the Malaypopulation, most of the shifts in the occupational structure have been cumu-lative.

In the Chinese occupational structure there was a total of 39.9 percentagepoints of gross movement which resulted in only 27.0 percentage points ofnet change from 1931 to 1967. Pan of the movement from the first two periods,1931 to 1947 and 1947 to 1957, seems to have been in opposite directions.However, the shifts from 1947 to 1967 seem clearly cumulative.

30

Table 3.8: Indexes of Dissimilarity Between Occupational Distributions of Employed Males, byEthnic Community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967.

Delta Indexes For Within-Ethnic-Group Comparisons Over Time

Malay Chinese Indian1931 1947 1957 1967 1931 1947 1957 1967 1931 1947 1957 1967

1931 0 0 01947 4.6 0 12.6 0 11.1 01957 13.4 9.3 0 20.4 18.0 0 20.6 14.0 01967 22.8 18.7 13.2 0 27.0 25.5 9.3 0 21.0 15.4 7.5 0

Delta Indexes For Between-Ethnic-Group Comparison at Each Period

Index Between 1931 1947 1957 1967

Malay and Chinese 42.0 33.2 40.4 37.0Malay and Indian 32.2 33.4 32.7 24.8Chinese and Indian 22.5 15.2 14.5 20.7

Source: Calculated from percentage distributions in Table 3.3

In the Indian population a total of 32.6 gross percentage change in the occu-pational structure resulted in only 21.0 points of cumulative change from1931 to 1967. In particular, the two most recent periods do not seem to havegiven a common direction to change in the Indian occupational structure.

Without quibbling over choice of words, one might say that the evolutionarytrend apparent in most of the period is an upgrading of the occupationalstructure. This includes a movement out of agriculture and an increase inwhite collar and craft occupations. Actually the delta index measures onlythe amount of change in the occupational composition and not its direction.However, since we do know the overall trends as evidenced in the actualdata on occupations, it seems fairly accurate to label the evolutionary trendof cumulative shift from 1931 to 1967 as a measure of the upgrading of theoccupational structure. If this is so, then the upper panel shows that whilethe Chinese occupational structure progressed or redistributed itself by 27percentage points, the Indian and Malay communities had a net redistributiononly 21.0 and 22.8 percentage points, respectively.

The lower panel Table 3.8 shows the three inter-ethnic comparisons foreach time point; each time-series can be interpreted as the trend in ethnicequality (or similarity) in the occupational structure. From 1931 to 1947, theoccupational distributions of Malays and Chinese became more similar (adecline of almost nine points from 42.0 to 33.2). Then there was a divergencefrom 1947 to 1957 of seven points in the delta index, but it declined slightlyagain from 1957 to 1967. The degree of difference between the Malay andIndian occupational structures was virtually constant from 1931 to 1957,then declined somewhat from 1957 and 1967. The pattern of difference be-tween Chinese and Indian occupational structures fluctuated, declining from1947 to 1957, and then widening from 1957 to 1967.

The interpretation of Table 3.8 in relationship to the social, economic andpolitical conditions of the period is perplexing. There are not parallel time-series data on socioeconomic changes during this entire era, and even if therewere, problems of how these social and economic changes differentially af-fected the occupational patterns ofeach ethnic group would remain unresolved.In spite of the obvious risks offer an interpretative framework for the trendin occupational differentials. Although this involves conjecture, it is an attemptto raise issues not to provide a final interpretation of the socioeconomic causesof ethnic inequality. The discussion is focussed on the pattern of differentialsbetween the Malays and the Chinese who together form 85 percent of the popu-lation.

Interpretation of Occupational Trends

During the period of 1931 to 1947, the occupational structures of Malaysand Chinese became less dissimilar, that is, more equal in terms of occupa-tional distribution. The most important factor in the process was the proportionemployed in agriculture which increased among the Chinese and decreasedamong the Malays. However, even if deltas are calculated on the basis of onlynon-agricultural occupations, the same lessening of inequality is evident (seeAppendix E), albeit to a much smaller degree. suggest that the economicDepression of the 1930’s and the continuing hardships of the Japanese occu-

32

pation in the early 1940’s were the prime cause of this growing similarity.The major decline of non-agricultural employment among the Chinese duringthis period was in the category of miners (10.5 to 4.0%) and laborers (8.1to 2.8%). Perhaps the years of hardship forced many marginal urban workersand miners who lost their jobs to migrate to the fringes of the jungle to be-come subsistence farmers, and as well, discouraged rural Chinese from leavingagriculture. As noted earlier, immigration of Chinese males was all but stoppedin the early 1930’s. This led to a situation where replacement in the Chinesework force was dependent on much smaller cohorts of Chinese adolescentsreplacing larger cohorts of older Chinese adults who died, retired, or emi-grated. Perhaps this process worked in the direction of bringing more Chineseinto farming than into other occupations. For Malays, the slow momentum ofthe twentieth century continued to lower the proportion in agriculture (82.4to 78.2 percent) and increase slightly the number in other occupations. Amongthe social forces at work, increasing educational opportunity and contact withurban areas were probably the most important.

The year 1947 was two years after the end of the Japanese occupationand conditions may have changed substantially in that time. Whether theincreased similarity in occupational distributions meant greater socioeconomicequality is an unanswered question. It is possible that the increasing propor-tion of Chinese in agriculture was at a higher economic level than the averageMalay farmer. However, Table 3.5 indicated that most of the increase of theChinese cultivators was in rice, fruit and vegetable farming, and in fishing.Although their crops may represent involvement in the market economy, theirlevel of living was probably quite close to that of subsistence farmers.

The post-war period, 1947 to 1957, saw growing differences between theMalay and Chinese occupational structures. The proportion of Chinese em-ployed in agriculture declined from 45.1 to 32.3 percent while the corres-ponding figures for Malays were 78.2 to 69.8 percent, and more Chinese-alsobecame administrative, sales, and craft workers than did Malays (Table 3.3).As noted earlier, this was a period of economic recovery and growth, al-though uneven. Why were the Chinese more able to take advantage of theemerging opportunities than were the Malays? One reason might be that theChinese were more likely to be in urban areas where the opportunities weregreater. Also the relatively greater distribution of education among Chineseas compared to Malays must have made a difference, as did probably theforced relocation of hundreds of thousands of rural Chinese during the Emer-gency in the early 1950’s in "new villages’’, which resulted in a sharp increasein the proportion of urban Chinese. This undoubtedly led to occupationalshifts, and probably also provided greatereducational opportunities forChineseyouth. It seems strange at first glance that ethnic socioeconomic differentialswidened during years of economic progress, but that appears to have been thecase.

There were continued changes in the occupational structures of Chineseand Malays from 1957 to 1967, and the gap between the two seems to havenarrowed slightly (Table 3.3). This is evident in agricultural, sales, craft,and laborer occupations. As a consequence of the governmental building ofmore rural schools, thus providing more educational opportunities, and the

33

encouraging of progress in various areas, including the growing public sec-

tor, the Malay occupational structure in terms of percentage distribution shiftedas much in ten years as it had in the proceeding twenty-six. Whether thesepublic efforts at ending ethnic inequality in occupational and other economicpatterns will be successful will be a most important question in the comingyears.

Conclusions

Does it appear from this analysis that there is some trend toward ethnicassimilation or greater similarity in occupational composition as might havebeen predicted by Robert Park’s theories? While the theoretical writings onsocial change and ethnic relations do not really present a "testable proposi-tion", they do offer indications as to the direction of change. However, theMalaysian data do not indicate any clear secular trend. Ethnic differentials(Malay-Chinese) narrowed between 1931 and 1947, then widened between1947 and 1957, and then narrowed slightly between 1957 and 1967. The dif-ferentials within major occupational categories, the trend out of agricultureand the growth of white-collar occupations are similar in all groups, althoughit is more rapid among Chinese and Indians than among Malays. The majordifferentials in sales and craft occupations seem, however, to have narrowedonly slightly in the last decade.

Rather than searching for a single explanation such as industrialization orurbanization as the most important in ethnic occupational trends, it wouldseem more useful to seek explanations in the specific organizational changeswithin the occupational structure. For instance, the movement out of agri-culture can be seen as the result of several social forces common to all groupsin various types of farming activity. Important among factors "pushing"people out of agriculture might be: rural over-crowding or simply too manychildren to inherit a little land or a job on an estate, higher wages in urbanareas, declining prices and terms of trade for agricultural products, and in-creasing education of rural youth.

The growth of white-collar jobs has been stimulated by the growth of thepublic sector and to a lesser extent by large-scale commercial enterprise.Since many white-collar jobs are probably dependent upon "paper qualifica-tions", ethnic differentials may reflect differences in educational attainment.Education in the English language schools, traditionally the most prestigious,has been almost a prerequisite of admission to higher education and white-collarjobs. Since most English schools were in urban areas and proportionatelymore Indians and Chinese were there, this probably affected the unequal ethnicattainment of high-status jobs.

Perhaps another set of structural limitations inhibits the increase of Malaysin sales and craft occupations, where the greatest differentials exist. There mostof the job opportunities are probably in small family enterprises. The merehabit of hiring employees from among kin or clan would restrict opportunitiesin ethnic communities with relatively few employers. Table 3.9 shows thedistribution of males in each ethnic group by employment status. While almost7 percent of employed Chinese men and almost 3 percent of Indians are em-ployers, this is true of less than one percent of Malays. This tends to restrict

34

Table 3.9: Employment Status ofEmployed Males by Ethnic Community:Peninsular Malaysia, 1967.

Employment StatusEmployersOwn Account Workers

Employees/Wage &Salary Earners

Unpaid Family WorkersTotal

Total3.3%

29.1

60.2

7.3100.0%

Malays0.9%

40.4

50.5

8.2100.0%

Chinese

6.9%21.3

63.5

8.3100.0%

Indians

2.9%8.4

87.3

1.4

100.0%

Source: Choudhry, 1970 (Appendix): 42-43.

recruitment ofMalays into sectors of the occupational structure where ethnicitymay be considered as a criterion for employment, such as in small-scale com-merce and industry. While a majority of jobs in manufacturing in 1968 werein establishments of 50 employees or more, a substantial number were in muchsmaller businesses (Table 3.10). It seems likely that the sales or commercial

Table 3.10: Distribution of Establishments and Paid Employees inManufacturing Industries, by Number of Employees:Peninsular Malaysia, 1968.

PaidFull-TimeEmployeesNone1-4

5-910-1920-29

30-4950-99100-199200-499500+Total

Number ofEstablish-ments

3,3472,738957738

394334275133

7720

9,013

PercentDistribution

37.2%30.410.68.24.4

3.73.01.5

0.80.2

100.0%

Number ofPaid

Employees1,8238,5067,7251,455

10,42513,18819,18618,66222,61716,670

130,257

PercentDistribution

1.4%

6.55.98.88.010.1

14.714.3

17.412.8

100.0%

Source: Department of Statistics, No date. Census ofManufacturing Industries,1968:37.

sector is also largely made up of small stores and shops where to reduce ethnicdifferentials would be most difficult. Not only are ethnic preferences probablyoperative there, but relatively few Malays may consider seeking employment

35

where so few of their community are to be found. In other words, the threatof discrimination may be as real a barrier as the actual practice of it. Perhapsonly when the economy is made up of large-scale economic organizations,more sensitive to government pressure than to family obligations, will therebe a sizeable narrowing of these differentials.

The period of forty years would have provided a sufficient length of timefor ethnic occupational differentials to decline sharply if there were perfectlyfree social mobility (independence of son’s occupation and father’s occupa-tion; see Lieberson and Fuguitt, 1966). The fact that such differentials are stilllarge after this length of time indicates that there are still structural blocksto occupational mobility. Additional quantitative analysis of ethnic occupa-tional trends and differentials and their co-variation with social changes in thesociety and economy should allow for a more precise explanation ofthe Malay-sian case and provide more basis for comparative theoretical development.

36

CHAPTER 4

INTERGENERATIONAL OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY:ETHNIC DIFFERENCES

While the historical analysis in the earlier chapters was dependent upon thepublished tabulations from censuses and the 1967-68 Socioeconomic Survey,this and the subsequent chapters report material based upon analyses from theunit record data file of the West Malaysian Family Survey. As noted earlier,this was a national probability sample of 5,457 women between the ages of15 and 45, with the sample stratified according to size of place. But all thedata here have been weighted to give a representative sample of the universeof married women, age 15 to 45 in Peninsular Malaysia (for details on surveymethods and weighting procedures, see National Family Planning Board,1968:1-22). The analysis here is based upon data on a number of social andeconomic characteristics of their husbands, supplied by these women. Thequestion whether a sample of husbands with wives in the childbearing yearsis representative of the entire male Malaysian labor force is addressed else-where (Hirschman, 1972a, chapter 4). It seems that, in general, the weightedsample of husbands is an adequate surrogate of the population of males inthe working ages.

Social MobilityThe evidence in chapter 3 shows that substantial occupational differentials

between Malays, Chinese, and Indians have persisted for a long time, in spiteof major changes in the occupational structure. A basic question is: How muchof the current occupational structure reflects an inheritance of occupationalstatus from father to son?

The investigation of intergenerational occupational mobility, often calledthe study of social mobility, has been a major focus of sociologists in the past

37

two decades (Rogoff, 1953; Glass, 1954; Lipset and Bendix, 1959; Miller,1960; Lopreato, 1965; Svalastoga, 1965; and Cutwright, 1968). Most of theirresearch focused on urban industrialized societies, with a strong interest in

measuring the amount of "opportunity" available. From this perspective,investigators sought to discover if the son of a manual worker had less chanceof achieving a high-status occupation than the son of a non-manual worker,and if so, how much less. Related questions were of the variation in the avail-

ability of opportunity across time or between countries.

Earlier research applied the techniques of analyzing social mobility to thedifferential intergenerational occupational mobility of ethnic, racial, and im-

migrant communities (Matras, 1965, chapter 4; Lieberson and Fuguitt, 1966;and Duncan, 1968b). The goal was to describe and explain the different patternsof social mobility among sub-groups of the population. The extent to which

various ethnic or racial communities fare unequally in the process of social

mobility has been interpreted as lack of assimilation or discrimination by one

group or another.

Measurement of Social Mobility

Most of the research in this area has used the standard occupational mobilitytable which presents the occupational distribution of a sample of adult menand a similar distribution of their fathers’ occupations in the marginals of thetable with the patterns of intergenerational mobility shown in the cells.

A variety of statistical procedures can be used to describe the mobilitypatterns in the cells of the basic table. One can discuss the proportion which

is mobile-either upward or downward, the effect of being the son of a high-status or low-status father on the probability of eventually entering a givenoccupation-and various other summary statistics of mobility. However, thereare limits to the utility of such tables in examining anything more than thebivarate association of father’s and son’s occupation. (A number of the metho-dological issues regarding the use and interpretation of mobility tables werediscussed by Duncan, 1966b.)

Any attempt at multivariate analysis using the standard social mobilitytable framework quickly becomes very cumbersome. It is possible to introducethird variables as controls and construct additional social mobility tables foreach category of the control variable, but the result is very small frequenciesin many cells, unless the sample is very large or the social mobility table hasvery few rows and columns. Additionally, reading and interpreting very largetables, controlling for other variables, becomes a complex task for both the

analyst and the reader. In this analysis, presented standard intergenerationaloccupational mobility tables separately for the three major ethnic groups-which demonstrates how difficult it becomes to summarize multivariate analy-sis using large mobility tables. Some analysts have tried to construct mobilityindices, based upon difference scores between social positions of origin and ofdestination, and have then correlated this index with other relevant variables.

The difficulty is that the mobility indexes of two individuals could be of equalmagnitude but their actual movement in the social structure may be quite dif-

ferent. And to correlate other relevant characteristics, such as education, with

38

such a mobility index would be to lose the critical information of origins anddestinations.

Another limitation in the analysis of mobility tables is that the intergenera-tional changes in them cannot be related in a determinate way with changesin the occupational structure over a span of years (Duncan, 1966b). Let usconsider the usual case where the data on the distribution of men by occupa-tion has been gathered from a representative survey of adult males. The dis-tribution of the fathers by occupation is based upon their primary occupationas reported by their sons (sample of adult males). The array of these fathersby occupation does not refer to a specific earlier generation in the labor forceat any point in time. Because of the variance in ages of fathers and sons, thedistribution of fathers in the labor force of a specific cohort of sons may rangefrom when the data were gathered (some fathers would be still currently work-ing) to 70 or 80 years earlier. Another complication is that some fathers wouldbe counted more than once because they have several sons in the current laborforce while other men in the parental generation would not be counted at all,having no sons in the current labor force. These demographic facts limit anyeffort to relate traditional analysis of social mobility to the redistribution ofstatus positions (occupations) over time or any effort to separate structurallyinduced mobility (resulting from changes in the occupational structure due totechnological change) from exchange mobility (based upon the compensatingmovements of some persons up and others down). There have been severalefforts to construct the appropriate models which would take into account thecomplicated processes of labor force entry and exit, differential fertility, andintra- and inter-generational mobility in dealing with overall changes in theoccupational structure (Matras, 1961; Matras, 1967). However, it does not ap-pear likely that such models can be widely utilized because of the dearth ofthe necessary empirical data.

An alternative conceptual framework for the study of social mobility hasbeen suggested by Blau and Duncan (1967). Basically, they view the processof social mobility from a life-cycle perspective: an individual begins life atthis origin status (father’s occupation), passes through the educational systemand reaches an occupational destination. This view of the process or modelleads to an evaluation of the relative effects of various social backgroundfactors upon socioeconomic attainment by multiple regression techniques.This form of analysis will be pursued in subsequent chapters; in this chapter,utilized the traditional intergenerational mobility table and variations of it to

describe the ethnic stratification system of Peninsular Malaysia. Such ananalysis will provide an introduction to the subsequent chapters as well asprovide a summary perspective on the process of mobility.

Intergenerational Occupational Mobility, by EthnicityTable 4.1 provides the percentage distribution of the social origins and adult

occupational attainment of the sample of married men from the West MalaysiaFamily Survey. (I refer to the sample of married men as sons to contrast themwith their fathers, whose occupational composition specifies their socialorigins.) As noted above, the distribution of fathers by occupation does notrepresent a real population at an earlier point in time, but these figures are

39

Table 4.1: Occupational Composition ofMarried Men’ and Their Fathers, by Ethnic Community:Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967.

Occupation2 Father Son’Total Malay Chinese Indian Total Malay Chinese Indian

Professional andAdministrative Workers 4.0% 3.1% 6.5% 4.2% 6.8% 6.3% 9.1% 4.4%Clerical Workers 2.3. 1.2 4.1 4.9 4.2 2.8 7.2 6.7Sales Workers 8.2 3.9 22.0 7.7 8.4 3.9 24.5 5.3Service Workers 2.2 1.8 2.0 5.3 5.8 6.4 4.7 5.0Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers 5.6 3.4 9.0 12.4 8.4 4.5 19.1 12.5Transport andCommunication Workers 2.3 1.7 3.7 3.2 6.1 5.2 7.5 9.0Laborers 3.4 1.1 8.3 8.3 6.4 4.3 10.9 1.8Agricultural Workers 58.9 72.0 26.5 41.0 53.3 66.0 16.3 45.2Not Reported 13.1 11.7 18.0 13.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.1Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Weighted (N) 5457 3595 1153 610 5457 3595 153 610

’The table heading of the sample of married men is titled "Son" to contrast them with the sample of theirfathers.^he list of eight major categories is the same as in Table 3.3 except Administrative workers have been com-bined with Professionals, and also Miners with Laborers, because of small sample frequencies in the cate-gories.

Source: 1966-67 West Malaysia Survey.

meaningful as the sons’ starting places in the social structure (origin statuses).Of course, the sons in 1966-1967 were all adults, currently married to womenin the child-bearing ages (15-45), and their current occupation in 1966-1967is generally interpreted as reflecting their socioeconomic status in an hierarchywhich is ordered on the basis of their mean education and income (see Table3.2).

The distribution of sons’ occupations reflects the ethnic socioeconomic dif-ferences discussed in chapter 3. Chinese and Indians are more likely to be innon-agricultural occupations than Malays. Chinese have the most dispersedoccupational structure, with much higher than average proportions as salesworkers and craftsmen and production process workers (skilled blue-collaroccupations). Malays are most concentrated in agriculture (66%) and Chineseleast so (16%) while Indians are in between (45%).

The ethnic differences in occupational composition of sons are partiallyreflected in the occupational distribution of fathers. The occupational patternsof fathers of each ethnic community show a more traditional structure, witha higher percentage in agriculture and lower percentage in most other white-collar and blue-collar categories. It seems clear that there has been a net shiftupward in occupational composition of this generation of sons over theirfathers.

Expected and Observed Occupational Differences

The occupational distribution of the sons in any ethnic group is a productof two factors: their distribution of origin statuses (father’s occupation) andthe matrix of intergenerational occupational mobility probability rates. In fact,this can be expressed in simple matrix algebra as the multiplication of a vectorby a matrix:

Oz OiR 1.

where 02 is the vector representing the occupational distribution of sons,Oi is the vector representing the occupational distribution of fathers, and Ris the matrix of intergenerational occupational mobility rates.

One way to measure the impact of the distribution of social origins in anyethnic group relative to the other communities is to substitute the matrix ofintergenerational occupational mobility rates of the total population into theequation for each ethnic community. The results of such an exercise can becalled "expected occupational distributions," based on the assumption thatthe process of social mobility is the same in all communities. The three equa-tions of expected distributions for the sons of each ethnic group can be ex-pressed in the same way with the additional appropriate subscripts:

02M OlMRT 2.

02c OicRT 3.

Oa OuRT 4.

where 0 is an expected distribution, the subscripts 2 and refer to sonsand their fathers, respectively, the subscripts T, M, C, and refer to thetotal population, Malays, Chinese, and Indians, respectively.

The expected occupational distributions of the population of sons are com-

41

pared with actual or observed distributions for each ethnic group in Table 4.2.The difference between the observed and expected within any ethnic com-munity is due to the matrix of its transition probabilities since origin status isheld constant. Similarly, ifwe compare the expected distributions across ethnicgroups, the differences reflect only the differences in origin statuses by eth-nicity, since the transition rates are held constant.

First, comparing observed and expected distributions within ethnic groups,it seems that one of the major consequences of an equal transition matrix forall groups would be to move more Malays into the non-agricultural sector,especially into sales, craft, and laborer categories. Interestingly, the propor-tions of Malay men in professional and administrative as well as service occu-pations would be slightly less if Malays had a mobility matrix equal to that ofthe total population. The opposite would be the situation of the Chinese,comparing their actual and observed occupational distributions. The propor-tion of Chinese in agriculture would be more than twice what it actually is,if the Chinese transition matrix were equal to that for all men. There wouldalso be fewer Chinese in most non-agricultural occupations, especially in salesand craft jobs. Among the Indians, the comparison between observed andexpected distributions shows fewer large differences than was true of Malaysand Chinese. Basically, the same proportion would be in agriculture, butthere would be increases in professional and administrative, sales, and serviceoccupations and decreases in the clerical and blue-collar categories. Since theChinese and Malays have the most unlike occupational distributions, it is notsurprising that a universal pattern of social mobility (using the matrix of ratesof intergenerational occupational mobility of the total population) would havethe greatest effect on their distributions.

If we now compare the expected distributions between Malays, Chineseand Indians, we can see the differences that reflect only the unequal distribu-tion of their origin statuses. Although the ethnic differences in expected dis-tributions are less than those in the observed distributions, still, significantdifferences remain. The social heritage of Malay and Indian men as measuredby the distribution of their fathers’ occupations makes them more likely thanChinese males to be in the agricultural sector and less likely to be in white-collar occupations. One way to quantify the gap in the actual occupationaldistributions as between ethnic groups and to seee how much of this is due tothe influence of the distribution of their origin statuses is to calculate deltaindexes of dissimilarity between distributions. The delta between the Malayand Chinese observed occupational distributions in Table 4.2 is 51.4. This isreduced to 22.0 in the comparisons between their expected distributions. Thesimilar figures for the comparisons between Malays and Indians are 24.6 and14.7, and between Chinese and Indians are 31.6 and 7.7, respectively.

While it is clear that most of the observed difference between Malay andChinese men is a result of different transition rates of social mobility, theremaining difference that can be attributed to unequal social origins alone(22.0) is still considerable. The difference between Malay and Indian occu-pational structures resulting from differential social origins (14.7) is con-siderably smaller, while the difference in the Chinese-Indian comparison (7.7)

42

Table 4.2: Comparison of the Observed Occupational Distribution of Married Men and TheirExpected Occupational Distribution,* by Ethnic Community: Peninsular Malaysia,1966-1967.

Occupation Malay Chinese IndianObserved Expected Observed Expected Observed Expected

Professional andAdministrative Workers 6.3% 6.0% 9.1% 8.5% 4.4% 7.8%Clerical Workers 2.8 3.3 7.2 6.3 6.7 5.6Sales Workers 3.9 6.6 24.5 13.8 5.3 8.9Service Workers 6.4 5.6 4.7 6.3 5.0 6.7Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers 4.5 7.1 19.1 11.4 12.5 10.9Transport andCommunication Workers 5.2 5.4 7.5 7.7 9.0 6.8Laborers 4.3 6.0 10.9 7.5 11.8 7.5Agricultural Workers 66.0 59.6 16.3 37.6 45.2 44.9Not Reported 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.9 0.1 0.9Total 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

*Expected occupational distribution based upon the assumption that the intergenerational occupationalmobility probabilities of each ethnic community are equal to those of the total population.

Source: 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey.

suggests that unequal distribution of origin statuses had only a minor effecton their occupational differences.

Patterns of Father-to-Son MobilityLet us now turn our attention to the patterns of movement within the occu-

pational structure, first by examining a table of intergenerational occupationalmobility rates of the total population, and then separately of each of the threeethnic communities. These tables are commonly called outflow percentagetables because they describe the distribution of occupational destinations ofall those within each category of occupational origin (father’s occupation).The transition percentages of father-tp-son mobility for the total sample ofmarried men are presented in Table 4.3.

One of the most noticeable aspects of Table 4.3 is the substantial amountof occupational inheritance. Generally, over a quarter of the sons of fathersin any occupation also wind up in that occupation. This is three or four timesthe likelihood of being in an occupation if the distribution of sons’ occupationswere independent of fathers’ occupations. The least mobility is found amongsons of farmers, almost 72% ofwhom also end up in agricultural careers. Thereis a substantial amount of reciprocal moves between professional and clericaloccupations. The most likely destination of upwardly mobile persons is a pro-fessional career. Sons of transport and communication workers seem morelikely to be upwardly mobile (especially into sales occupations) than do sons

of other blue-collar workers.

The most likely destination of a downwardly mobile person is a career inagriculture. Sons of laborers seem to be only minimumly more likely to beupwardly mobile than sons of farmers. All of this discussion assumes thatthere is a ranking of this occupational scale so one can speak reliably of up-ward and downward mobility. Indeed, there is definitely a set of higher-statusoccupations (white-collar) which is distinct from all the rest. But the lower partof the scale shows less consistency of ranking, and perhaps movement withinit should not be taken as necessarily a definite change in social or economicstatus.

Let us now turn to an analysis of the occupational mobility of each ethniccommunity. Table 4.4 presents three matrices of rates of intergenerationaloccupational mobility for each ethnic community, expressed in percentageform. In order to keep the numbers in many cells from becoming too small,the father’s occupational classification is reduced to four major categories(white-collar, sales, blue-collar, and agriculture). White-collar includes pro-fessional and administrative as well as clerical occupations. Blue-collar in-cludes service, craft and production processes, transport and communication,and laborer occupations. Sales and agriculture were left as originally cate-

gorized.

As noted earlier in discussions of Table 4.2, the differences in the transitionrates (the three panels of Table 4.4) are only a partial determinant of ethnicdifferences in the occupational structure. The other partial determinant was

ethnic differences in the distribution of social origins. The effect of thedifferential distribution of social origins was shown by comparing ethnic

44

Table 4.3: Transition Percentages, Father’s Occupation to Current Occupation of Married Men:Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967.

Current Occupation’

Father’s Occupation2 Prof. Cleric. Sales Service Craft T. & C. Labor Agric.Professional andAdministrative Workers 28.Q 12.9 10.7 6.1 13.4 3.4 3.0 22.0

Clerical Workers 16.7 29.1 8.5 6.5 1.6 8.0 2.9 16.6

Sales Workers 8.5 6.5 35.4 5.3 1.2 10.0 5.2 17.0

Service Workers 11.4 5.9 2.8 29.6 7.0 8.2 7.6 27.6

Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers 11.7 7.7 6.5 5.0 31.4 7.5 7.2 22.5

Transport andCommunication Workers 10.2 10.8 13.4 9.8 11.4 20.5 10.5 13.3

Laborers 2.7 3.5 9.9 4.4 11.4 8.1 22.2 34.4

Agricultural Workers 4.3 1.5 4.0 4.4 4.4 4.0 5.2 71.9

Not Reported 6.1 5.1 11.2 8.4 11.9 9.2 9.2 37.7

Total 6.8 4.2 8.4 5.8 8.4 6.1 6.4 53.3

’Current occupation refers to the occupation of the sample of married men.

father’s occupation refers to the occupation of the fathers of the sample of married men.

Source: 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey

Weight-NR Total ed N

0.5 100.0% 216100.0% 125

0.9 100.0% 4490.1 100.0% 120

0.4 100.0% 304

0.1 100.0% 125

3.5 100.0% 1880.3 100.0% 3213

1.4 100.0% 7170.6 100.0% 5457

differences in the expected distribution of current occupations. In a comple-mentary fashion, the effect of ethnic differences in transition rates can bemeasured by comparing ethnic differences in current occupation (observed)and subtracting the ethnic differences in the expected distributions. Forinstance, the delta index between Malay and Chinese current occupationaldistributions was 51.4, and between the expected Malay and Chinese occupa-tional distributions was 22.0. The difference between these two figures (51.4-22.0=29.4) is a result of the differences between the Malay and Chinesetransitions rates shown in the first two panels of Table 4.4. Clearly theseethnic differences in transition rates determine overhalfofthe ethnic inequality(between Chinese and Malay males) in occupational distributions.

These patterns are shown in the cells of Table 4.4. We begin by examiningthe cells which represent occupational inheritance where sons follow theirfathers’ careers (within these broad categories). In a square matrix, whichhad the same number of occupational categories for both the sons and theirfathers, the occupational inheritance cells would be the diagonal of the table.Since this table has eight major occupational categories for sons and only fourfor fathers, occupational inheritance cells may have several occupational cate-

gories for sons to match those of the fathers’ classification. The appropriatecells representing occupational inheritance have been underlined in Table 4.4.

In general, Chinese men seem more likely to inherit white-collar and blue-collar (especially craft and laborer) occupations than are Indians and Malays.In the agricultural sector, the relationship is reversed: over 76 percent of thesons of Malay farmers inheriting their fathers’ jobs, and almost 67 percent ofIndian sons offarmers do likewise, while only 36 percent ofthe sons ofChinesefarmers go into agriculture. Socially mobile sons of Chinese farmers (also ofblue-collar and white-collar fathers) are particularly likely to enter sales orcraft occupations, which are perhaps more open to them because many of theemployers are Chinese. Malay sons of blue-collar fathers are more likely toenter professional occupations than are either Chinese or Indians.

Downward mobility into agriculture is much more common among Malaysand Indians than among Chinese. It is possible that some of the Malays haveretired from their regular urban occupations and bought land in the village.Sons of Malay professionals are more likely to get into service and transportand communication occupations than are the comparable groups of Chineseand Indians, a situation which may reflect the internal heterogeneity of someof these categories. For instance, military and police forces are categorized asservice workers. A military or police career may be more likely among sonsof the Malay middle class than among Chinese or Indian youths.

Although this analysis allows us to separate the effects of dissimilar origin-status composition and differential rates of social mobility in explaining ethnicinequality in occupational attainment, it is not a convenient context in whichto extend inquiry into other variables. Differential composition by rural andurban origin, as well as differences in educational patterns may be importantin accounting for ethnic differences in occupational distributions, but toexamine them it would be necessary to extend the tabular analysis beyond thelimits of the numbers of cases in the sample. Table 4.4 contained 135 cells,

46

Table 4.4: Transition Percentages, Father’s Occupation to Current Occupation ofMarried Men byEthnic Community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967

Father’sOccupation*

White CollarSalesBlue CollarAgricultureNot ReportedTotal

CHINESEWhite CollarSalesBlue CollarAgricultureNot ReportedTotal

INDIANWhite CollarSalesBlue CollarAgricultureNot ReportedTotal

Prof.

2L66.314.74.56.26.3

27.010.26.26.35.2

9.1

18.74.14.20.86.34.4

Cleric.

-1AJ-4.66.91.33.92.8

22.77.56.22.26.77.2

20.78.17.92.85.56.7

Sales

4.922.63.02.75.73.9

19.943.916.317.424.1

24.5

2.427.63.52.37.95.3

Service

9.97.413.84.411.96.4

2.83.95.16.83.4

4.7

4.25.29.12.73.25.0

Curn

Craft

5.59.8-2A3.17.74.5

18.713.528.113.622.919.1

20.95.4

20.88.06.412.5

ent OccupaM^

T and C6.19.4

-LL23.96.95.2

4.79.47.45.010.77,5

3.317.410.74.418.89.0

ition*ILAYSLabor

3.56.56.23.76.0

4.3

2.43.518.913.31.1

10.9

3.011.410.012.121.61.8

Agric.33.731.632.676J.50.1

66.0

1.07.610.635.315.4

16.3

26.820.833.866.929.545.2

NR0.12.01.60.31.60.6

0.80.41.3

0.6

0.6

0.90.1

\

Total

100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%

100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%

100.0%

100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%100.0%

WeightedN15514028925904223595

1222532643062081153

554717925079

610

*See notes of Table 4.3.Source: 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey

which was acceptable since our total number of observations was 5,457. How-ever, almost half of the number of observations were in three cells, represent-ing farmers who were sons of farmers. To expand the analysis with additionalcontrol variables would result not only in many empty cells and many withsmall frequencies, but also in more complex description and interpretationthan seems prudent. For this reason, postpone multivariate analysis till thenext chapter, where regression techniques are used.

Conclusion

Analysis of ethnic differentials in social mobility in the occupational struc-

ture rests on the assumption that the distribution of occupations of adult mencan be explained by the distribution of their social origins (fathers’ occupa-tions) and the transition matrix of intergenerational rates of occupationalmobility. One might argue that what have considered determinants of thedistribution of occupations are merely components, and that the real determi-nants are the causes that have led to differential distribution of social originsand the factors in the social structure that influence differential patterns of re-

cruitment or selection into occupations. To this I can only respond that this isa preliminary examination of ethnic inequality, and that analysis of more re-mote causes must be built upon a firm foundation of more proximate deter-minants or components.

Approximately 43 percent of the delta index of inequality between theoccupational compositions of Malay and Chinese men is due to differences insocial origins while the remainder (57%) is due to differential transition rates

of father-to-son mobility. The delta indexes between Malays and Indians andbetween Chinese and Indians are considerably smaller than the Malay-Chinesegap (24.6 and 31.6 to compared to 51.4). Sixty percent of the Malay-Indiandifference is due to differential social origins, in contrast to 24 percent of theChinese-Indian difference. (These figures summarize the patterns that can beseen from inspection of Table 4.1 and 4.4). Malays, and to a lesser extent

Indians are less successful in achieving urban occupations than are Chinese,because they are more likely to come from agricultural origins and are lessable to leave to enter other occupations as adults. Malays and to some extentIndians also seem less able than Chinese to pass on or inherit urban occupa-tions from their fathers. Sales or craft occupations seem to be the most likelydestination of socially mobile Chinese men while Malays and Indians are mostoften socially mobile downward into agriculture.

This chapter has provided a description of ethnic patterns of mobility inthe occupation structure. The succeeding chapters analyze the same questionwithin the theoretical and methodological context of what has been called thestatus attainment process (Haller and Portes, 1973).

48

CHAPTER 5

THE SOCIOECONOMIC LIFE-CYCLE MODEL ANDETHNIC STRATIFICATIONWhat determines the ethnic differentials in socioeconomic attainment? To

go further into this question, this chapter introduces a new strategy of analysisand then applies it in an examination of the ethnic variations in educationalachievement. The following chapter will further extend this analysis to socio-economic differentials in occupation and income. One might characterize thisanalysis as continuing the thrust of the traditional analysis of social mobility,but it reformulates the problem from one dealing with the bivariate associa-tion between father’s and son’s occupation to a multivariate analysis of thedeterminants of the son’s occupation, father’s occupation being but one ofseveral independent variables.

The Socioeconomic Life-Cycle ModelThe theoretical perspective and techniques of analysis in this phase of the

research can most aptly be called the Socioeconomic Life-Cycle Model (Dun-can, 1967). In various other contexts, it has been referred to as the process ofstratification (Duncan, 1968a), and the status attainment process (Sewell andHauser, 1972; Haller and Portes, 1973). However named, it originated in thepathbreaking publication of Blau and Duncan (1967, especially chapter 5). Ina sense, this is an extension of the father-son mobility analysis presented inthe preceding chapter. However, attention is shifted from the mobility patternto a statistical analysis of factors affecting socioeconomic achievement. Forexample, occupation-is posited as the dependent variable, and then the effectsof certain background variables, one of which is father’s occupation are meas-ured. This procedure allows for the construction of a causal model as simpleor as complex as the data permit, with no basic change in the conceptualframework. It also allows for the use of sophisticated statistical techniques,

49

permitting a more powerful examination of theoretical differences than was

possible with the conventional techniques. The basic assumption behind thismodel is that an individual moves through a sequence of socioeconomic posi-tions, and that positions in later life are affected by earlier ones.

The simplest version of this model identifies three stages: origin status,education, and adult status (Figure 5.1). Origin status, the position in the

Figure 5.1: The Basic Model of the Socioeconomic Life-Cycle

Origin StatusSocioeconomicAchievement

EducationalAttainment

socioeconomic hierarchy into which one is bom, is usually measured byfather’s occupation, but other indicators, such as family income would be use-

ful if data were available. The next stage, education, is seen as largely de-pendent upon origin status for economic support, parental encouragement,and other familial resources. In turn, education is usually considered both as

an intervening variable and an important independent determinant of socio-economic achievement. While education is generally thought most importantin the imparting of greater skills or’ ’job qualifications’’, it may also contributeto further achievement to the extent that it increases contact with or visibilityto potential employers.

This basic model can be expanded almost indefinitely by the introductionof additional variables. For example, income can be considered as anotherachievement variable, and residence, migration, mother’s socioeconomiccharacteristics, ability or intelligence, and various psychological factors can

be introduced as background variables (see Duncan, Feathermen, and Duncan,1972 for an analysis of some of these topics).

A whole series of important questions taken from the literature on stratifica-tion can be empirically investigated in this manner. First, how rigid is the sys-tem of social stratification? How much difference do humble or wealthy originsmake in socioeconomic achievement? By what mechanisms are advantagedpositions passed on to succeeding generations? For instance, a successfulfather could pass his high status to his son by giving him a first-class educa-tion or alternatively, by hiring him in a high-status position in his ownbusiness or in some other firm or institution over which he has influence,regardless of his son’s education. Although the correlation between father’sand son’s occupation would be the same in both examples, the structure ofstratification would be quite different.

In most societies, there are both rigidity (at various stages in the process)and possibilities for movement in the stratification system. While research in

50

recent years has begun to present empirical analysis of these patterns (Blauand Duncan, 1967; Feather-man, 1971a, 19710; Kelly and Perlman, 1971;Jones, 1971; and Kelley, 1973), it is probably still too early to pronouncea given level of mobility very high or low.

Applying the Model to Ethnic Stratification

Although this model of the socioeconomic life-cycle has usually been ap-plied to studies of stratification of the total population, it can also be appliedto studies of the differential achievement of sub-groups, such as ethnic com-munities. It is then possible to measure the relative importance of ethnicityas a determinant of achievement as compared to other determinants, educa-tion and social origins. In other words, it can be used to discover if the dif-ferential distribution of origin characteristics among various ethnic groupsaccounts for their socioeconomic differences rather than being the effect ofethnicity itself.

Generally, we think that ethnic groups which are socially and economicallyunequal must have different patterns of mobility. Duncan and Duncan (1968:356) note that social investigators often assume that the mobility differentialsproduce the relative socioeconomic positions of minorities. However, this neednot necessarily be the case in the short run. As has been noted (chapter 4),ethnic groups could have reached unequal levels of socioeconomic achieve-ment simply as a result of the fact that they began life unequally. The dis-advantage of certain ethnic groups may be one common to all poorer persons,irrespective of ethnic status; then a given ethnic group with a lower socio-economic distribution in one generation may pass it on to the next generationby inheritance. This pattern could be described as the inheritance of poverty.From Markov chain analysis Lieberson and Fuguitt (1966) have shown thatsuch a structure can not be maintained indefinitely; if different ethnic groups,initially unequal, experience the same mobility regime, then a similar distribu-tion of status positions will emerge in several generations.

The model of the socioeconomic life-cycle has been used to compare theprocess of stratification among the various minorities in American society(Blau and Duncan, 1967, chapter 6; Duncan and Duncan, 1968; Duncan,1969; Featherman, 1971c). Although most American minority groups reachlower than average socioeconomic achievement there seems little evidence ofa strong ethnic disadvantage beyond poor social origins, except among Blackand Spanish-origin Americans. In other words, that persons in America fromvarious European ethnic communities are more likely to be in lower-statusoccupations than the average is a disadvantage largely attributable to thepoverty of their origins, not to any additional handicap they faced because oftheir ethnic status. However, Blacks and Spanish-origin Americans seem toface additional disadvantages which cannot be explained by the greater like-lihood of their coming from more humble origins.

Culture and Discrimination as ExplanationsHow can this additional disadvantage of certain ethnic groups be inter-

preted? Two major theoretical alternatives which are widely discussed in bothpopular and sociological circles are culture and discrimination. The cultural

51

thesis is that the ethnic groups each have their own traditions which offer moreor less motivation to achievement. In the simplest form, this posits that certainethnic groups emphasize values of thrift, hard work, and deferred gratificationwhich gives then an advantage over other cultures whose value structure ismore oriented towards sociability and leisure. These ideas have often beenexpressed in the American sociological literature under a general theory of"the need for achievement" (Rosen, 1959).

In Malaysia, the cultural differences between the Malay and Chinese com-munity are often stressed by the man in the street and the social scientist alike.A recent book described these differences as follows:

Malay values give the highest priority to getting along withothers, and Malay social behavior is concerned with ways of showingmutual respect between persons according to a carefully calibratedscale of social status, with highest status given to a traditional heredi-tary ruling group. Chinese values are primarily oriented toward con-tributing to the success and prestige of the patrilineal family, witheffective competition and skill at accumulating wealth receiving thegreatest social rewards (Henderson, 1970:249).

From this perspective, one would argue that even with equivalent socio-economic backgrounds (same origin status and education), Malays would beless likely to achieve because they are less motivated.

An alternative explanation of the same empirical finding (ethnicity has a neteffect on achievement, independent of social origin) is that Malays encounterdiscrimination in Malaysian society. Discrimination can occur in a variety ofinstitutional environments, such as schools, the job market, or economic insti-tutions, and teachers, employers, and job supervisors may give preferentialtreatment to certain ethnic groups and not to others. It is pehaps easier to dis-criminate in certain employment markets where formal qualifications are not

required and probably more difficult in educational institutions and certainoccupations, such as the professions, where "paper qualifications" and otherobjective criteria are supposedly used.

I have no direct way of distinguishing between these alternative explana-tions of any residual ethnic "effect" on achievement since the survey did not

gather data on psychological orientation to work or the perception of discrimi-nation (For some pioneering work, see Featherman, 1971c; and Duncan andFeatherman, 1972.) However, will attempt to speculate on the relative meritsof these arguments, basing my discussion upon the findings that emerge.

A Model of the Socioeconomic Life-Cycle of Peninsular Malaysia

In essence, am adapting to another society a model of the process of socio-economic attainment developed in studies of stratification in the United States.It is necessary to maintain sufficient comparability for a cumulative researchtradition to be enlarged, yet it is also important to include other variableswhich might be relevant to the particular situation. Fortunately, the data(Family Survey) of this phase of the analysis were especially rich in the rangeof variables that could be included in the model of socioeconomic attainment(Figure 5.2). The variables are arranged in chronological order in terms of thelife-cycle, with occasional exceptions. Thus each variable is assumed to have

52

Figure 5.2: SOCIOECONOMIC LIFE-CYCLE MODEL OF THEPROCESS OF STRATIFICATION: PENINSULARMALAYSIA

Father’s

Occupation

Current

ResidenceOccupation

Educational Medium

an effect (or influence) on all variables following it in the life cycle (movingfrom left to right in the diagram).

The great value of the socioeconomic life-cycle model is that it provides alogical rationale to order variables in a causal sequence, facilitating interpre-tation of the empirical analysis. The first three characteristics, Ethnicity,Father’s Occupation, and Birthplace, are all assumed to be fixed at birth andto remain constant throughout the life-cycle. It is possible to change ethnicstatus as a result of religious conversion (a Chinese or Indian who convertsto Islam is often said to have’ ’become a Malay’’), tuit this is a rare occurrence.Thus there is no temporal variation among the three variables to suggest causalpriority. For reasons to be explained later, do, however, order these variablesin the subsequent statistical analysis of the determinants of socioeconomicattainment.

The expected effects of Father’s Occupation and Birthplace upon latervariables in the model are suggested by previous work in social stratification:men bom into urban families whose fathers are high in status enjoy more ad-vantages and opportunities. The Family Survey asked the occupation of thefather at the time when the son (husband of wife being interviewed) was twelveyears old. This is about the age at which a youth would be completing primaryschooling and perhaps entering secondary school-a critical stage in the socio-economic life-cycle. The next two variables are number of Years of Schoolingand the medium of instruction in the highest level of school attended (Educa-tional Medium). Generally, it is to be expected that the higher the level of edu-cation, the greater the probability of increased socioeconomic achievement.English-medium schooling has reputedly played a key role in education forpositions of high status in the professions as well as for work in the govern-ment bureaucracy. Current Residence in included as a variable to measure the

53

relative access to job opportunities. Most of the occupational positions ofhigher status are primarily found in cities, and there is a wide variation in theurban-rural distribution of each ethnic community.

It might be argued that Current Residence is prior to Occupation, or alter-natively it might be that Occupation exerts the pull to move to current loca-tion. The relationship between residence or migration and the process of socio-economic attainment is undoubtedly complex, and it has been simplified by anassumption which seems to be the most reasonable. Occupation and Incomeare taken as the key dependent variables representing socioeconomic achieve-ment in the contemporary Malaysian stratification system. An overview ofethnic variation among the variables in this model (Table 5.1), shows thepercentage distributions of all variables in the total population and each ethnicgroup. The distributions of Occupation and Father’s Occupation are the same

Table 5.1: Socioeconomic Characteristics of Married Men, by EthnicCommunity: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967

Father’s Occupation*Prof. and Admin.ClericalSalesServiceCraft and Production

ProcessTransport and

CommunicationLaborerAgriculturalNot Reported

Place of Birth

RuralSmall TownTown or CityNot Reported

Years of Schooling01-34-567-89-10

12 or moreNot Reported

54

Percentage Distribution

Total Pop. Malay Chinese Indian

4.0% 3.1% 6.5% 4.2%2.3 1.2 4.1 4.98.2 3.9 22.0 7.72.2 1.8 2.0 5.3

5.6 3.4 9.0 12.4

2.3 1.7 3.7 3.23.4 1.1 8.3 8.3

58.9 72.0 26.5 41.013.1 11.7 18.0 13.0

74.2% 89.2% 34.9% 60.8%12.8 6.4 31.4 16.411.5 4.2 29.1 19.41.5 0.2 4.6 3.4

20.3% 25.6% 5.8% 14.6%16.9 14.2 24.1 19.823.2 25.7 16.6 23.120.2 22.1 19.5 11.66.0 4.4 7.4 13.15.1 2.8 10.5 7.72.3 1.5 3.4 4.92.9 1.7 6.4 2.93.1 2.0 6.4 2.2

Medium of Education

English 9.5%Other or Not Reported 90.5

Current ResidenceRural 71.8%Non-Metro Urban 14.8Metropolitan 13.4

Husband’s OccupationProf. and Admin. 6.8%Clerical 4.2Sales 8.4Service 5.8Craft and Production

Processes 8.4Transport andCommunication 6.1

Laborer 6.4Agricultural 53.3Not Reported 0.6

Monthly IncomeNo Income 1.2%$1-49 28.450-99 24.9100-149 15.6150-199 9.8200-299 8.9300-499 5.9500-749 1.9$750 or more 1.3Not Reported 2.2

6.1% 12.5% 22.7%93.9 87.5 77.3

85.9% 32.1% 62.9%9.3 31.4 16.74.8 36.5 20.4

6.3% 9.1% 4.4%2.8 7.2 6.73.9 24.5 5.36.4 4.7 5.0

4.5 19.1 12.5

5.2 7.5 9.04.3 10.9 11.8

66.0 16.3 45.20.6 0.6 0.1

1.6% 0.6% 0.6%40.4 2.0 7.927.1 12.5 35.612.1 23.0 21.56.2 18.9 14.46.1 18.3 8.13.9 11.4 7.21.0 4.8 1.90.3 2.9 1.81.2 5.7 1.0

""Occupational category titles have been abbreviated; for complete listing, seeTable 3.2.

Source: 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey

as those presented in chapter 4. Place of Birth is classified into three categoriesplus a residual category of’ ’Not Reported". Almost nine out often Malay menin the sample were bom in rural areas, while 60 percent of the Indians, andabout a third of the Chinese were bom in rural areas.

Years of Schooling contains eight categories and the residual Not Reportedcategory. Malays are somewhat more concentrated in the lower educationalattainment categories than are Chinese or Indians. Under the variable, Edu-cational Medium, the categories are English and Other Language or Not Re-ported, a category which includes those who have had no formal education aswell as those educated in a non-English medium school. Other languages used

55

in the classroom of Malaysian schools were Malay, Chinese (usually Manda-rin), and Tamil, the commonest language among Malaysian Indians. Onlyabout one man out of ten in the total sample had an English-medium schooling,and Indians had the highest proportion in this category. If a man had part ofhis education in a vernacular schol and part in an English school, he was classi-fied as having had an English-medium education.

Current Residence is defined by the size of the place where the respondentlived at the time of the survey. Metropolitan includes the five largest cities ofPeninsular Malaysia, all of which had populations of 75,000 or more accord-ing to the 1957 Census of Population. Non-metropolitan areas include smallercities and towns whose population ranged from 7,760 to 74,999, and rural areasmake up the rest of the country, specifically all places with less than 7,760residents. As the figures show, Chinese are much more likely to live in metro-politan and non-metropolitan urban areas than are Indians and Malays.

Chinese men have higher monthly cash incomes on the average than eitherIndians or Malays, Income being measured as the total cash income receivedby the husband during the last month. At the time, in 1966-67, when thesedata were collected, about three Malaysian dollars were equal to one UnitedStates dollar ($3M $1 US). However, this rule of thumb no longer holds.Income, stated as a single figure, suggests a precise measure, but it is possiblethat cash income is not a complete measure of remuneration: in the subsistencesector, home-grown food and rent-free housing may be important additions,unmeasured because they do not enter the money economy. Even in cities, anemployee may receive bonuses, special allowances for housing, and othersubsidies not counted in his regular income.

Multiple Classification AnalysisThe basic statistical technique used here is multiple classification analysis

(Andrews, et. al., 1967), a method which differs from usual regression tech-niques in that all independent variables are categorical rather than quantitative.These categorical variables (often called dummy variables) are coded in binaryfashion where "1" indicates presence of a characteristic and "0" indicatesabsence. For example, the nominal variable of Ethnicity becomes four inde-pendent dummy variables: Malay, Chinese, Indian, and Ethnicity Not Re-ported. This last category just insures the inclusion of cases where data aremissing fot a variable. In any regression equation this method will produce astatistical measure of effect or simply a regression coefficient of the dependentvariable on each category of the independent variables.

Because there are more coefficients than there are independent normal equa-tions based upon the least-squares criterion (Melichar, 1965:374), it is neces-sary to add a constraint to each set of categories of an independent variable.This is usually done by constraining the "b" (regression coefficient) of onecategory of each set to zero by simply omitting it from the regression equation.For instance, in the regression equation of Income on all independent variables,one category each of the occupations, current residences, educational levels,educational media, birthplaces, father’s occupations, and ethnic groups isomitted. The set of regression coefficients which comes out of all this repre-sents statistical measures of the ’effect’’ of being within a category of a parti-

56

cular variable. However, the coefficients are not interpretable in isolation; the"effects" are deviations from the omitted category in the calculation. It is afairly simple procedure (Melichar, 1965: 374-375) to transform all the coef-ficients, including those omitted, into deviations from the overall grand meanof the dependent variable. This allows for an interpretation of each coefficientas the net effect or deviation from the average value of the dependent variable(e.g.. Income) as a result of being in a particular category of an independentvariable.

To handle independent variables in multiple classification analysis requiressimply the coding of each category of all independent variables as dummyvariables, including a missing data category, followed by ordinary least-squares regression analysis, one category of each independent variable beingalways left out in the actual regression procedure. Then, by using Melichar’sprocedure, all the unstandardized regression coefficients can be adjusted intodeviations from the grand mean ofthe dependent variable, and in the same pro-cedure, a coefficient may be recovered for the omitted category.

Dependent Variables

In the model of the socioeconomic life-cycle here presented. Education,Occupation, and Income are treated as dependent variables. Under Education,there are two variables of interest: Years of Schooling, and the Attendanceat English-Medium Schools. A variable in the original data tape, which codededucation of the husband in single years of completed scholing, had a slightlydifferent distribution and a different number ofmissing values from the variableYears of Schooling (Table 5.1), but used the variable Single Years of School-ing as a dependent variable for educational attainment, because it gives an exactvalue for each individual. In the regression analysis used a pairwise, presentprocedure which calculates the matrix of correlation coefficients (for inputinto the regression analysis), based upon the maximum number of observa-tions between each pair of variables. Using Single Years of Schooling as adependent variable resulted in missing data only for the dependent variablesince all missing data categories of independent variables were simply codedas dummy variables. This means that almost all coefficients in the correlationmatrix are estimated on the basis of 5457 observations, except those coefficientspaired with educational attainment (Single Years of Completed Schooling)from which 255 weighted cases (actually 453 unweighted cases) were ex-cluded.

Medium of Education, as a dependent variable, was coded as a dummyvariable where 1" meant at least a portion of education in an English-mediumschool and "0" meant no formal schooling or education completely in non-English medium schools. The grand mean of such a variable is the propor-tion of the total sample of husbands that had some English-medium educa-tion. An occasional problem in the use of a proportion as a dependent variablein regression analysis is that some predicted values will be outside the reallimits (below 0.0 or above 1.0). As this seemed not to be a major problem inmost equations, did not utilize Logit analysis or other techniques to deal withit.

To treat occupation as a dependent variable required some adaption of the

57

original variable (occupation of husband) which was coded in a two-digitclassification that ranged from 00 to 99 (Appendix B). The classification into

eight major occupational categories (chapter 4) was derived by grouping occu-

pations into meaningful units containing sufficient numbers and hierarchicallyarranged in rank order according to mean income and education of the incum-bants (Table 3.2). The occupational-prestige and socioeconomic-status scalesof occupations that have been used in studies of stratification in the U.S.(Duncan, 1961: 109-138; Hodge, Siegal, and Rossi, 1966: 322-334), did not

seem suited to a society whose economic bases were quite different. Instead,coded each major occupation as a separate binary, dependent variable, re-

sulting in eight dummy variables, each having as its mean, the proportion itcontained of the total sample of married men. In percentage terms, this rangesfrom a low of4.2 in clerical occupations to a high of 53.3 in agriculture. Usingthis procedure with eight separate dependent variables means that the influenceof independent variables is measured as effects upon entry into that occupa-tion in contrast to all other occupations.

Income is a simpler variable because, like education, it provides naturalinterval-scale measurement. Actually, Income was originally coded into ninecategories ranging from zero income to $750 or more per month plus the re-sidual category. Not Reported. In order to create an interval-scale measure ofincome, each observation was assigned the income represented by the mid-

point of the appropriate category; for instance, a man whose income was be-tween $150 and $199 was coded as $175. To those in the highest category,$750 or more, a value of $900 was assigned. Similar to the use of educationas a dependent variable which also has missing values, a pairwise-presentprocedure was used so that correlation coefficients with Income as a variablewere based on 118 fewer cases (unweighted 194 cases) than the total sampleof 5457.

The Model as a Set of EquationsTo estimate the relationships in Figure 5.2, I did not use the technique of

path analysis (Duncan, 1966a), but the logic of my use of multiple classifica-tion analysis is quite similar. Multiple classification analysis provides a suit-able framework within which to deal with the problem of many categoricalindependent variables. It also requires no assumption of linear relationshipbetween independent and dependent variables. One equation with all inde-pendent variables in the model would allow for the estimation of a net effectof each independent variable on the dependent variable. Such a simple equa-tion, however, would not really provide a proper framework to analyze thetheoretical model in Figure 5.2. am interested not only in the net effects("direct effects", in path analysis terminology) but also the way in whichcertain background factors affect intermediate variables, which in turn affectthe dependent variables. The usual procedure when multiple classificationanalysis is used is to estimate both gross and net effects and sometimes effectsnet of a key variable (Bumpass and Sweet, 1972). The gross effects are simplythe coefficients resulting with only one independent variable in the model. Sub-

stantively, they are the differences in means of the dependent variable in eachcategory of the independent variable. A net effect is the coefficient in an equa-tion with several independent variables; it is interpreted in much the same way

58

as a partial regression coefficient when other variables are statistically con-trolled.

In the subsequent analysis, present a sequence of models or equations inwhich add one independent variable (set of categories) at a time until all back-ground variables are included. This allows observation of how the gross effectsof earlier variables are modified by each subsequent variable. The ordering ofvariables is crucial to any interpretation. Since ethnic differences are the pri-mary focus of this study. Ethnicity is always the only variable in the intialmodel. The results of this first model show gross effects or the observed dif-ferences on any dependent variable between ethnic communities, then Father’sOccupation, Birthplace, Years of Schooling, Educational Medium, CurrentResidence, and Occupation are added in that order’. The changes in the co-efficients of Ethnicity from model to model show what ethnic differenceswould be if ethnic groups had the same distribution of social characteristicson the other variables in the model. For instance, part of the income gap be-tween Malays and non-Malays is due to the fact that Malays are more likely tohave been the sons of farmers and others of lower status than non-Malays. Theethnic coefficients in the second model (with only Ethnicity and Father’sOccupation in the model) show what would be the gap in Income betweenMalays and non-Malays if they had the same distribution of fathers’ occupa-tions.

This logic of the procedure is continued throughout the analysis so that onecan observe what variables are most responsible for ethnic differentials. Inas-much as the basic order follows a rough chronological pattern, the set ofmodels demonstrates not only the relative effects of both distant and proxi-mate variables, but also how early influences are mediated by other events inthe socioeconomic life-cycle. The most debatable point of the ordering ofvariables is perhaps that of Father’s Occupation and Birthplace. Although thepresent order allows Birthplace only to have an effect which is net of Father’sOccupation, this is not to suggest that there is any strong theoretical reasonfor this particular sequence.

Social Background and Education

Table 5.2 shows the effects of social background on Years of Schooling inthe left-hand panel and on the likelihood of an English-medium education inthe right-hand panel. Each panel has three models which successively addEthnicity, Father’s Occupation, and Birthplace. In the left panel all coefficientsare expressed as deviations from the grand mean of 4.4 years of education.

The first model shows that Malays have an average of 0.5 of a year lessschooling than the average of the total population, while Chinese have about1.1 years more; that is, there is a gap of slightly over one and a half years be-tween the average Chinese and Malay.

One might ask how much of this ethnic gap is due to the fact that Chineseand Malays have an unequal distribution of origin statuses. For instance,Chinese are more likely to be sons of white-collar workers and others in occu-

’These are the seven variables used in predicting Income. Fewer variables are in-cluded in the models predicting the occupation and the education variables.

59

Table 5.2: Effects* of Social Background of Married Men on theNumber of Years of Schooling and the Probability ofHaving an English-Medium Education: PeninsularMalaysia, 1966-1967.

EthnicityMalayChineseIndian

YearsGrandM

(1)-0.5

0.6

ofSc:ean

(2)-0.20.60.3

;hi

4oling.4Yeai

(3)-0.10.20.2

S

En

Gra

(1)-3.4%3.013.2

g

n

lish-MedSducatiold MeanPercent

(2)-1.4%-1.710.0

liunim

9.5

(3)0.2%6.08.9

Father’s OccupationProfessional and

Administrative 3.3 2.9 30.8% 27.0%Clerical 3.4 2.9 45.3 39.9Sales 1.3 1.0 6.2 3.5Service 1.6 1.2 13.5 9.5Craft and Production

Process 0.9 0.7 5.6 3.2Transport and

Communication 1.4 1.1 14.5 11.3Laborer -0.1 -0.4 -1.8 -4.7Agricultural -0.6 -0.5 -6.1 -4.5

BirthplaceRural -0.3 -3.8%Smalltown 0.9 9.4Town or City 1.2 14.4

R2 4.2 14.3 16.7 3.5 16.5 20.2

*The coefficients of the residual Not Reported categories of the independentvariables have been omitted from this table.

Source: 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey.

pations high in status, while Malays are more likely to be sons of farmers. Wecan control statistically for this difference in background with Model 2, which

shows that being the son of a professional or clerical worker adds about three

years to one’s education. Most other urban occupations add about a year. WhenFather’s Occupation is controlled, the ethnic differential narrows to 0.8 of a

year of school. In the third model. Birthplace is added. Being bom in a smalltown adds 0.9 of a year of school while a town or city adds about 1.2 years.Some ofthe effects ofFather’s Occupation are reduced in this model. Similarly,the ethnic differential is narrowed to about 0.3 of a year of school between

60

Malays and non-Malays. The inclusion of two variables reduced the ethnicdifferential between Malays and Chinese by 80%. Clearly, most of the educa-tional gap is a result of the fact that each group begins life in unequal circum-stances. There may be other aspects of unequal social origins (not measuredhere) which might reduce the gap even further.

The probability of receiving an English-language education can be analyzedin a similar manner. The grand mean of this variable is 9.5 percent of the totalsample. Chinese men were three percent more likely, and Malays three percentless likely to have attended an English-medium school, while Indians were13 percent more likely. Addition of Father’s Occupation and Birthplace re-sults in a major shift in the Malay and Chinese coefficients. The reason whyChnese are more likely to have attended English schools is that they enjoy anadvantaged origin because of Father’s Occupation and Birthplace. Controllingfor these variables shows that there is actually a net Chinese effect of minusalmost six percent. Controlling for the relatively disadvantaged origins ofMalays results in a slightly positive effect for their ethnic coefficient. Control-ling for social background leaves Indians still with a net positive effect of ninepercent for Ethnicity. Perhaps rural Indians (most likely bom on estates) hadcloser access to English-medium schools than did rural Malays. Also interest-ing is the extremely strong effect of being the son of a professional or clericalworker or of having been bom in an urban area on the changes of being edu-cated in an English-medium school.

Basically, most of the ethnic differentials in education are a result of dif-ferential social background. Observers of Malaysian society have developedvarious cultural explanations of the supposedly inferior achievement of Malaystudents. T.H. Silcock (1963a: 26) had said:

"Most of the Malays were peasants and fishermen. Their environ-ment was not conducive to education and their culture did not inducethem to want it."

The latter half of this statement is certainly misleading. It does not appear thatthere is much residual educational differential between Malays and non-Malaysto be explained by culture or anything else. If each ethnic community had thesame distributions of Father’s Occupation and Birthplace, educational dif-ferentials would be substantially less.

61

CHAPTER 6

THE SOCIOECONOMIC LIFE CYCLE: THE PROCESSOF OCCUPATIONAL AND INCOME ATTAINMENT

This chapter will be focused on analysis of the relative effects of ethnicityand social background on income and occupational attainment, a much morecomplicated analysis than was called for when education was the dependentvariable. First of all, the number of independent variables has been expanded.For the equation with Income as a dependent variable there are seven inde-pendent variables, as compared to three in the analysis of educational attain-ment. Since each category of the seven independent variables has a separatecoefficient or effect, there are actually thirty-five measured determinants ofincome. For Occupation as the dependent variable, there are six independentvariables or twenty-six categorical effects. Additionally, since each occupa-tional category is treated as a separate dependent variable, there will actuallybe eight occupational attainment models, each with the full set of independentvariables. Later, will complicate the analysis even further by testing theassumption of additivity by examining the possibility of interactions betweenEthnicity and other social background variables in the process of status attain-ment. The question guiding the analysis is: What factors account for ethnicinequality in income and occupation in Peninsular Malaysia? In particular:Are these differences due to the unequal distribution of social backgroundcharacteristics, or to some other factor associated with ethnicity?

Social Background and IncomeAlthough Occupation should follow next in chronological sequence, will

begin with an analysis of the effects of social background on Income, whichhas only a single dependent variable, and will therefore be more simple andstraightforward. Income refers to the monthly cash income ofhusbands marriedto women in the childbearing years. The grand mean of income of the sample

62

is $134 (Malaysian dollars) per month. As has been noted, each husband wasassigned the mean of his income category.

Table 6.1 shows the sequence of seven cumulative models of the effectsof social background on Income. The first model includes a single social back-ground variable. Ethnicity, as an independent variable. The second model addsFather’s Occupation to Ethnicity as the independent variables in the regressionequation. Each subsequent model adds successive variables in the socio-economic life cycle until the seventh model, which includes all seven of thesocial background variables. The coefficients in the table are expressed asdeviations from the grand mean, net of other variables in the model.

We begin with a comparison of the relative magnitude of the effects in theseventh or final model. Net ethnic differences are -$14 for Malays and +$34for Chinese, a gap of $48. Many other factors loom much larger as directdeterminants of income: the net effect of being the son of a professional ispositive, $47; the net difference attributable to having been bom in a town orcity rather than in a rural area is $28. There seems to be a consistent patternin which higher education leads to increasingly higher income, especially afternine or ten years of schooling. To have passed the Lower Certificate of Educa-tion, which is the national examination on the completion of nine years ofschooling (Form Three), is a minimal requirement for a number of jobs.English-medium education has a net additional effect of adding $63 to theaverage monthly income. One who lives in a metropolitan area receives $41more than one living in a rural area. With the exception of a professional occu-pation, being a service worker has the highest net effect ($52) of any urbancareer.

All these factors explain 51 percent of the variation (R2) of Income. Thiscan be compared with an R2 of 13 to 22 percent (depending on which age groupis chosen) of the variation in income in the U.S. adult male population (Dun-can, Featherman, Duncan, 1972: 40). Social background is found to exert a

greater influence of upon Income in Malaysia than the United States-but thisfinding might be a result of using different variables. Each of the seven inde-pendent variables in Table 6.1 adds a statistically significant increment to theproportion of variance explained.

Table 6.1 also reveals how the observed ethnic differential is affected byother statuses in the socioeconomic life cycle. From the model of gross effectsin the first column, the Chinese-Malay differential in income is found to be$133, but from the last column or final model, the gap is shown to have nar-rowed to $48. Almost two-thirds of the gross difference in income is due todifferences in social background or compositional differences. Again, as in thecase of education, it would be difficult to construct a strong theory of culturaldifferences to account for ethnic differences in economic achievement, sincemost of the differential can be accounted for by unequal distribution of socialbackground characteristics. Whether ethnic differences in motivation accountfor part or all of the residual ethnic difference is a question that cannot bedirectly addressed here.

What variables contribute most to a reduction in the ethnic differential asone moves from the first gross effects model to the final complete net effects

63

Table 6.1: Seven Models of the Effects* of Social Background ofMarried Men on Monthly Income: Peninsular Malaysia,1966-1967.

Ethnicity

MalayChineseIndian

Father’s OccupationProfessional and

AdministrativeClericalSalesServiceCraft and Production

ProcessTransport and

CommunicationLaborerAgricultural

Place of BirthRuralSmall TownTown or City

Years of Schooling01-34-567-89-101112 or more

Medium of EducationOtherEnglish

Current Residence

RuralNon-Metropolitan UrbanMetropolitan

Husband’s OccupationProfessional and

AdministrativeClerical

64

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

-37 -27 -18 -16 -17 -12 -1496 70 47 43 50 34 3426 12 5 -5 -5 6

158 141 83 72 67 47150 125 62 42 28 2651 38 22 22 17 853 34 14 10 0 -11

33 21 13 12 5 -3

75 61 47 40 23 18-1’5 -27 -13 -13 -9 -1-32 -25 -17 -14 -10 -6

-19 -11 -10 -6 -639 22 18 11 973 43 38 25 22

-47 -40 -36 -23-33 -27 -22 -15-14 -7 -7 -4-3 2 0 -234 24 21 7112 74 71 48180 121 115 88234 189 177 124

-9 -7 -784 69 63

-17 -1040 2149 31

14333

Sales 40Service 52Craft and Production

Process 8Transport and

Communication -2Laborer -29Agricultural -30

R2 13.5 24.0 27.3 40.7 42.5 44.3 51.3

*Effects are expressed as deviations from the grand mean of $134 (MalaysianDollars). The coefficients of the residual Not Reported categories of the inde-pendent variables have been omitted from this table.

Source: 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey.

model? About 50% of the Malay disadvantage and 50% of the Chinese advan-tage in Income results from the unequal oTsu-ibution of Father’s Occupationsand Birthplaces, as does also most of the Indian advantage. Comparing theethnic coefficients in Model 4 with those in Model 3 will answer the question:How much of ethnic inequality in Income is due to unequal educational attain-ment which is not the result of unequal social origin? As noted in the preced-ing chapter, net educational differences are small after social origins are statis-tically held constant, so it is not surprising that these net educational differencesare not a major cause of ethnic inequality in income. It is also interesting tonote the sharp drop in several of the coefficients of Father’s Occupation fromModel 3 to Model 4 and from Model 2 to Model 3. This pattern reflects the factthat much of the effect of high-status fathers is attributable to their having giventheir sons an above-average education.

Model 5 shows that the addition of Educational Medium actually widensthe net Chinese-Malay gap. This is not because English schooling does notboost achievement-it does-but rather that the net Malay-Chinese differentialin English-medium education is not the cause of the Malay-Chinese incomegap. Model 6 shoves that Chinese are more likely to live in urban areas (net ofevery preceding variable) than Malays and this accounts for another portionof the gap in income. Assortment by occupation after all other factors are con-trolled does not seem to reduce the gap any further. This may indicate thatthere is no widespread pattern of discrimination that makes the movement intoan occupation a cause of ethnic differentials in income. The change from -$5to +$6 for the effect on Income of the ethnic group, Indian, from Model6 to Model 7 suggests that Indian men slightly underachieve in the occu-pational assortment process relative to their previous social background.

To summarize the analysis of the determinants of Income among Malaysianmen as measured in Table 6.1: (1) The seven variables in the final model, ac-counting for 51 percent of the variance in Income, provide a rather powerfulmodel by social science standards. (2) Although the net or direct effects ofEthnicity are not negligible (the Malay-Chinese differential of $48 is 36 per-

65

cent of the mean income of $134), they are not much larger than most othercoefficients in the complete model, and in several cases less than the effects ofother variables. (3) Of the observed differential of $133 between Malays andChinese (first model), almost two-thirds can be attributed to the differentialdistribution of social background characteristics, in particular. Father’s Occu-pation and Birthplace.

Consequently, conclude that most of the ethnic differential in income isdue to the unequal distribution of rural agrarian backgrounds among Malay,Chinese, and Indian men. The residual ethnic differential may be consistentwith either the cultural explanation or one in terms of discrimination; it is not

possible to test the alternatives. Perhaps finer measurement of occupationalcategories would have reduced the remaining ethnic differential even further.

Social Background and OccupationEarlier data (Table 5.1) have shown that Malay men are more likely to be in

agriculture than Chinese or Indians and less likely to be in most urban occupa-tions than Chinese or Indians. Again the fundamental question is: Are ethnicdifferentials in each occupation due to differences in the distribution of socialbackground characteristics, or to some unique ethnic effect?

The analysis of the process of occupational attainment is complicated by thefact that the eight occupational categories are each treated separately as a

dependent variable. As discussed earlier, this list of occupations forms onlyan approximate social hierarchy; a numeric socioeconomic scale would not bejustified. Consequently, coded each of the eight occupational groups separate-ly as a dummy variable (1 for being in the given occupation, 0 if not in it). Thismethod has the virtue of analyzing each occupational category as a singleentity. The assumption of some dubious scalar relationship among occupationsis not required. At the same time, however, all variation within each occupa-tional category is lost. If had used a single numeric occupational scale, theremight have been interpretable differentiation within professional, sales, orothermajor categories. In this analysis, all detailed occupational titles within theeight broad categories are coded alike.

The same analytical procedures used before were repeated here for eachof the eight occupations. Each of the six background variables (Ethnicity,Father’s Occupation, Birthplace, Years of Schooling, Educational Medium,and Current Residence) were entered sequentially in six cumulative modelsfor each of the eight occupations. The full results are so detailed and complexthat they threaten to overwhelm and confuse rather than to enlighten. (Thecomplete results are presented in Appendix F, and only partial results are dis-cussed in this chapter.)

Table 6.2 shows the effect of Ethnicity upon the probability of engagingin any given Occupation. All ofthe eight Occupations listed down the left-handcolumn, with the three ethnic communities under each. The first column, thegrand mean of the dependent variable, is simply the percentage of all em-ployed husbands in each occupation. The next six columns show the effectsof Ethnicity, expressed as deviations from the grand mean, in six models ofthe process of occupational attainment. The first model includes Ethnicity

66

only as an independent variable. Thus the effects are gross effects, represent-ing differences as they exist in the population.

The second model includes both Ethnicity and Father’s Occupation as inde-pendent variables in the regression equation. Here the ethnic effects are net ofFather’s Occupation; they could be interpreted as the ethnic differences whichwould exist if all ethnic groups had the same distribution of fathers by occu-pation. Each successive model adds an additional independent variable, andthe ethnic effects change accordingly. The ethnic effects in the sixth modelshow the net ethnic differences after all other variables are statistically con-trolled.

The amount of variance explained (R2) of each model is also shown. Gen-erally, an increment of one percent of variance explained means that the addedvariable is statistically significant.

Chinese are more likely than Malays or Indians to be in Professional andAdministrative occupations (Model 1). However, the Malay-Chinese differen-tial is reversed in Model 3 where Father’s Occupation and Birthplace are heldconstant. The Malay effect increases in a positive direction through Model 6,while the coefficients for Chinese, and especially Indians grow larger in a nega-tive direction. This means that Malays are over-represented in terms of theirsocial background characteristics in professional and administrative occupa-tions, a finding which might be partially explained by the internal hetero-geneity of this category, many Malay school teachers in rural areas beinglumped together with non-Malay professionals and administrators in urbanareas. The findings in this first panel of Table 6.2 cast doubt on any theorieswhich posit either that Malays aspire less to professional careers or that theysuffer from discrimination at the point of entry into professional careers (aftercontrolling for differences in social background).

The same basic patterns are evident in clerical occupations. AlthoughMalays are less likely to be clerical workers, their disadvantage is entirely dueto unfavorable social background factors, especially Father’s Occupation andBirthplace. The net coefficients (Model 6) give them a positive effect forEthnicity while in the case of Chinese and Indians, it is negative. It might benoted that the final R2 for clerical occupations, 22.3 percent, is higher thanthat for any other occupation except agriculture. The increments of varianceexplained associated with Years of Schooling (16.6-8.3=8.3 percent) andEducational Medium (21.4-16.6 4.8 percent) suggest that, independentof social origins, formal academic credentials are particularly important forentry into a clerical occupation. The significance of Ethnicity in both pro-fessional and clerical occupations as measured by R2 in the first model isnegligible, compared with other social background characteristics.

The pattern in sales occupations is quite different. Here the gross Chineseeffect is moderated, but it still remains quite large and positive after all back-ground variables are controlled. Part of the Chinese advantage is due to afavorable distribution of Father’s Occupation (about 22 percent of their fathersare in Sales) and Current Residence. However, the Malay and Indian disad-vantage in this sector does not seem to be much affected by any backgroundvariable. argued earlier (chapter 3) that part ofthe Chinese advantage in Sales

67

Table 6.2: Effects’ of Ethnicity of Married Men on OccupationalAttainment in Six Sequential and Cumulative Models ofSocial Background Variables in Eight Occupations:Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967.

GrandOccupation Mean Model2

1 2 3 4 5 6

Professional andAdministrative 6.8%

Malay -0.4 0.3 0.9 1.29 1.2 1.3Chinese 2.3 0.5 -1.0 -1.6 -1.4 -1.7Indian -2.4 -3.5 -3.9 -4.5 -4.6 -4.6

R2 0.3 4.5 5.1 13.1 13.1 13.2Clerical 4.2%

Malay -1.4 -0.6 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.7Chinese 3.1 1.3 -1.1 -1.2 0.2 -1.1Indian 2.5 1.2 0.5 -0.2 -1.6 -1.5

R2 1.0 6.1 8.3 16.6 21.4 22.3

Sales 8.4%

Malay -4.5 -3.4 -3.4 -3.5 -3.4 -3.1Chinese 16.0 12.5 12.4 12.5 12.0 10.9Indian -3.1 -2.8 -2.8 -2.6 -2.1 -2.0

R2 8.9 14.2 14.2 15.0 15.3 15.7

Service 5.8%

Malay 0.5 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.3 2.2Chinese -1.1 -1.9 -2.4 -2.8 -2.8 -5.7Indian -0.8 -2.0 -2.1 -2.1 -2.1 -2.0

R2 0.1 3.0 3.1 4.8 4.8 7.6

Craft and ProductionProcess 8.4%

Malay -3.9 -3.2 -2.9 -2.9 -2.9 -2.1Chinese 10.7 9.3 8.5 8.4 8.5 5.8Indian 4.1 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.9

R2 4.8 8.3 8.5 9.2 9.2 10.8

TransportandCommunication 6.1%

Malay -0.9 -0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8Chinese 1.4 -0.1 -1.4 -1.6 -1.5 -3.3Indian 2.9 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2

R2 0.4 0.2 2.5 2.8 2.5 4.0

Laborer 6.5%

Malay -2.2 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 -1.9 -1.7Chinese 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 2.9

68

Indian 5.4 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.1R2 1.9 3.3 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.3

Agricultural 53.3%

Malay 12.7 8.0 5.5 4.9 5.0 1.7Chinese -36.9 -25.4 -18.6 -17.2 -18.2 -7.4Indian -8.1 -1.7 0.1 0.9 2.0 1.5

R2 16.4 27.4 30.0 35.0 35.5 44.6

’Effects are expressed as deviations from the percentage of the total samplein that occupation.’Independent Variables in Sequential Models of Occupational Attainment.

Model 1: Ethnicity.Model 2: Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation.Model 3: Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation, BirthplaceModel 4: Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation, Birthplace, Years of Schooling.Model 5: Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation, Birthplace, Years of Schooling,

Educational Medium.Model 6: Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation, Birthplace, Years of Schooling,

Educational Medium, Current Residence.

Source: 1966-1967 West Malaysian Family Survey.

and Craft occupations might be due to the higher proportion of Chinese pro-prietors who are able to employ workers in their small shops throughout thecountry. If so, it seems that discrimination is a more likely explanation thanone based upon differential cultural orientation towards achievement. Althoughdiscrimination implies invidious behavior, it may be the result simply of anatural preference for hiring a nephew rather than a stranger who speaks a dif-ferent tongue. But no matter what the motive, the result is that entry into Salesoccupations is more dependent upon Ethnicity than upon other characteristics.Of the total 15.7 percent of variance explained in Sales occupations, 14.2percent is already accumulated in Model 2 with only Ethnicity and Father’sOccupation as independent variables.

As noted. Service occupations include a diverse lot with many police andmilitary personnel among Malays, and many service workers in hotels, res-taurants, and domestic employment among non-Malays. Malays have a positivegross effect while non-Malays have a negative effect in the first model, andthis differential widens as other variables are controlled. Practically all theChinese participation in this occupation can be accounted for by their favorabledistributions by Current Residence (primarily urban) and by Father’s Occupa-tion. The increments in variance explained in the case of Service occupationssuggest that urban life is the primary determinant of entry, Birthplace andCurrent Residence being the most significant independent variables.

The pattern of ethnic differences in Craft and Production Process occupa-tions resembles that of Sales occupations. Chinese and to a lesser extent In-dians have strong gross ethnic effects which remain strong though attenuated

69

after other variables are controlled. Both Father’s Occupation and CurrentResidence are also important to Chinese entering this occupation. But thestrong net effects of Ethnicity which remain indicate ethnic selectivity intothis occupation, independent of social background. The Malay pattern showsthat pan of their low participation in this occupation is due to their earlier dis-advantages in respect to Father’s Occupation, Birthplace, and Current Resi-dence. However, the net Malay effect in the sixth model is negative, indicatingthat Malays probably have some disadvantage in entering this occupation evenif they have equivalent social background. suspect that the predominance ofsmall shops in the industrial sector, which are likely to be owned by non-Malays, retards the entry of Malays into Craft and Production Process occupa-tions. Also similar to the pattern of Sales occupations, the proportion ofvariance explained in Craft and Production Process occupations is largelyattributable to the first two variables, Ethnicity and Father’s Occupation: 8.3percent of the total figure of 10.8 percent in Model 6. Transport and Communi-cation occupations show a positive gross effect in the case of Chinese whichquickly disappears as other variables are introduced. Here again, Chinese owemuch of their participation to their favorable background in terms of Father’sOccupation, Birthplace, and Current Residence. Although Malays are less thanproportionately represented in Transport and Communication occupations(Model 1), their net ethnic coefficient is positive (Model 6). Indians, on theother hand, are slightly over-represented in this occupation (positive grosseffect in Model 1), and this is not moderated very much by controlling forsocial background. There is a long history of Indian labor in the governmentdepartments which constructed the rail, road, and telecommunication networksof Peninsular Malaysia (Kemial Singh Sandhu, 1969: 285), and perhaps thishas resulted in the selectivity in hiring Indians, independent of social back-ground.

Chinese and Indians are much more likely to be Laborers than are Malaysand the differential is relatively unaffected by the introduction of othervariables, although Current Residence has some impact. In this respect, thepattern of ethnic coefficients is similar to those in Sales, and Craft and Pro-duction Process occupations. However, the composition of this occupationis quite diverse, among others, it includes miners.

The pattern of ethnic coefficients in Agricultural occupations is very interest-ing. The gross ethnic differentials as measured in Model are quite large, infact. Ethnicity as a single independent variable explains 16.4 percent of thevariance. However, the successive addition of other social background var-iables in the socioeconomic life-cycle model results in a reduction of the directeffect of Ethnicity. In the complete model (Model 6) the net effects of beingMalay and Indian are only slightly positive, while being Chinese has only amoderate negative effect (7.4). Most of the substantial differences in the pro-portion of each ethnic group in agriculture are due to social background char-acteristics which are independent of Ethnicity.

Conclusions

Two different patterns of occupational recruitment in the non-agriculturalsector emerge from this analysis. First, in a number of occupations (Profes-

70

sional, Clerical, and partially for Service and Transport and Communicationoccupations) the advantage of non-Malays seems to be based upon an unequaldistribution of background variables. In these occupations being a Malay oftenhas a positive net effect (Model 6), though it is generally small. In other words,Malay men would be somewhat more likely than non-Malays to be in theseoccupations if all ethnic communities had equivalent distributions of socialbackground characteristics. With these findings it is difficult to entertain eitherthe cultural thesis that Malays are less ambitious than non-Malays or that theyface discrimination at the point of entry into these occupations.

There is a different pattern of status attainment evident in Sales occupations,and among Craftsmen and Laborers. Here there is a strong gross differential(Model 1) between Malays and non-Malays. Although the ethnic differentialsare somewhat narrowed-Father’s Occupation and Current Residence weregenerally most important-the remaining differences arc still wide in Model 6after all background factors are controlled. Clearly there is ethnic selectivityinto these occupations. think that the hypothesis of discrimination is morecredible here than the cultural hypothesis that Malays are less motivated.

These occupations predominate in commerce and manufacturing, wherethe small family-managed shop is quite common. As mentioned in Chapter 3,the structure of job-creation and hiring in such industries favors ethnic groupswhich contain large numbers of owners or managers in small businesses. Sinceit appears that non-Malays constitute the majority of the employers, an ethnicselectivity in hiring Chinese or Indians is a not unanticipated empirical find-ing. To salvage the cultural explanation as the reason for the lower net Malaycoefficients in Sales, Craft, and Laborer occupations, it would be necessaryto construct a theory that Malay men are ambitious to engage in some urbancareers but not in others. While this may be possible it is not very convincing.In the four occupations where Malays have a net positive effect (Professional,Clerical, Service, and Transport and Communication) the government plays amajor role in job creation, whereas in Sales, Craft, and Laborer occupationsthe private sector is dominant. Perhaps the fact that the government usuallymust rely more on formal qualifications gives it a more universalistic basis forhiring. It should also be noted that the Malaysian government follows a systemin which Malays are given preference. While paper qualifications, such as edu-cation, must be considered first, Malays may be given preference amongequally qualified applicants. The opposite process may be at work in theprivate sector.

Extensions of the Model

The analyses of chapter 5 and 6 have been based on the multivariate regres-sion procedure of multiple classification analysis. It has made possible an

eight-variable analysis (in the case of income as a dependent variable)-afeat that would have been simply in the realm of imagination, had tabularanalysis remained the technique of investigation. Because most of the variableshave been categorical rather than quantitative, the use of conventional regres-sional analysis would not have been warranted. The use of multiple classifica-tion analysis has required no assumptions regarding the scale of measurementof independent variables nor the degree of linearity of relationships between

71

independent and dependent variables. The price exacted for all these advan-tages lies in the great mass of coefficients and results requiring substantiveinterpretation. The one equation predicting income with seven independentvariables (Model 7 in Table 6.1) has 35 substantive categories, each of whichhas a net effect or regression coefficient on income-omitting the categoriesof some independent variables which include no answer, which also producedcoefficients (not reported here). The analysis has become even more cumber-some with the series of sequential models or equations that shows the cumula-tive and mediating effect of social background variables upon ethnic inequality.The volume of coefficients for the analysis of the determinants of occupationalattainment, separately for eight separate occupations, becomes so great thatonly partial results are presented in Table 6.2, the balance being reported inAppendix F. One might wonder with all this richness of detail in the analysiswhy should seek to expand and complicate the present model of ethnic strati-fication. However, there remains the question, both statistical and theoretical,whether interactions exist among the variables in this analysis.

Our model so far as made the assumption of additivity, which simply meansthat the effect of an independent variable upon a dependent variable is similaracross categories of another variable. This assumption is not justified whenthe joint occurrence of two variables (or certain values of two variables) pro-duces a unique effect or interaction not attributable to either variable in isola-tion. For instance, our additive model assumes that being the son of a farmerhas a similar effect upon status attainment in each of several ethnic communi-ties. Our estimate of the ethnic effect in the preceding analysis is supposedlyconstant across all categories of all other independent variables.

In most research where interactions are thought likely, it is possible to addan interaction term to the regression equation and examine its statistical signi-ficance and explanatory power. The task is not quite so straightforward, how-ever, when as many as thirty-five additive independent variables are alreadyin the model. The potential number of potential interaction terms is finite, butlarger than most research workers would care to consider. First-order inter-action effects are potentially important, but probably second- and third-orderinteraction effects also come to mind. Is the effect of being the son of salesworker in an urban area the same on a youth with only a primary school edu-cation as it is on a secondary school graduate? The list of theoretically interest-ing and potentially significant interaction effects could go on for many pages.Clearly one must have some a priori guide to the selection of interaction termsfor testing.

will examine here only two of the possible first-order interaction terms ofEthnicity with other independent variables, specifically the Ethnic X Father’sOccupation and Ethnic X Years of Schooling interaction terms on status attain-ment. (For additional analysis of other ethnic-social background interactionsee Appendix G.)

The choice of Ethnic interaction terms with Father’s Occupation and Yearsof Schooling was dictated for several reasons. First, Ethnic interactions re-quire attention because Ethnicity is the theoretically most significant variablein the analysis. The primary objective of this research is to explain ethnic dif-

72

Table 6.3: Comparison of Variance Explained in Additive Models of Educational, Occupationaland Income Attainment of Married Men, and Models with Additional Ethnic XFather’s Occupation Interaction Terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967.

Variance Explained(R2) in CompleteAdditive ModelR2 No.1

(1) (2)

R2 with EightAdditional MalayX Father’s Occu-pation Interactions

(3)2

R2 with EightAdditional ChineseX Father’s Occu-pation Interactions

(4)2

R2 with EightAdditional IndianX Father’s Occu-pation Interactions

(5)2

Increment to R2 andNo. of Independent

Variables(5)-(1) No.1

(6) (7)

DependentVariables

Years of SchoolingEnglish EducationProfessional and

AdministrativeClericalSalesServiceCraft and Pro-

duction ProcessTrans. and Comm.LaborerAgriculturalIncome

16.8820.16

13.2222.3215.697.63

10.844.034.33

44.5651.1

1414

25252525

2525252533

17.7120.68

13.6922.4616.088.27

11.624.234.74

44.7751.34

18.0421.93

13.8222.8016.178.46

11.904.385.24

45.0451.56

18.6622.43

14.1923.4916.258.60

11.984.585.28

45.0752.72

1.882.27

0.971.170.560.17

1. 140.550.950.510.61

3838

49494949

4949494957

’No. in column 2 is the number of independent variables in the complete additive model.No. in column 7 is the number of independent variables in the equation with all additive terms plus 24 inter-action terms.

^he models with interaction terms in columns 3, 4, and 5 are cumulative.

ferentials in the stratification system, and it is significant if certain social back-ground variables operate differently in some ethnic groups to produce dif-ferences in socioeconomic attainment. Father’s Occupation and Years ofSchooling were chosen because they are generally the most powerful deter-minants of status attainment among the social background variables.

Our method of analysis is to compare the variance explained in the com-plete additive models of all social background variables with regressionmodels which include interaction terms in addition to the basic set of additiveterms. The interaction terms were created by multiplying each ethnic variableby each category of the other social background variable. In the case of EthnicX Father’s Occupation interactions, eight interaction terms were created bymultiplying the variable "Malay" by each of the Father’s Occupation cate-gories, similarly eight Chinese, and eight Indian X Father’s Occupation inter-action terms. Thus a total of 24 Ethnic X Father’s Occupation interactionvariables was created.

The results of a comparison of such interaction models with the simple addi-tive model are shown in Table 6.3. The first column shows the variance ex-plained in the complete additive model, the third column shows the varianceexplained by a model which includes eight additional interaction terms forMalay men. The fourth column presents the cumulative effect of eight moreChinese X Father’s Occupation terms, and the fifth column is based upon amodel with all additive terms plus 24 Ethnic X Father’s Occupational inter-actions. The sixth column shows the net variance explained by interactionterms (column 5 minus column 1). As can be seen from these results, theadditional variance explained is small compared to the large number of itner-action terms introduced. For the dependent variables, Years of Schooling andEnglish Education, the number of additional interaction variables is largerthan in the original additive equations. The 1.9 percent added to the varianceexplained of Years of Schooling and the 2.3 percent to that of English-mediumEducation, are rather small figures, although they are statistically significantincrements to R2. interpret this to mean that Father’s Occupation is an ad-vantage or handicap that is not quite identical across all ethnic groups, butcertainly the differences are not large enough to change the general pattern thatwas evident in the additive model.

For the dependent variables of Occupational and Income attainment, theincrement to variance explained is less than one percent in all cases exceptfor Clerical and Craft occupations, again, not enough to warrant reconsidera-tion of the previous analysis based upon the assumption of additivity.

Table 6.4 presents similar results following an examination of the relativesignificance of Ethnicity X Years of Schooling interactions in the process ofoccupational and income attainment. Once again, the introduction of inter-action terms does not add much to the explanatory power over the additivemodels. For each equation of status attainment (eight separate occupations,plus one for income), twenty-four interaction terms were added in three se-quential and cumulative models. First, eight Malay X Years of Schooling inter-actions were added (column 3), then eight more interaction terms of ChineseX Years of Schooling were added (column 4), and finally eight more Indian

74

Table 6.4: Comparison of Variance Explained in Additive Models of Occupational and IncomeAttainment of Married Men, and Models with Additional Ethnic X Years of SchoolingInteraction Terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967.

DependentVariables

Professional andAdmin.

ClericalSalesServiceCraft and Production

ProcessTrans. and Comm.LaborerAgriculturalIncome

VarianceR2 in QAddition.

R2

(1)

13.2222.3215.967.63

10.844.034.33

44.5651.11

Explainedampleteal Model

No.1

(2)

25252525

2525252534

R2 with EightAdditional MalayX Years ofSchoolingInteractions

(3)2

14.0122.5716.208.33

11.374.485.87

45.2051.45

R2 with EightAdditional Chinese

X Years ofSchoolingInteractions

(4)2

14.0823.2616.688.48

12.204.566.60

45.4751.72

R2 with EightAdditional Indian

X Years ofSchoolingInteractions

(5)2

14.3423.7516.738.64

12.294.626.69

45.5352.90

IncrementNo. of Inc

Vans

(5)-(1)(6)

1.121.431.041.01

1.450.592.360.971.79

to R2 andlependentibles

No.’(7)

49494949

4949494957

’No. in column 2 is the number of independent variables in the complete additive model.No. in column 7 is the number of independent variables in the equation with all additive terms plus 24 inter-action terms.

^he models with interaction terms in columns 3, 4, and 5 are cumulative.

X Years of Schooling variables (column 5). The addition of these 24 inter-action terms doubled the number of independent variables in the regressionequation, but seemed to raise R2 by only one or one-and-a-half percent inmost occupational attainment models. In the equation for the occupationalcategory, Laborer, the R2 did rise significantly, the increment being 2.36 per-cent; inspection of the coefficients reveals that lower educational categoriesare negatively associated with entry in this occupation among Malays whileamong Chinese they had a positive effect. While these figures suggest thatethnic interactions are not completely negligible, it does not appear that furtherelaboration of the model would dramatically increase the predictive power ofthe additive model. Further research should undoubtedly delve deeper intothe specification of significant interactions; I think, however, that the additivemodel is a fairly accurate representation of the status attainment process inPeninsular Malaysia.

76

CHAPTER 7

DISCUSSIONS AND CONCLUSIONS

What is the magnitude of ethnic inequality in Malaysia?

How has it changed over time?

How much of the ethnic differentials in socioeconomic levels can be ac-counted for by differences in social origins?

These are some of the questions that have guided the analysis in this study.shall begin by summarizing some of the answers to these questions and other

findings of this research.

In the first chapter, the problems of formulating an adequate sociologicaltheory of race and ethnic relations were discussed. While sociologists havemade much progress over the past decades, we are still far from reaching aconsensus on an overall theory. This is perhaps not surprising, since explana-tions of the course of race and ethnic relations in various societies involvethe processes of social change in local economic, political, familial and othersocial institutions. To conclude that we know relatively little about the deter-minants of race and ethnic relations is to say that we know very little about thecauses of social change in general.

However, some basic theoretical questions, more limited in scope, cangenerate testable hypotheses to guide research. These questions can be foundunder the rubric of ethnic stratification; more specifically: What factors andhistorical circumstances have led to the emergence of ethnic differentiationand inequality in any society; and what factors have maintained or reducedinequality over time? introduce this research as a case study, analyzing inone society the patterns of socioeconomic inequality over time (structuralassimilation) and also examining the relative importance of several factors thatmight influence the socioeconomic differences among ethnic communities

77

(using the socioeconomic life cycle model). While this study is of only onesociety, its findings might generate a framework for the comparative researchessential for the formulation of a meaningful general theory of race and ethnicrelations.

The task of chapter 2 is to describe the dimensions of ethnic differentiationand inequality in Peninsular Malaysian society and to introduce the sources ofdata to document and investigate the structure of ethnic stratification. Theunique historical circumstances of the origins of the plural society, a story intheir own right, appear here in rather general terms so that readers unfamiliarwith Malaysia might have some perspective.

Chapters 3 through 6 contain the important analytical substance of this study.Chapter 3 attempts to measure the trend in structural assimilation using occu-pational differentials, as the key indicator with data from several censusesand a survey from 1931 to 1967. Chapter 4 begins the analysis of the datafrom the 1966-67 West Malaysian Family Survey with an analysis of father-to-son occupational mobility and ethnic variations in the process. In chapters 5and 6 use the same source for a more comprehensive examination of thepatterns of ethnic inequality in educational, occupational, and income attain-ment within the framework of the socioeconomic life-cycle model.

What conclusions emerge from this investigation? The longitudinal researchgives evidence of several identical trends in the Malay, Chinese, and Indianoccupational structures, although not always to the same degree in all occupa-tions. The greatest similarity is the movement out of agricultural employment.This almost universal correlate of socioeconomic change seems to be presentin all ethnic groups in Malaysia, even though a majority of employed Malaymen are still in agricultural occupations. The increase in white-collar occupa-tions is found in all ethnic communities, but the ethnic gap is still wide. Therehas been relatively little trend toward equality between Malays and non-Malaysin several occupations, most notably in sales and crafts-a situation whichmight be due to the establishments involved, which are usually small, withnon-Malay employers.

There is a trend toward similarity in the occupational distributions of Malaysand Chinese from 1931 to 1947, but the gap widens from 1947 and 1957. Thismight be due to a trend toward shared poverty during the Depression and,waryears, when ’many marginal Chinese urban workers and tin miners becamesmall farmers. However, the postwar era created new opportunities, and theChinese occupational structure seemed to shift more than the other two duringthe years 1947 to 1957. Perhaps because of greater access to education andthe urban milieu, Chinese had an advantage in the urban job market overMalays.

The analysis of intergenerational occupational mobility shows some of thesame trends: substantial occupational inheritance of all occupations in allethnic groups but clear differences, as well. Chinese are more likely to followin their father’s occupation in the non-agricultural sector and more able toescape an agricultural heritage. Malays are more concentrated in agriculturalorigins and less likely to leave the occupation. Indians are intermediate be-tween the patterns of Chinese and Malays. By comparing indexes of dissimi-

78

larity from expected and observed occupational structures both within andacross ethnic groups it was possible to estimate what proportion of ethnic dif-ferentials is due to social origins and what is due to differences in socialmobility. From this analysis, it is clear that a considerable portion of ethnicinequality is due to the influence of unequal parental social position.

In chapters 5 and 6, analyzed the determinants of ethnic inequality byusing a model of status attainment or socioeconomic life cycle. This methodof analysis is an extension of the idea of father-to-son mobility which intro-duces a number of other social background variables in addition to father’soccupation. Multiple classification analysis and a sequential set of modelswhich introduce one variable at a time made it possible to measure the relativeimpact of various factors of social background which contribute to ethnic in-equality in educational attainment and income, and in the proportions attendingEnglish-medium schools, and in various occupations. Statistically controllingfor social background reduces the ethnic gap (Malay-Chinese) in incomesby almost two-thirds and the educational gap by eighty percent. For bothincome and education the social background factors which account for mostof the ethnic gap are Father’s Occupation and Birthplace. Effects of Yearsof Schooling and Occupation, net of other social background factors, seemnot to have much effect on the inequality of income among ethnic groups.interpreted these patterns as indicating that ethnic inequality is basically due

to an inheritance of poverty, or of rural agrarian origin, rather than any strongeffect of ethnicity alone. Thus neither the theory of differential cultural moti-vations nor the explanation of discrimination by employers is the primarycause of income inequality. However, there seems to be evidence in the analy-sis of occupational attainment of discrimination or some other structural blockpreventing Malays from entering a few occupations, especially sales and craftand production process occupations. This finding is consistent with the earlierconclusion that there was little trend towards proportionate ethnic representa-tion in these occupations as seen in the trend analysis in chapter 3. The im-portant variables in predicting entry into sales and craft occupations areEthnicity and Father’s Occupation, both of which, being ascriptive, tend towork to the disadvantage of Malays. Also evident from the trend analysis ofchapter 3 is that neither sales nor craft occupations are growing very fast as aproportion of total employment. It is easier to keep traditional ascriptive rulesregarding hiring new employees if the demand for labor is not expandingrapidly. Most notably in clerical, but also in professional occupations, grossethnic differentials are largely due to the unfavorable social origin (Father’sOccupation) and Birthplace ofMalays. In other words, Malays are more likelyto get into these occupations if all social background variables are held con-stant. Having a favorable Father’s Occupation and Birthplace also aids ingetting the quantity and kind of education which makes possible a professionalor clerical career.

Social Research and Social PolicyOne might ask whether any piece of social science research is useful as a

strategy for social change or action enlightened by social science? James Cole-man (1969: 326) has said:

Ifany theory of social change is tojustify its existence, it must contain

79

within it some point or points at which knowledge can affect action,which in turn affects the course of social change.

While have not attempted to develop a complete or even partial theory ofsocial change here, think certain aspects of the preceding analysis mightgive rise to considerations of planned social change. am not at all sure thatthe accuracy of the data, or the completeness of the theoretical models justifyany actions or policies based upon them, but since others may use this researchas a base, offer my thoughts on the matter.

There are two basic ways to intervene in an opportunity structure: by chang-ing either the rules of recruitment or the characteristics of applicants. Tochange the rules of recruitment simply calls for adjusting the criteria used bysupervisors or employers in hiring or promoting. This can most clearly followfrom changes in administrative policies (either public or private) which governthe selection of persons in and into certain positions in the major socioeconomicinstitutions. One might think that these criteria must be explicitly ethnic inorder to promote ethnic differentials. This need not be the case; if ethnic groupsdiffer in their educational distribution, selection based on education will pro-duce ethnic differentials in socioeconomic attainment. If good jobs are avail-able only in the cities, then rural-urban differences in residence among ethnicgroups will cause ethnic differentials in occupation. Changes in criteria ofselection often come about in the job market, independent of any administra-tive decision. If there is an over-supply of willing applicants for jobs, em-ployers can become more selective by upgrading the prerequisite qualifications.Changes in the structure of the economy could also lead to differing criteriafor selection. For instance, as economic units grow larger and more bureau-cratic, they may become more universalistic in their hiring patterns, avoidingthe kin recruitment which is probably common among small establishments.Such changes in the job market, planned or otherwise, might have a significantimpact on ethnic inequality.

The other social strategy to deal with ethnic disparities is to change thecharacteristics of disadvantaged groups so that they may compete more suc-cessfully in the existing opportunity structure. This type of policy can be seenmost clearly in the expansion of educational opportunities, job training pro-grams, and the like, for less successful ethnic groups. The hoped-for goal ofsuch remedial programs would be to equalize social backgrounds or levels ofskill between ethnic groups so that socioeconomic achievement would haveno association with ethnicity.

It will be seen that these social policies or strategies are related to the dif-ferential causes suggested by various hypotheses related to the socioeconomiclife cycle model. If an ethnic group is disadvantaged merely because of itsinheritance of poverty or rural agrarian origins, then either a change in thesocial composition of its background characteristics or an indirect strategy tochange non-ethnic criteria of selection into positions would eliminate socio-economic differentials. However, it might not be as simple as that. Equalizingeveryone’s social background characteristics is by necessity an intergenera-tional process. It would be very difficult to change the educational or resi-dential composition of adults above the age of 30; only those who are young

80

enough to be still in educational institutions would be likely to enjoy the benefitsof such policy changes. How is it possible to change the social status of familyof origin, or birthplace? Obviously, it cannot be done directly, but the handi-caps can be reduced by building schools in rural areas, eliminating the costsof education to children and their families, and creating job opportunities out-side of cities. In a sense these policies are changing the criteria for admissioninto educational and occupational structures. The distinction between changingthe social background characteristics of the disadvantaged and changing thecriteria of selection other than those of ethnicity would undoubtedly be ob-scured in the application of social policy.

What are the policy alternatives if the fact of ethnicity plays a significantcausal role in determining status attainment, independent of social backgroundcharacteristics? Here the interventions must be related to the reasons why eth-nicity is important. If one accepts the cultural hypothesis that certain ethnicgroups are less successful because they are less motivated and ambitious-ahypothesis which seems to have little support from this research-then onemust adopt policies that will change their values and aspirations. This topic,modernity, as a socio-psychological attribute, has generated a great deal ofattention in recent years, though more in relation to socioeconomic develop-ment than as a cause of ethnic inequality. However, since doubt its import-ance as an important variable in this study on both theoretical and empiricalgrounds, will not discuss its possible implications as a basis of policy.

On the other hand, what if ethnicity is a direct cause of inequality becauseof discrimination or ethnic preference in the allocation of opportunities? Hereno amount of equalization of skills or qualifications would.remove the barriers.I suspect that this is the situation in the case of sales and craft occupations inPeninsular Malaysia. Of course, a direct policy of quotas to assure ethnic pro-portions in various industries and businesses would obviously minimize thedifferentials. The costs, however, of such a large-scale program might be sub-stantial. It is probably inevitable that such policies will create ethnic antago-nism, especially from the relatively more advantaged group who sees in thema threat to their and their children’s chances of socioeconomic achievement.Of course, a policy of ending ethnic selectivity that inhibits structural assimi-lation need not institute a policy of reverse-selectivity to achieve the desiredgoal. While this conceptual distinction is clear in the abstract, it may be verydifficult if not impossible to incorporate in the actual administration of policy.

With this perspective on the relationship between the process of socialstratification and social policy as well as the empirical findings of the study,what are the implications for ethnic relations in Peninsular Malaysia? Firstof all, it seems that for most socioeconomic statuses (education, income, pro-fessional, clerical, service, and transport and communication occupations),there is little net ethnic effect, compared to the overall gross ethnic differentials.Thus policies to eliminate the association of disadvantaged social origins andsocioeconomic attainment in all communities would go far to reduce the exist-ing ethnic differentials in socioeconomic status. These policies could be of asort that would equalize social background characteristics or they could changenon-ethnic criteria of admission into the opportunity structure.

81

In some occupations, most noticeably in sales and crafts, direct efforts mustbe made to eliminate ethnicity as a criterion governing selection. This couldbe done by creating more jobs in economic institutions that do not recruit onethnic grounds. suspect that larger and more bureaucratic firms or organiza-tions would rely less on ascriptive characteristics such as ethnicity. It shouldalso be noted that movement towards elimination of ethnic differentials in

occupations would be much easier and more rapid in a labor market wherethere were a greater supply ofjobs relative to demand. This would encouragea flexibility in hiring practices not possible where employers, having largenumbers of qualified applicants to choose from, can base choice upon ascrip-tive characteristics. To point to the present high unemployment rates in Penin-sular Malaysia is to single out the difficulty in introducing policies that wouldeliminate ethnic inequality. suspect that more than any other single policy,the creation of more jobs would alleviate the ethnic disparities in the occupa-tional structure.

The Comparative Study of Ethnic Stratification

The most valuable contribution of this study may be the directions which it

suggests the comparative study of race and ethnic relations might take. Manysignificant theoretical developments in social science must await the testingof very simple hypotheses on a number of populations. But the field of raceand ethnic relations is one that has long been dominated by global generaliza-tions based upon case studies or speculative thought. Also the emphasis on

cognitive attributes, difficult to measure, has impeded the tradition of cumula-tive empirical research. Here the objective has been to measure empiricallythe association of ethnic status and the distribution of statuses and rewards in

society, to examine trends over time, and to investigate how a limited set ofsocial background variables could account for ethnic differentials in the dis-

tribution of statuses. While this is certainly not inclusive of all that needs to

be investigated, it does facilitate dealing with a number of important theoreti-cal questions.

For instance, a long-standing issue is the role of social change in the struc-

turing of race and ethnic relations. Park and Frazier suggest that there is an in-evitable process of the evolution of race relations, presumably related to forcesof modernization, that will break down traditional ethnic barriers and lead to

eventual integration and assimilation. Other authors, including Blumar(1965)and van den Berghe (1967), have been skeptical that the forces of social changewill necessarily lead to any reduction in the level of inter-ethnic inequality orantagonism. To the handling of this complex hypothesis with its many relatedissues think the analysis of structural assimilation in chapter 3 gives somedirection. Using longitudinal data it is possible to measure trends in ethnic

inequality along various socioeconomic dimensions. Of course, the case studyof one society is only a beginning of the comparative research that must bedone. Trends in ethnic differentials in a number ofsocieties should be examinedin light of other social changes, such as economic growth and urbanization.

The method used in chapters 5 and 6 of applying the socioeconomic life-cycle model to the study of ethnic inequalities in status attainment is also a

straightforward means of investigating significant questions in the field. The

82

usual assumption of most social observers and social scientists is that if thereare significant differences in the socioeconomic composition of racial andethnic groups, then the explanation must have something directly to do withethnicity per se. The suggestion is that the ethnic groups differ in some inherentattribute, such as cultural values, or else that they are treated differently bygatekeepers in the social structure, i.e, that there is discrimination. The ex-planation not usually considered is simply that the disadvantaged status ofparents is passed on to their offspring, consequently lowering their socio-economic attainment. This may play an important role in accounting for inter-ethnic inequality, at least in the short run. There may, too, be different explana-tions in different sectors of the socioeconomic structure. For instance, researchreported earlier shows that ethnicity may have a significant net effect on entryinto several occupations, but not into others, nor on education or income.This is a rather unexpected complication, but it clearly shows that what causesinequalities in one part of the stratification system need not necessarily be acause in another part. It is obvious that if, for theory-building, we are to knowthe role of ethnicity and race in the process of stratification, we must havemore comparative research.

83

APPENDIX A

PROBLEMS OF COMPARABILITY IN MEASURINGOCCUPATIONAL TRENDS

In this, as in every study that uses data from different sources, there ariseproblems of comparability. In chapter 3, the analysis is based upon time-seriesdata from three censuses taken between 1931 and 1957 and a large nationalprobability sample survey of households taken in 1967-68.

There are two basic issues, one regarding differences in the definition andcoverage of the population classified by occupation, and the other the con-sistency of occupational classifications over time. The comparability of thebase population may be affected by the completeness of coverage of thesources of data as well as by the changing definitions of the employed popu-lation. The 1931, 1947, and 1957 censuses purported to be complete countsof the population, but there was undoubtedly some underenumeration, ofwhose magnitude we have no accurate estimate. One analysis of the 1957Census estimated the underenumeration at 2.7 percent (United Nations, 1962).

The Socioeconomic Sample Survey of Households of 1967-68 introducesadditional problems of coverage. Because it was limited to households, theinstitutional population was not included. The institutional population con-sists usualy of only a few persons (about 3 percent of the total population in1957, Fell, 1960: 163), for the most part very old or very young, and thusnot counted in most occupational tabulations. The omission of one sizeableportion of the institutional population, may, however, have affected the oc-cupational composition, namely, the military and police forces, most of whomlive in barracks and are classified with the institutional population, resultingin an underrepresentation of service workers. And since a substantial majorityof the armed forces and police are Malays, the 1967 data may be somewhatnon-comparable in this regard.

84

Two other aspects may affect the comparability of the base populationamong the various sources: first, the definition of those who are to be classi-fied by occupation, and, second, the variation in age boundaries. The 1967survey used the contemporary concept of the labor force, while the 1957census used a very close approximation, "economically active population",while the 1947 and 1931 censuses used the concept of the "gainful worker".These three concepts differ in the way they classify those who are employed(and thus have an occupation) and those who are not. The "labor force"concept includes both the employed and the unemployed, but excludes thosewho are classified as out of the labor force. According to the "labor force"concept an employed person is one who works for pay at any time during thepreceding week, one who has a job but is temporarily absent, or an unpaidhelper who assisted in the operation of an economic activity,usually in afamily enterprise, at least one day during the preceding week. The "economi-cally active population’’ concept is basically the same except that instead ofcovering the preceding week, employment is defined as being "gainfullyoccupied" for at least four of the preceding twelve months. To be unemployedin 1967 and "not working, but looking for work" in 1957 mean basically thesame, except that reference periods are the past week and past year, respec-tively. Most of my trend analysis of occupational patterns is based uponpercentage distributions with the base being the total employed population.These figures seem to be roughly comparable between 1957 and 1967.

Perhaps the "gainful worker" concept is best described in the instructionsgiven to the census enumerators. The 1947 census (Del Tufo, 1949: 98) is-sued the following instructions for collecting data on occupation:

Enter the gainful occupation at which the person spends most of histime and from which he receives the greater part of his income

When these instructions, which refer to no period of time, are followed,some persons who were classified as having an occupation in the 1931 and1947 censuses might be classified as "out of the labor force", as currentlydefined. However, there was a residual category, "Nil", which include allthose having "no gainful occupation", and which is roughly comparable to"out of the labor force". It seems that while there are some inconsistencies,one can reasonably Sexpect the concepts of "total gainful employed" in 1931and 1947 to be comparable to the employed population of 1957 and 1967.

There is also a problem with the varying age boundaries of the populationclassified by occupation in the published tables. The 1967 survey includesonly those between 15 and 64 years old; the 1957 census includes only thoseabove the age of 10; and the 1947 and L93J, censuses specifying no age range,presumably include all with a job, regardless of age. Thus the actual numbersfrom the various sources are not really adequate to measure trends in the oc-cupational structure. It would be difficult to separate real secular changes inthe occupational composition from those resulting from changes in age boun-daries. However, think the use of percentages of the occupation distribution(based upon the total employed population) minimizes the influence of chang-ing age boundaries. In Table A.I, whose data come from the 1957 Census(the only source which gave the appropriate data), comparisons can be madebetween the percentage distributions of the occupational structure of the em-

85

Table A-1: Comparison of the Occupational Composition of EmployedMales, Age 10 and Above, and of Employed Males, Age15 to 64, by.Ethnic Community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1957.

OCCUPATION*

MalayProfessional and

Technical WorkersAdministrative, Executive

and Managerial WorkersClerical WorkersSales WorkersService WorkersCraftsmen, Production

Process Workers, andLaborers

Transport and Communi-cation Workers

MinersAgricultural WorkersNot ReportedTotal Employed

ChineseProfessional and

Technical WorkersAdministrative, Executive

and Managerial WorkersClerical WorkersSales WorkersService WorkersCraftsmen, Production

Process Workers, andLaborers

Transport and Communi-cation Workers

MinersAgricultural WorkersNot ReportedTotal Employed

IndiansProfessional and

Technical WorkersAdministrative, Executive

and Managerial WorkersClerical Workers

AGE 10 AND ABOVEnumber percent

20,517

16,108

AGE 15-64

number percent

2.72% 20,230

2.81% 15,697

2,84%

4,25416,24521,40365,862

69,141

27,640327

526,3232,573

754,285

0.562.152.838.73

9.16

3.660.04

69.770.34

100.0 %

4,14516,09120,31265,514

67,403

27,373325

488,3692,290

712,052

0.582,252,859.20

9.46

3.840.0468.580.32

100.0 %

2.90%

14,95625,323110,56233,545

157,313

26,3871,353

184,9372,430

572,914

5,961

2,99311,924

2.614.4219.295.85

27.45

4.600.2332.280.42

100.0 %

2.63%

1.325.27

14,44324,895105,05931,495

151,367

26,0751,308

167,1872,257

539,783

5,891

2,92411,800

2.674.6119.465.83

28.04

4.830.24

30.970.41

100.0 %

2,68%

1.335.38

86

Sales Workers 30,189 13.35 29,025 13.23Service Workers 20,230 8.94 19,660 8.96Craftsmen, Production

Process Workers, andLaborers 59,117 26.15 58,191 26.53

Transport and Communi-cation Workers 10,609 4.69 10,497 4.78

Miners 155 0.06 155 0.07Agricultural Workers 84,092 37.20 80,439 36.67Not Reported 771 0.34 720 0.32Total Employed 226,041 100.0% 219,302 100.0%

*This is the same list of occupations as in Table 3.3, except that Laborers couldnot be separated from Craftsmen and Production Process Workers.

Source: Fell, 1960: 149-156.

ployed male population aged ten and above, and the employed male popula-tion from 15 to 64, by ethnic group. It seems that there are only minor dif-ferences between the two distributions. Although the very young and the veryold have somewhat different occupational.structures from the total employedpopulation, they are fairly small groups which do not exert a strong impactupon the overall occupational composition. So, in spite of problems arisingfrom the definition of the reference population included in the occupationaltables, it is possible to measure occupational trends without fear of non-comparability.

A second major issue is the diverse classifications of occupations used inthe various sources. A recent Directory of Occupational ClassificationMalaysia, which was based upon the latest international classification andpublished in 1968, was not used in either the 1966-67 West Malaysian FamilySurvey or the 1967-68 Socioeconomic Survey, both of which adopted theoccupational classification of the 1957 Census. This classification schemeincludes a three-digit code. At the one-digit level, it consists of ten majorcategories ranging from 0 to 9; at the two-digit level, it is a 99-category sys-tem ranging from 00 to 99; the three-digit level offers a further breakdowninto more detailed occupational titles. The 1957 Census data published onlythe two-digit occupational data, while the 1967-68 Socioeconomic Surveyused only the 70 most common titles of the two-digit codes and combinedthe smaller categories under them. The occupational classification schemesof the 1931 and 1947 Censuses are similar to each other but radically dif-ferent from the 1957 classification. The 1947 classification consisted of 31major groups and 183 detailed titles, and the 1931 occupational classificationscheme had 32 major groups and 141 detailed titles. The major differencebetween the earlier (1931 and 1947) classifications and the later (1957) isthat many of the categories in the earlier schemes were more akin to industrialthan occupational categories. For instance, some of the major titles of the1947 classification are "Makers of Bricks, Pottery and Glass, etc." and"Makers of Food, Drinks, and Tobacco". Under these and other major cate-

87

gories are managers, employers, skilled workers, and laborers; consequentlyto construct a category such as "managers", which takes persons from theseand other groupings, calls for a great deal of rearranging.

When as a pan of this project, I attempted to construct comparable sets ofoccupational categories for all these sources, the major problem was the re-conciling of the 1947 classification with that of the 1957. Naturally the goalwas to make the earlier classification fit the more recent categories. Theauthor of the 1957 census report, who also attempted this, remarked that theprocedure failed completely, but that the reverse procedure-fitting the 1957occupational data to that of 1947-was a partial success (Fell, 1960: 25). Notknowing all the potential sources of error, attempted to do the impossible byfitting the earlier classification system into the 1957 scheme. think the resultwas reasonably accurate at the one-digit level, which consisted of only ten

major occupational groups. The comparability of the more detailed categorieswhich constructed may be more questionable. In Appendix B, have listedthe complete titles of the occupational groups from the 1957 classificationat the two-digit level. Appendix C contains a matching of the major occu-

pational categories of 1957 (except "Laborers" which was a detailed categoryin 1957) with the code numbers of comparable occupations from the 1947 and1931 classifications.

88

APPENDIX B

1957 MALAYSIAN OCCUPATION CLASSIFICATIONBY ONE- AND TWO-DIGIT LEVEL.

One-DigitLevel Occupation Title

0 Professional, Technical, and Related Occupations.Architects, Surveyors, and EngineersChemists and Physical ScientistsVeterinary Surgeons, Biologists, and Related ScientistsPhysicians, Surgeons, Dentists, and Medical SpecialistsNurses and MidwivesProfessional Medical Workers not elsewhere classified

and Medical TechniciansTeachersPriests, Kathis, Clergy etc., and Members of Religious

Orders (other than teachers, doctors, etc.)Lawyers, Judges, and MagistratesOther Professional, Technical and Related Workers

Administrative, Executive, and Managerial Occupations(excluding those in agricultural and retail trade)

Administrative and Executive Officers, Governmentand Local Government

Directors, Managers, and ProprietorsForeign Consuls, Diplomats, Commissioners and

Related Workers

2 Clerical OccupationsClerical OccupationsStenographers, Typists, and Personal SecretariesOffice Business Machine OperatorsOffice boysRelated Clerical Workers, not elsewhere classified

3 Sales and Related OccupationsProprietors and Managers, Retail TradeInsurance Agents, Brokers, and AuctioneersCommercial Travellers, Canvassers, and Manufacturers’

RepresentativesSalesmen and Shop AssistantsHawkers and Street VendorsStall HoldersSales Workers not elsewhere classified

4 Agricultural OccupationsManagers, Assistant Managers, and ConductorsRubber TappersWeedersHarvesters, Pluckers, and Toddy TappersEstate Agricultural Workers (excluding workers in

estate factories)Owners, Cultivators etc. on Small holdings and Market

GardensForestry OccupationsFishermenHunters, Trappers, and Game WardensGardeners and Grass Cutters (excluding market gardeners)

5 Miners, Quarrymen, and Related OccupationsBlasters, Drillers, and Shot firersMineral TreatersDulang WashersDredgemastersSpecialized Mine and Quarry Workers not elsewhere

classified

6 Transport and Communication OccupationsDeck Officers, Engineer Officers, and Pilots, ShipDeck and Engine-room Crew (ship)Aircraft Pilots, Navigators, and Flight EngineersDrivers and Firemen, Railway EngineDrivers, Road TransportRailway GuardsTraffic Superintendents, Inspectors, Controllers, and

Related Workers, TransportTelephone, Telegraph, and Related Telecommunication

OperatorsPostmen and Messengers

90

Other Workers in Transport and Communication(excluding Laborers) not elsewhere classified 69

7&8 Craftsmen, Production Process Workers, and LaborerOccupations Not Elsewhere Classified

Spinners, Weavers, Dyers, and Related Workers 70Tailors, Dress Makers, and Related Workers 71Shoe Makers and Shoe Repairers 72Fumacemen, Blacksmiths, Moulders, and Related

Metal-Making Workers 73Precision Instrument Makers, Business Machine

Mechanics, Watchmakers, Jewellers, and Related Workers 74Toolmakers, Machinists, Plumbers, Welders, Platers,

and Related Workers 75Electricians and Related Electrical Workers 76Carpenters, Joiners, Cabinet Makers, and Related Wood

and Cork Workers 77Painters, Decorators etc. 78Bricklayers, Plasterers, and Building, and ConstructionalWorkers, not elsewhere classified 79Compositors, Pressmen, Engravers, Book Binders,

and Related Printing Workers 80Potters, Kilnmen, Glass Blowers, and Related Workers 81Craftsmen not elsewhere classified 82-84Production Process Workers not elsewhere classified

including Graders, Packers, etc. 85-86Stationary Engine, Excavating and Lifting Equipment

Operators, and Related Workers 87Overseers, Kepalas, Mandores, and Foremen not

elsewhere Classified 88Laborers not elsewhere classified 89

9 Service, Sport, Entertainment, and Recreation OccupationsFiremen (fire brigades). Policemen, Security Officers,

and Related Workers 90Workers in Domestic Service, Hospitals, Hotels,

Clubs, Restaurants, etc. 91Caretakers, Cleaners, and Related Workers 92Barbers, Hairdressers, Beauticians, and Related Workers 93Launderers, Dry Cleaners, Pressers 94Sports, Entertainment, Recreation, and Related Workers 95Photographers and Related Camera Operators 96Service Workers not elsewhere classified 97Members of the Armed Forces 98Workers not Classifiable by Occupation 99

Source: Fell, 1960: 164-165.

91

APPENDIX C

COMPARABLE CATEGORIES FROM 1931, 1947 AND1957 CENSUSES, BASED ON THE TEN MAJOROCCUPATIONAL CATEGORIES OF THE 1957 CENSUS.

Professional, Technical, and Related Workers

1957 01947 139-152, 154, 1551931 28, 37, 109-121, 123, 124

II Administrative, Executive, and Managerial Workers(excluding those in agriculture and retail trade)

19571947 17,20,23,29,47,65, 80, 85,97, 101, 113, 121, 127, 128,

129, 153, 172, 175131 13, 15, 20, 23, 36, 61, 64, 74, 89, 93, 99, 100, 122, 136

III Clerical Workers1957 21947 164, 165, 1661931 131

IV Sales Workers

1957 31947 114-120, 122-1261931 88, 90-92, 94-98

V Agricultural Workers1957 41947 1-3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11-16, 911931 1-12

92

VI Miners, Quarrymen, and Related Workers1957 51947 18, 19, 211931 14, 16

VII Transport and Communication Workers1957 61947 93-96, 98-100, 102-1121931 70-73, 75-87

VIII Craftsmen and Production Process Workers1957 7, 8 (except 89)1947 4, 7, 10, 22, 24-28, 30-46, 48-64, 66, 67, 69-79, 81-83,

86-90, 92, 167-170, 173, 1771931 17-19, 21, 22, 24-27, 29-35, 38-51, 53-60,62, 65-69, 132,

133, 137

IX Laborers1957 891947 1781931 135

X Service Workers1957 9 (except 99)1947 68, 84, 130-132, 138, 156, 157, 163, 174, 1761931 52, 63, 101-103, 108, 125, 126, 130, 138

Not Classified by Occupation1957 991947 171, 1791931 139

93

APPENDIX D

Table D.I: Occupational Composition of Employed Males, by EthnicCommunity: Peninsular Malaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967

OccupationProfessional and

Technical Workers

Administrative, Executiveand Managerial Workers

Clerical Workers

Sales Workers

Service Workers

Transport and Communi-cation Workers

Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers

Miners

Laborers

Agricultural Workers

Not Reported

1931

Total Malay Chinese Indian

21,895 8,097 7,670 3,279

9,057 3,017 4,646 879

29,090 4,584 16,158 5,123120,449 10,988 93,989 23,03487,079 13,451 43,311 28,579

73,364 23,155 28,230 21,417

102,188 14,118 72,792 13,58777,220 1,149 69,893 5,761112,079 15,257 54,159 42,563875,122 442,285 271,588 151,699

7,194 957 3,770 2,223Total Employed 1,514,737 537,058 666,115 298,144

94

OccupationProfessional and

Technical Workers

Administrative, Executiveand Managerial Workers

Clerical WorkersSales WorkersService Workers

Transport and Communi-cation Workers

Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers

Miners

Laborers

Agricultural WorkersNot ReportedTotal Employed

1947

Total Malay

27,693 10,919

Chinese

9,451

66,267 25,657 22,997

Indian

4,684

13,76235,656135,79594,618

3,5597,03717,85026,200

7,31520,20895,14542,376

1,4185,841

21,77724,010

16,648

129,64731,02457,061

870,1231,561

,463,207

26,5354,20618,131

503,021484

643,599

80,81223,05016,244

261,488764

579,850

20,5743,680

22,48098,168

267219,540

OccupationProfessional and

Technical WorkersAdministrative, Executive

and Managerial Workers

Clerical Workers

Sales Workers

Service Workers

Transport and Communi-cation Workers

Craftsmen and ProductionProcess Workers

Miners

LaborersAgricultural Workers

Not ReportedTotal Employed

1957

Total Malay

47,140

65,767

20,517

24,033 4,25456,980 16,245164,292 21,403145,346 65,862

27,640

Chinese

16,108

14,95625,323110,56233,545

26,387

Indian

5,961

2,99311,92430,18920,230

10,609

185,1231,907

103,569802,645

5,9971,602,799

36,920327

32,221526,323

2,573754,285

115,6321,353

41,681184,9372,430

572,914

30,174155

28,94384,092

771226,041

95

1967

Occupation Total Malay Chinese IndiansProfessional and

Technical Workers 80,780 40,282 26,436 11,273

35,670 7,817 22,744 3,41676,163 25,313 35.627 13,951168,487 34,795 113,263 19,60098,150 46,273 33,098 16,863

83,843 37,503 31,719 13,094

201,877 55,070 116,864 28,02216,798 3,170 11,582 1,918

146,195 68,609 48,869 28,212689,696 473,718 135,177 73,289

665 132 256 150

Administrative, Executiveand Managerial Workers

Clerical WorkersSales WorkersService WorkersTransport and Communi-

cation WorkersCraftsmen and Production

Process WorkersMiners

LaborersAgricultural WorkersNot ReportedTotal Employed 1,598,324 792,682 575,635 209,788

Sources: Vlieland, 1932 252-324Del Tufo, 1949 477-505Fell, 1960 128-137Choudhry, 1970 (Appendix) 62-67

96

Table E.I: Indexes of Dissimilarity Between Occupational Distributions (Without Agriculture) of ^Employed Males, by Ethnic Community: Peninsular Malaysia, 1931, 1947, 1957, 1967 gZ

M-1931 M-1947 M-1957 M-1967 C-1931 C-1947 C-1957 C-1967 1931 1-1947 1-1957 1-1967

Malay 1931 0.0 pi

Malay 1947 11.16 0.0

Malay 1957 18.89 15.52 0.0

Malay 1967 15.87 15.33 15.87 0.0

Chinese 1931 32.28 27.48 34.49 30.60 0.0

Chinese 1947 36.08 29.58 37.36 32.1 19.86 0.0

Chinese 1957 33.66 29.55 35.00 30.86 23.33 13.43 0.0

Chinese 1967 33.87 28.14 35.26 29.13 23.91 14.86 7.36 0.0

Indian 1931 25.65 22.23 28.08 26.00 32.28 38.97 41.52 42.00 0.0

Indian 1947 18.50 12.10 18.18 16.46 22.82 27.10 28.39 28.45 13.74 0.0

Indian 1957 24.11 22.25 24.76 14.16 20.63 20.01 17.77 18.83 26.09 14.75 0.0

Indian 1967 18.69 16.96 20.73 9.33 26.59 26.03 24.07 21.97 26.75 16.67 9.74 0.0

APPENDIX F

Six Sequential Models* of the Effects’ of Social Background onOccupational Attainment of Married Men, by Occupation:

Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967

*MODEL INDEPENDENT VARIABLES

Model EthnicityModel 2 Ethnicity and Father’s OccupationModel 3 Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation, and BirthplaceModel 4 Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation, Birthplace and Years of

SchoolingModel 5 Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation, Birthplace, Years of

Schooling, and Educational Medium

Model 6 Ethnicity, Father’s Occupation, Birthplace, Years ofSchooling, Educational Medium, and Current Residence

’Effects are expressed as deviations from the percentage of the total sample in

each occupation.

Source: 1966-1967 West Malaysian Family Survey.

98

Table F.I

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Professional, Grand Mean 6.8% Clerical, Grand Mean 4.2%

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

EthnicityMalay -0.4 0.3 O.S 1.2 1.2 1.3 -1.4 -0.6 0.2 0.5 0.3 0.7

Chinese 2.3 0.5 -1.0 -1.6 -1.4 -1.7 3.1 1.3 -1.1 -1.2 0.2 -1.1

Indian -2.4 -3.5 -3.9 -4.5 -4.6 -4.6 2.5 1.2 0.5 -0.1 -1.6 -1.5N.R. 3.6 3.5 3.1 1.5 1.5 1.6 -0.2 -0.2 -0.8 -2.2 -2.8 -2.4

Father’s OccupationProfessional

and Admin. 21.2 20.0 13.0 12.7 12.5 8.5 6.6 0.7 -1.6 -2.1

Clerical 10.4 8.6 1.1 0.5 0.0 24.4 21.5 14.6 10.1 8.8Sales 1.6 0.7 -1.3 -1.3 -1.5 1.7 0.2 -1.1 -1.0 -1.5

Servic- 5.3 3.9 1.5 1.3 1.1 1.5 -0.6 -2.0 -3.1 -3.9

Craft and ProductionProcess 5.5 4.6 3.9 3.9 3.7 3.1 1.8 0.9 0.7 0.1

Transport and

Communications 3.6 2.5 1.2 1.0 0.6 6.3 4.7 3.1 1.5 0.0Laborer -3.5 -4.4 -2.5 -2.5 -2.3 -1.6 -2.9 -1.3 -1.3 -0.9

Agricultural -2.6 -2.0 -1.1 -1.0 -0.9 -2.4 -1.6 -0.8 -0.3 -0.1N.R. -0.7 -0.8 -0.1 0.1 -0.1 0.7 0.6 1.2 0.9 0.6

BirthplaceRural -1.3 -0.4 -0.4 -0.3 -2.0 -1.2 -0.8 -0.5Small Town 2.8 0.9 0.8 0.4 4.1 2.3 1.3 0.6

Town City 5.3 1.6 1.5 1.1 8.3 5.0 3.9 2.7N.R. -0.4 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.3 1.4 0.2

Years of Schooling0 years -4.8 -4.6 -4.5 -3.3 -1.7 -1.4

1-3 years -3.4 -3.2 -3.1 -2.8 -1.4 -1.0

4-5 years -3.0 -2.8 -2.8 -1.7 -0.2 -0.26 years -0.7 -0.5 -0.6 -1.7 -0.7 -0.97-8 years 6.6 6.3 6.2 1.8 -0.5 -0.711 years 17.5 15.8 15.6 28.6 15.4 14.9

12 years 35.6 34.3 34.1 15.5 5.6 4.6N.R. 0.6 0.7 0.4 -1.0 -0.1 -1.1

Educational MediumOther -0.2 -0.2 -2.0 -1.8

English 2.3 2.0 18.7 17.4

Current Residence

Rural -0.5 -1.6

Non-Metro. Urban 2.0 4.3

Metropolitan 0.3 3.7

R2 0.3 4.5 5.1 13.1 13.1 13.2 1.0 6.1 8.3 16.6 21.4 23.3

99

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Sales, Grand Mean 8.4% Service, Grand Mean

(4)(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) (2) (3)

EthnicityMalay -4.5 -3.4 -3.4 -3.5 -3.4 -3.1 0.5 1.0 1.2

Chinese 16.0 12.5 12.4 12.5 12.0 10.9 -1.1 -1.9 -2.4

Indian -3.1 -2.8 -2.8 -2.6 -2.1 -2.0 -0.8 -2.0 -2.1

N.R. -3.8 -4.1 -4.0 -3.5 -3.3 -2.9 -2.1 -1.4 -1.5

Father’s OccupationProfessional and

Admin. 0.1 0.2 1.1 2.0 1.5 0.8 0.3Clerical -2.7 -2.5 -1.2 0.3 -1.0 1.6 0.9

Sales 21.4 21.5 21.3 21.3 20.8 0.5 0.2Service -5.4 -5.3 -5.6 -5.2 -6.0 24.1 23.6

Craft and Production

Process -4.1 -4.0 -4.4 -4.3 -4.9 0.0 -0.3

Transport andCommunication 3.0 3.0 2.8 3.4 2.0 4.5 4.1

Laborer -3.4 -3.4 -3.7 -3.7 -3.2 -0.1 -0.4

Agricultural -2.6 -2.6 -2.7 -2.8 -2.5 -1.9 -1.7

N.R. 1.5 1.5 1.7 1.8 1.5 2.8 2.8

BirthplaceRural 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 0.1 -0.5

Small Town 0.4 0.6 1.0 0.2 1.1

Town City -0.8 -0.3 0.1 -1.0 1.8

N.R. 2.4 2.8 2.8 1.7 -0.7

Years of Schooling0 years -1.0 -1.6 -1.31-3 years -1.5 -2.0 -1.6

4-5 years 0.9 0.4 0.46 years 2.6 2.3 2.2

7-8 years 1.2 2.0 1.89-10 years 2.1 5.1 4.811 years -S.I -3.5 -4.1

12 years -7.6 -4.1 -4.9N.R. -1.8 -2.1 -3.0

Educational MediumOther 0.7 0.8

English -6.5 -7.6

Current ResidenceRural -1.5Non-Metro. Urban 4.6

Metropolitan 2.7

R2 8.9 14.2 14.2 15.0 15.3 15.7 0.1 3.0 3.1

100

1.3

-2.8-2.1

-1.1

-1.4

-0.3

-0.6

22.5

-1.0

5.8%

(5) (6)

1.3 2.2

-2.8 -5.7-2.1 -2.0

-1.1 -0.4

-1.4 -2.4

-0.3 -3.0

-0.6 -1.6

22.5 20.6

-1.0 -2.3

3.2

-0.4-1.3

2.9

-0.30.5

1.3-1.0

-5.0-2.3

1.5

2.52.0

4.0

-0.3

3.6

4.8

4.8

3.2

-0.4-1.32.9

-0.3

0.51.3

-1.0

-5.0-2.3

1.52.5

2.0

4.0-0.3

3.6

4.8

0.0

0.0

4.8

0.00.4

-0.6

2.1

0.4

-0.7

-1.2-3.6

-4.4

-1.4

1.5

2.21.4

3.4-1.4

1.4

2.6

0.3-2.9

-3.3

7.79.4

7.1

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Craft and Production Process, Transport and Communication,Grand Mean 8.4% Grand Mean 6.1%

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (I) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

EthnicityMalay -3.9 -3.2 -2.9 -2.9 -2.9 -2.1 -0.9 -0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8Chinese 10.7 9.3 8.5 8.4 8.5 5.8 1.4 -0.1 -1.4 -1.6 -1.5 -3.3Indian 4.1 2.4 2.1 2.0 1.8 1.9 2.9 2.2 2.0 2.2 2.1 2.2

N.R. -6.9 -6.0 -6.2 -5.4 -5.4 -4.9 -3.6 -3.0 -3.1 -2.8 -2.8 -2.3

Father’s OccupationProfessional and

Admin. 3.3 2.7 4.1 3.9 3.0 -2.7 -3.8 -3.1 -3.2 -3.9Clerical 0.5 -0.4 1.4 0.9 -1.4 1.7 0.4 1.3 1.1 -0.7Sales -1.6 -2.0 -1.7 -1.7 -2.5 3.9 3.3 3.3 3.3 2.6Service -2.1 -2.7 -2.4 -2.5 -4.2 1.7 0.5 0.4 0.4 -0.8Craft and Production

Process 20.5 20.1 20.1 20.1 18.8 1.1 0.6 0.4 0.4 -0.5Transport and

Communication 1.2 0.7 0.6 0.5 -2.4 14.3 13.4 13.5 13.4 11.3Laborer -1.7 -2.1 -2.5 -2.5 -1.9 1.5 0.5 0.1 0.1 0.7

Agricultural -2.4 -2.1 -2.2 -2.1 -1.5 -.9 -1.5 -1.6 -1.6 -1.1

N.R. 2.5 2.3 1.9 1.8 ’1.2 3.1 3.0 3.1 3.1 2.6

BirthplaceRural -0.7 -0.9 -0.8 -0.3 -1.1 -1.2 -1.2 -0.7Small Town I.I 1.4 1.3 0.4 4.2 4.4 4.3 3.4

Town City 2.7 3.7 3.6 1.4 2.2 2.6 2.5 0.9N.R. 2.6 1.8 1.8 -0.5 1.6 1.9 1.9 0.2

Years of Schooling0 years -0.8 -0.7 -0.1 -1.1 -1.0 -0.6

1-3 years 0.8 0.9 1.8 0.2 0.3 0.94-5 years 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8

6 years 0.8 0.9 0.6 1.3 1.4 1.2

7-8 years 3.5 3.3 2.8 -1.3 -1.4 -1.8

9-10 years -5.0 -5.9 -6.4 1.8 1.3 0.911 years -3.2 -4.6 -5.4 -6.8 -7.5 -8.2

12 years -9.6 -10.7 -12.7 -3.3 -3.8 -5.2N.R. 5.1 5.2 3.2 -0.8 -0.7 -2.2

Educational Medium

Other -0.2 0.1 -0.1 0.1

English 1.9 -0.7 1.0 -0.9

Current ResidenceRural -2.9 -2.2

Non-Metro. Urban 5.8 5.7

Metropolitan 9.3 5.4

R8 4.8 8.3 8.5 9.2 9.2 10.8 0.4 2.0 2.5 2.8 2.9 4.0

101

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Laborer, Grand Mean 6.5% Agricultural, Grand Mean 53.3%

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)

EthnicityMalay -2.2 -2.1 -2.0 -2.0 -1.9 -1.7 12.7 8.0 5.5 4.9 5.0 1.7

Chinese 4.5 4.3 4.1 3.9 3.7 2.9 -36.9 -25.4 -18.6 -17.2 -18.2 -7.4

Indian 5.4 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.2 5.1 -8.1 -1.7 0.1 0.9 2.0 1.5

N.R. -6.2 -5.5 -5.4 -4.6 -4.5 -4.4 18.7 15.9 17.1 17.3 17.7 14.8

Father’s OccupationProfessional and

Admin. -4.3 -4.5 -2.9 -2.5 -2.7 -26.8 -21.6 -11.5 -9.7 -5.9Clerical -5.5 -5.5 -3.7 -2.9 -3.4 -30.0 -22.8 -12.8 -9.4 1.1

Sales -3.4 -3.5 -3.1 -3.1 -3.3 -24.6 -20.9 -17.2 -17.3 -13.5Service 0.2 -0.1 0.4 0.6 0.1 -24.9 -19.1 -14.3 -13.5 -6.4Craft and Production

Process 1.1 -1.1 -0.9 -0.9 -1.3 -25.0 -21.7 -19.0 -18.9 -13.7

Transport and

Communication 2.9 2.8 3.1 3.4 2.6 -35.3 -30.9 -27.1 -25.8 -13.3Laborers 12.6 12.2 11.4 11.5 11.6 -7.2 -2.8 -4.6 -4.6 -7.7

Agricultural -0.3 -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.3 14.4 12.1 10.4 10.0 7.1N.R. 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.0 1.9 -13.0 -12.3 -13.7 -13.5 -10.6

BirthplaceRural -0.2 -0.4 -0.5 -0.4 5.7 4.5 4.2 1.6Small Town 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.4 -15.3 -12.0 -11.3 -6.1Town City -1.1 0.0 0.2 -0.4 -18.2 -13.7 -12.9 -3.3N.R. 1.1 1.3 1.2 0.6 -12.6 -13.3 -13.4 -3.6

Years of Schooling0 years -0.6 -0.9 -0.8 17.1 15.9 13.51-3 years 2.2 1.9 2.2 7.5 6.4 2.84-5 years 1.3 1.0 1.0 0.1 -1.1 -1.1

6 years 0.0 -0.2 -0.2 -5.9 -6.7 -5.57.8 years 0.4 0.0 -0.1 -13.3 -11.6 -9.49-10 years -3.9 -2.4 -2.5 -23.4 -16.8 -14.5

11 years -6.0 -3.6 -3.8 -22.1 -12.0 -7.7

12 years 0.7 0.6 0.1 -7.7 -8.4 0.1

Educational MediumOther 0.4 0.4 1.5 0.4

English -3.4 -4.2 -14.3 -3.4

Current Residence

Rural -0.8 12.8Non-Metro. Urban 0.9 -31.5

Metropolitan 3.1 -33.5R2 1.9 3.3 3.4 4.0 4.1 4.3 16.4 27.4 30.0 35.0 35.5 44.6

102

Table G.I: Comparison ofVariance Explained in Additive Models ofEducational, Occupational andIncome Attainment of Married Men, and Models With Additional Ethnic X BirthplaceInteraction Terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967

Variance Explained(R2) in CompleteAdditive Model

DependentVariableYears of SchoolingEnglish EducationProfessional andAdmin.

ClericalSalesServiceCraft and Production

ProcessTrans. and Comm.LaborerAgriculturalIncome

R2(1)

16.8820.16

13.2222.3315.697.63

10.844.034.33

44.5651.11

No.1(2)

1414

25252525

2525252533

R2 with ThreeAdditionalMalay XBirthplaceInteractions

(3)2

17.3220.35

13.2322.3715.847.90

10.904.264.394.39

51.35

R2 with ThreeAdditionalChinese XBirthplaceInteractions

(4)2

17.5120.64

13.2822.5515.888.05

10.994.274.594.59

51.44

R2 with ThreeAdditional IndianX BirthplaceInteractions

(5)2

Increment to R2 andNo. of Independent

Variables(5)-(1) No.’(6) (7)

18.1420.91

13.4422.6916.128.08

11.004.424.60

45.0452.87

1.260.75

0.220.360.430.45

0.160.390.270.481.76

2323

34343434

3434343442

’No. in column 2 is the number of independent variables in the complete additive model.No. in column 7 is the number of independent variables in the equation with all additive terms plus 9 interaction terms.

^he models with interaction terms in columns 3, 4, and 5 are cumulative.

Table G.2: Comparison of Variance Explained in Additive Models of Occupational and IncomeAttainment of Married Men, and Models with Additional Ethnic X EnglishEducation Interaction Terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967

Variance Explained R2 with Additional(R)2 in Complete Malay X EnglishAdditive Model EducationR2 No. Interactions

(1) (2) (3)

R2 with AdditionalChinese X English

EducationInteractions

(4)

R2 with Additional Increment to R2 andIndian X English No. of Independent

Education VariablesInteractions (5)-(1) No.

(5) (6) (7)DependentVariablesProfessional and

Admin.ClericalSalesServiceCraft and Production

ProcessTrans. and Comm.LaborerAgriculturalIncome

13.2222.3315.697.63

10.844.034.33

44.5651.11

25252525

2525252533

13.2222.3315.837.63

10.844.304.40

44.8651.16

13.2322.8216.077.64

11.284.314.41

44.9451.16

13.2422.9316.077.71

11.294.344.43

44.9651.63

0.220.600.380.08

0.450.310.100.400.52

28282828

2828282836

See Notes to Table G.I.

Table G.3: Comparison of the Variance Explained in Additive Models of Occupational and IncomeAttainment of Married Men, and Models with Additional Ethnic X Current ResidenceInteraction Terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967

Variance Explained(R2) in CompleteAdditive ModelR2 No.(1) (2)

R2 with AdditionalMalay XResidenceInteractions

(3)

R2 with TwoAdditional ChineseX ResidenceInteractions

(4)

R2 with TwoAdditional IndianX ResidenceInteractions

(5)

Increment to R2 andNo. of Independent

Variables(5)-(1) No.

(6) (7)

DependentVariableProfessional and

Admin.ClericalSalesServiceCraft and Production

ProcessTrans. and Comm.LaborerAgriculturalIncome

13.2222.3315.697.63

10.844.034.33

44.5651.1

25252525

2525252533

13.3522.3715.748.89

10.904.194.68

45.1851.14

13.4122.4515.849.00

11.044.235.57

45.6551.27

13.5622 6615.359.04

1.124.295.57

45.6951.97

0.340.330.161.41

0.280.261.241.130.86

31313131

3131313139

See Notes on Table G.I.

Table G.4: Comparison of Variance Explained in an Additive Model of Income Attainment ofMarried Men, and Models With Additional Ethnic X Sales Occupation and Ethnic XAgricultural Occupation Interaction Terms: Peninsular Malaysia, 1966-1967

Variance Explained(R2) in CompleteAdditive ModelR2 No.(1) (2)

R2 with TwoAdditional MalayX OccupationInteractions

(3)

R2 with TwoAdditional ChineseX OccupationInteractions

(4)

R2 with TwoAdditional IndianX OccupationInteractions

(5)

Increment to R2 andNo. of Independent

Variables(5)-(1) No.(6) (7)

DependentVariable

Income 51.1 33 51.52 51.60 52.61 1.50 39

See Notes to Table G.I.

REFERENCESAndrews, Frank M., James M. Morgan, and John A. Sonquist.

1967 Multiple Classification Analysis: A Report on a Computer Programfor Multiple Regression using Categorical Predictors. Ann Arbor,Michigan: Survey Research Center.

Aries, J.P.1971 "Ethnic and socioeconomic patterns in Malaysia." International

Labour Review 104 (December): 527-554.

Barth, Ernest A., and Donald L. Noel.1972 "Conceptual frameworks for the analysis ofrace relations: an evalua-

tion." Social Forces 50 (March): 333-348.

Berry, Brewton.1965 Race and Ethnic Relations. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company.

Blau, Peter, and Otis Dudley Duncan.1967 The American Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley and

Sons.Blumer, Herbert.

1965 "Industrialization and race relations." Pp. 220-253 in Guy Hunter(ed.), Industrialization and Race Relations. London: Oxford Univer-sity Press.

Biythe, W.L.1947 "Historical sketch of Chinese labour in Malaya." Journal of the

Malaya Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 20 (Part I): 64-125.

Bumpass, Larry.1970 "The trend in inter-faith marriages in the U.S." Social Biology 17

(December): 253-259.

107

Bumpass, Larry, and James A. Sweet.1972 "Differentials in marital instability: 1970." American Sociological

Review 37 (December): 745-766.

Burridge, K.O.L.1957 "Racial relations in Johore." Australian Journal of Politics and

History 2 (May): 151-168.

Choudhry, N.S.1970 Socioeconomic Sample Survey of Households-Malaysia, 1967-

1968: Employment and Unemployment. Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia:Department of Statistics.

Coleman, James S.1969 "Race relations and social change." Pp. 274-341 in Irwin Katz

and Patricia Curin (eds.). Race and the Social Sciences. New York:Basic Books, Inc.

Cowan, C.B.1961 Nineteenth Century Malaya: The Origins of British Political Control.

London: Oxford University Press.

Cox, Oliver C.1948 Caste, Class, and Race. New York: Doubleday and Company. Re-

printed edition. New York: Monthly Review Press, 1959.1971 "The question of pluralism." Race 12(4):385-400.

Cross, Malcolm.1971 "On conflict, race relations, and the theory of the plural society."

Race 12(4):477-494.Cutright, Philips.

1968 "Occupational inheritance: a cross-national analysis." AmericanJournal of Sociology 73(January): 400-416.

Davis, Kingsley, and Wilbert Moore.1945 ’Some principles of stratification.’’ American Sociological Review

lO(April): 242-249.

Del Tufo, M.V.1949 Malaya, A Report on the 1947 Census ofPopulation. London: Crown

Agents for the Colonies.

Department of Statistics.No date Census of Manufacturing Industries, 1968. Kuala Lumpur, Malay-

sia: Department of Statistics.1969a Research Paper No. 1: Estimates of Population for West Malaysia.

Prepared by Dr. Lee Jay Cho. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Departmentof Statistics.

1969b Report on the Financial Survey of Limited Companies, Malaysia.Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Department of Statistics.

197 la National Accounts of West Malaysia. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia:Department of Statistics.

1971b Monthly Statistical Bulletin of West Malaysia, February. KualaLumpur, Malaysia: Department of Statistics.

108

Djamour, Judith1965 Malay Kinship and Marriage in Singapore. London: The Athlone

Press (Originally published in 1959).Duncan, Beverly, and Otis Dudley Duncan

1955 "A methodological analysis of segregation indexes." AmericanSociological Review 20(April): 210-217.

1968 "Minorities and the process of stratification." American Sociologi-cal Review 33(June): 356-364.

Duncan, Otis Dudley1961 "A socioeconomic index for all occupations." Pp. 109-138 in Albert

J. Reiss, Jr., et. al. Occupations and Social Status. Glencoe, Illinois:Free Press.

1966a "Path analysis: sociological examples." American Journal of So-ciology 72(July): 1-16.

1966b "Methodological issues in the analysis of social mobility." Pp. 51-97inNeilJ. Smelser and Seymour M. Lipset(eds.), Social Structureand Mobility in Economic Development. Chicago: Aldine.

1967 "Discrimination against Negroes." The Annals 371(May): 85-103.1968a "Social stratification and mobility: problems in the measurement of

trend." Pp. 665-720 in Eleanor Sheldon and Wilbert Moore (eds.),Indicators of Social Change. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

1968b "Patterns of occupational mobility among Negro men." Demog-raphy 5 (I): 1-22.

1969 "Inheritance of poverty or inheritance of race?" Pp. 85-110 inDaniel P. Moynihan (ed.), On Understanding Poverty: Perspectivesfrom the Social Sciences. New York: Basic Books.

Duncan, Otis Dudley, and David Featherman.

1972 "Psychological and cultural factors in the process of occupationalachievement." Social Science Research l(June): 121-145.

Duncan, Otis Dudley, David Featherman, and Beverly Duncan.1972 Socioeconomic Background and Achievement. New York: Seminar

Press.Edwards, G. Franklin

1968 E. Franklin Frazier on Race Relations. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.

Eisenstadt, S.N.1953 "Analysis of patterns of immigration and absorption of immi-

grants." Population Studies 7(November): 167-180.

Parley, Reynolds, and Albert Hermalin.1972 "The 1960’s: a decade of progress for blacks?" Demography 9

(August): 353-370.

Farrag, Abdelmegid.1964 "The occupational structure of the labour force." Population

Studies 18(July): 17-34.

Featherman, David197 la "Residential backgrounds and socioeconomic achievement in

109

metropolitan stratification systems." Rural Sociology 36(June):107-124.

1971b "A research note: a social structural model for the socioeconomiccareer." American Journal of Sociology 77(September): 293-304.

1971c "The socioeconomic achievement of white religio-ethnic subgroups:social and psychological explanations." American SociologicalReview 36(April): 207-222.

Fell, H.1960 1957 Population Census ofthe Federation ofMalaya. Report No. 14.

Kuala Lumpur: Department of Statistics, Federation of Malaya.Fox, Thomas, and S.M. Miller

1966 Intra-country variations: occupational stratification and mobility.’’Pp. 574-581 in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.),Class, Status, and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Per-spective. 2nd Edition. New York: The Free Press.

Frazier, E. Franklin1957 Race and Culture Contacts in the Modem World. Boston: Beacon

PressFreedman, Maurice.

1955 "The Chinese in southeast Asia." Pp. 388-41 in Andrew Lind(ed.). Race Relations in World Perspective. Honolulu: Universityof Hawaii Press.

Fumival, J.S.1948 Colonial Policy and Practice. London: Cambridge University Press.

Gillan, Richard.1971 Power in Postwar America. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.

Glass, David.1954 Social Mobility in Britain. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

Gordon, Milton.1964 Assimilation in American Life. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gullick, J.M.1958 Indigenous Political Systems of Western Malaya. London: The

Athlone Press.1969 Malaysia. London: Ernest Benn Limited.

Haller, Archibald and Alejandro Portes.1973 "Status attainment processes." Sociology of Education 46(Winter):

51-91.

Hamzah, Sendut.1962 "Resettlement villages in Malaya." Geography 47 (I): 41-46.

Haug, Marie R.1967 "Social and cultural pluralism as a concept in social system anal-

ysis." American Journal of Sociology 73(November): 294-304.

Hauser, Robert1969 "Schools and the stratification process." American Journal of

Sociology 74(May): 586-611.1971 Socioeconomic Background and Educational Performance. Arnold

110

M. and Caroline Rose Monograph. Washington, D.C.: AmericanSociological Association.

Heer, David.1967 "Intermarriage and racial amalgamation in the United States."

Eugenics Quarterly 14(June): 112-120.

Henderson, John, et. al1970 Area Handbook for Malaysia. Prepared by Foreign Area Studies of

the American University. Washington, D.C.: U.S. GovernmentPrinting Office.

Hirschman, Charles1971 ’Ownership and control in the manufacturing sector of West Malay-

sia." UMBC (United Malayan Banking Corporation) EconomicReview, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia 7(1); 21-30.

1972a Ethnic Stratification in West Malaysia. Unpublished Ph.D. disserta-tion. Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

1972b "Education in colonial Malaya." Comparative Education Reviewl6(0ctober): 486-502.

Hodder, B.W.1968 Man in Malaya. London: University of London Press. (Originally

published in 1955).

Hodge, Robert W., Donald J. Treiman, and Peter H. Rossi.1966 "A comparative study of occupational prestige." Pp. 309-321 in

Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.), Class, Statusand Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Perspective, SecondEdition. New York: The Free Press.

Hodge, Robert W., Paul M. Siegel, and Peter H. Rossi.1966 "Occupational prestige in the United States: 1925-1963." In Pp.

322-334 in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.),Class, Status and Power: Social Stratification in Comparative Per-spective. Second Edition. New York: The Free Press.

Inkeles, Alex1969 ’Making men modem: on the causes and consequences of individual

change in six developing countries." American Journal ofSociology75(September): 208-225.

Jackson, R.M.1961 Immigrant Labour and the Development of Malaya: 1786-1920.

Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer, Federation of Malaya.Jones, F. Lancaster.

1971 "Occupational achievement in Australia and the United States: acomparative path analysis." American Journal of Sociology 77(November): 527-539.

Kelley, Jonathan.1973 "Causal chain models for the socioeconomic career." American

Sociological Review 38(August): 481-493.

Kelley, Jonathan, and Melvin Perlman1971 "Social mobility in Toro: some preliminary results from Western

111

Uganda." Economic Development and Cultural Change 19(Jan-uary): 204-221.

Kemial Singh Sandhu.1969 Indians in Malaya: Some Aspects of Their Immigration and Settle-

ment (1786-1967). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Lamb, Alastair.

1964 "Early history." Pp. 99-112 in Wang Gungwu (ed.), Malaysia: ASurvey. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

Lieberson, Stanley.1961 "A societal theory of race and ethnic relations." American So-

ciological Review 26(December): 902-910.1963 Ethnic Patterns in American Cities. New York: Free Press.

Lieberson, Stanley, and Glen Fuguitt.1966 "Negro-white occupational differences in the absence of discrimina-

tion." American Journal of Sociology 75(September): 188-200.

Lipset, Seymour M., and Reinhard Bendix.1959 Social Mobility in Industrial Society. Berkeley: University of Cali-

fornia Press.Lopreato, Joseph.

1965 "Social mobility in Italy." American Journal of Sociology 71(November): 311-314.

Lyman, Stanford.1968 "The race relations cycle of Robert Park." Pacific Sociological

Review (Spring): 16-22.

Malaysia1963 Interim Review of Development in Malaysia under the Second Five

Year Plan. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer.1965 First Malaysia Plan: 1966-1970. Kuala Lumpur: Government Printer.1971 Second Malaysia Plan: 1971-1975. Kuala Lumpur: Government

Printer.

Matras, Judah.1961 "Differential fertility, intergenerational occupational mobility, and

change in the occupational distribution: some elementary interre-lationships." Population Studies 15(November): 187-197.

1965 Social Change in Israel. Chicago: Aldine.1967 "Social mobility and social structure: some insights from the linear

model." American Sociological Review 32(August): 608-614.

Melichar, Emanual.1965 "Least squares analysis of economic survey data." American

Statistical Association. Proceedings of the Business and EconomicStatistics Section: 373-385.

Metzger, Paul.1971 American sociology and black assimilation.’’ American Journal of

Sociology 76(January): 627-647.

112

Miller, S.M.1960 "Comparative social mobility: a trend report." Current Sociology

9 (1): 1-89.

Molotch, Harvey.1969 "Racial integration in a transition community." American Sociologi-

cal Review 34(December): 878-893.

Moore, Wilbert.1966 "Changes in occupational structures." Pp. 194-212inNeilJ. Smel-

ser and Seymour Martin Lipset (eds.). Social Structure and Mobilityin Economic Development. Chicago: Aldine.

National Family Planning Board of Malaysia.1968 Report on the West Malaysian Family Survey: 1966-67. Kuala Lum-

pur, Malaysia: National Family Planning Board.

National Operations Council, The.1969 The May 13 Tragedy: A Report. Kuala Lumpur: Jabatan Chetak

Kerajaan (Government Printer), Malaysia.Ness, Gayl.

1964 ’Economic development and goals of government. "Pp. 307-322 inWang Gungwu (ed.), Malaysia: A Survey. New York: Frederick A.Praeger.

Noel, Donald.1968 "A theory of the origin of ethnic stratification." Social Problems

l6(Fall): 152-172.

Palmore, James A., and Amffin bin Marzuki.1969 ’Marriage patterns and cumulative fertility in West Malaysia, 1966-

67." Demography 6(November): 383-401.

Palmore, James A., Robert W. Klein, and Ariffin bin Marzuki.1970 "Differential participation in extended families: West Malaysia

1966-67". American Journal ofSociology 76(November): 375-398.

Palmore, James A., Paul M. Hirsch, and Amffin bin Marzuki.1971 "Interpersonal communication and the diffusion of family planning

in West Malaysia." Demography 8(August): 411-425.

Park, Robert.1950 Race and Culture. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press.

Farmer, J. Norman1960 Colonial Labour Policy and Administration. New York: Monograph

of the Association for Asian Studies.

Porter, John.1965 The Vertical Mosiac. Toronto: University of Toronto Press

Price, Daniel 0.1969 Changing Characteristics of the Negro Population. A 1960 Census

Monograph. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Purcell, Victor1967 The Chinese in Malaya. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press

(Originally published in 1948).

113

Puthucheary, J.J.1960 Ownership and Control in the Malayan Economy. Singapore:

Eastern Universities Press.

Rabushka, Alvin.1971 "Racial stereotypes in Malaya". Asian Survey l(July): 709-718.

Rogoff, Natalie.1953 Recent Trends in Occupational Mobility. New York: Free Press of

Glencoe.

Rosen, Bernard C.1959 "Race, ethnicity and the achievement syndrome." American Socio-

logical Review 24(February): 47-60.

Saw Swee-Hock.1963 "Trends and differentials in international migration in Malaya."

Ekonomi 4(l): 87-113.

1968 Malayan Economic Statistics. Kuala Lumpur: The Faculty ofEconomics and Administration, University of Malaya.

Schermerhom, Richard A.1970 Comparative Ethnic Relations. New York: Random House.

Schmitt, Robert C.1965 "Demographic correlates of interracial marriage in Hawaii."

Demography 2: 463-473.

Schnaiberg, Allan.1971 "The modernizing impact of urbanization: a causal analysis."

Economic Development-and Cultural Change 20(0ctober): 80-104.

Sewell, William H., and Robert M. Hauser.1972 ’Causes and consequences of higher education: models of the status

attainment process." American Journal of Agricultural Economics54(December): 851-861.

Shibutani, Tamotsu, and Kian M. Kwan.1965 Ethnic Stratification: A Comparative Approach. New York: The

Macmillan Company.

Short, Anthony.1964 "Communism and the emergency." Pp. 149-160 in Wang Gungwu

(ed.), Malaysia: A Survey. New York: Frederick A. Praeger.

Silcock, T.H.1963a "Communal and party structure. "Pp. l-28inT.H. Silcock and E.K.

Fisk (eds.), The Political Economy of Independent Malaya.Berkeley: University of California Press.

1963b "General review of economic policy. "Pp. 242-275 in T.H. Silcockand E.K. Fisk (eds.), The Political Economy of Independent Malaya.Berkeley: University of California Press.

Smith, M.G.1960 "Social and cultural pluralism." Annals of the New York Academy

of Sciences 83(January): 763-777.

114

Smith, T.E.1952 Population Growth in Malaya: A Survey ofTrends. London and New

York: Royal Institute of International Affairs.

Svalastoga, Kaare.1965 ’Social mobility: the western European model.’’ Acta Sociologica 9

(1-2): 175-182.

Syed Husin Ali.1964 Social Stratification in Kampong Bagan: A Study of Class, Status,

Conflict and Mobility in a Rural Malay Community. Singapore;Monograph of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.

Taeuber, Karl E., and Alma F. Taeuber.1964 "The Negro as an immigrant group." The American Journal of

Sociology 69(January): 374-382.1965 Negroes in Cities. Chicago: Aldine.

Treiman, Donald1970 "Industrialization and social stratification." Sociological Inquiry

40(Spring): 207-234.

U.A. Aziz.1960 "Political and economic books on Malaya: a review article."

Malayan Economic Review 5(April): 25-30.

United Nations.1962 "Evaluation of the population census data of Malaya." United

Nations Economic Bulletin for Asia and the Far East 13(2): 23-44.

van den Berghe, Pierre L.1967 Race and Racism: A Comparative Perspective. New York: John

Wiley.1972 Intergroup Relations: Sociological Perspectives. New York: Basic

Books, Inc.

Vlieland, C.A.1932 British Malaya: A Report on the 1931 Census and Certain Problems

of Vital Statistics. London: Crown Agents for the Colonies.

115