Ethnicity and Fertility in Southeast Asia: A Comparative Analysis 9789814376228

Citation preview

I5EA5 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies The Institute of Southeast Asian Studies was established as an autonomous organization in May 1968. It is a regional research centre for scholars and other specialists concerned with modern Southeast Asia. The Institute's research interest is focused on the many-faceted problems of development and modernization, and political and social change in Southeast Asia. The Institute is governed by a twenty-two-member Board of Trustees on which are representatives from the National University of Singapore, appointees from the government, as well as representatives from a broad range of professional and civic organizations and groups. A ten-man Executive Committee oversees day-to-day operations; it is chaired by the Director, the Institute's chief academic and administrative officer. The responsibility for facts and opinions expressed in this publication rests exclusively with the authors and their interpretations do not necessarily reflect the views or the policy of the Institute or its supporters.

Ethnicity and Fertility in Southeast Asia Series General Editors: Aline K. Wong and Ng Shui Meng

ETHNICITY AND FERTILITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA A Comparative Analysis

by

Aline K. Wong and Ng Shui Meng

Research Notes and Discussions Paper No. 50

INSTITUTE OF SOUTHEAST ASIAN STUDIES 1985

Published by Institute of Southeast Asian Studies Heng Mul Keng Terrace Paslr Panjang Singapore 0511 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored In a retrieval system, or transmitted In any torm or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

©

1985 Institute of Southeast Asian Studies

ISSN 0129-8828 ISBN 9971-988-02-X

CONTENTS

Page vi

LIST OF TABLES

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

ix

PREFACE

II

INTRODUCTION

1

Theoretical Background

1

Hypotheses

6

Objectives

10

Survey Organization

12

Funding

13

METHODOLOGY Ethnic Groups Surveyed

15

Sample Design

16

The Questionnaire

21

Interviewers: and Matching

24

Recruitment, Training,

Field Supervision .and Checking Procedures iii

26

Page

III

IV

Locating Respondents

27

Replacement and Completion of Samples

27

Interviewing Conditions and General Reactions

28

Problems with Particular Questions

28

Coding

29

Data Cleaning

30

Comparative Codes

31

Comparative Tape

31

THE NATURE OF ETHNIC DIFFERENCES

32

Parentage and Ethnic Identification

32

Language Usage

44

Religion and Religiosity

57

Ethnic Affiliations

68

Ethnic Attitudes

81

Demographic

95

Education, Media Exposure, and Sense of Efficacy

108

Income and Assets

121

Occupational Characteristics

135

ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN FERTILITY AND FAMILY PLANNING

159

Differences in Fertility

159

Fertility Preference and Sex Preference

173

Values and Disvalues of Children

187

iv

Page

v

VI

Differences in Family Planning

200

Availability and Access

224

Attitudes Towards Birth Control

225

Natural Fertility Factors

249

Differences in Nuptiality

262

Interaction with Spouse and Sex Role

286

DETERMINANTS OF FERTILITY AND CONTRACEPTIVE BEHAVIOUR

309

Method of Analysis

309

Children Ever Born

310

Recent Fertility

329

Use of Effective Contraceptive Methods

346

Surrunary

353

CONCLUSION

365

Policy Implications

370

BIBLIOGRAPHY

372

APPENDIX

378

APPENDIX II

386

APPENDIX I I I

389

v

LIST OF TABlES

Page 3.1

Ethnic Identification and Parentage

34

3.2

Language Usage

46

3.3

Religion and Religiosity

58

3.4

Ethnic Affiliations

70

3.5

Ethnic Attitudes

82

3.6

Demographic Characteristics

98

3.7

Education, Media Exposure, and Self-efficacy

110

3.8

Income and Assets

122

3.9

Employment Characteristics

136

4.1

Fertility Indicators

162

4.2

Fertility

176

4.3a

Values Attached to Children

190

4.3b

Disvalues Attached to Children

202

4.4

Knowledge and Practice of Birth Control

214

4.5

Accessibility of Birth Control Information and Supplies

226

Preferen~e

vi

Page 4.6

Attitudes toward Birth Control

238

4.7

Natural Fertility Factors

252

4.8

Marriage and Marriage Attitudes

268

4.9

Spouse Interaction and Sex Role Attitudes

288

5.1

Order of MCA Analysis of Predictor Variables on Fertility and Contraception

311

5.2.1 Mean Children Ever Born -- by Ethnic Group Adjusting for Different Sets of Predictors

312

5.2.2 Regression for Children Ever Born (Eta & Beta Coefficients from MCA)

318

5.3.1 Mean Recent Fertility by Ethnic Group Adjusting for Different Sets of Predictors

330

5.3.2 Regression for Recent Fertility (Eta & Beta Coefficients from MCA)

336

5.4.1 Mean Use of Effective Contraceptive Methods by Ethnic Groups Adjusting for Different Sets of Predictors

348

5.4.2 Regression for Use of Effective Contraceptive Methods (Eta & Beta Coefficients from MCA)

354

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Theoretical Framework Depicting Proximate and Distal Factors Determining Fertility

4

2

A Schematic Framework for Studying Differentials in Fertility

7

3

A Schematic Framework for Studying Differentials in Use of Contraception

8

1

viii

PREFACE

The Ethnicity and Fertility in Southeast Asia Project that commenced in 1980, was an outgrowth of an earlier project, Culture and Fertility in Southeast Asia, which was completed in 1979. Building upon the results of the earlier study, which established that ethnicity was a significant factor underlying the fertility differentials among the various ethnic groups in Southeast Asia, the present project aimed to exp 1ore in greater detail the extent .to which ethnicity and ethnic factors like ethnic attitudes, ethnic identification and cultural practices influenced reproductive behaviour. Instead of utilizing secondary sources, the project re 1i ed on primary data co 11 ected through the survey technique. In all, twenty ethnic groups from the five ASEAN countries were surveyed in this study which spanned a total of three years. A study involving five different countries and so many ethnic groups of diverse cultura 1 and re 1i gi ous backgrounds wou 1d invariably pose problems of comparability. To maximize comparability across countries, the study re 1 i ed on the use of a common core questionnaire as well as a common analytical framework and data analysis procedures. While comparability was important, the incorporation of country-specific factors sa 1 i ent and relevant to the explanation of fertility behaviour was also encouraged. The final research design therefore attempted to be as comprehensive as possible in the exploration of the ethnic dimension in fertility differentials among the various ethnic groups studied. Three workshops were he 1d during the period of the project to enable the researchers to come together to discuss and resolve problems related to the project. The first workshop was held in May 1980. At this workshop the conceptual framework and the core questionnaire were finalized. In the second workshop held in June 1981, the methods of data analysis were decided. At the ix

final workshop in September 1982, the country teams presented their preliminary findings. The final reports were completed by December 1983. A study of this scale obviously also involved many researchers. The researchers were all Southeast Asian social scientists drawn from various disciplines and backgrounds. Some were attached to universities of the region while others were from research institutes or government agencies. Dr Rodo lfo A. Bul atao from the East-West Population Institute provided the initial intellectual impetus to the project by formulating the conceptual framework and research design for the study as well as the drafting of the preliminary questionnaire. In addition Dr Bulatao together with Dr Aline K. Wong from the National University of Singapore (NUS) and Dr Ng Shui Meng from ISEAS served as co-ordinators of the project. The country teams consisted of: Indonesia:

Dr Mely Tan (National Institute of Economic and Social Research of the Indonesian Institute of Sciences, LEKNAS-LIPI) Dr Budi Soeradji (Central Bureau of Statistics) Mr Amri Marzali (Faculty of Letters, University of Indonesia)

Ma 1ays i a:

Datin Dr No or Lai ly Abu Bakar (Malaysia National Family Planning Board, NFPB) Dr Tan Boon Ann (NFPB) Mr Tey Nai Peng (NFPB) Mr Hew Wai Sin (NFPB) Ms Ami nah Abdul Rahman (NFPB) Ms Ramlah Haji Muda (NFPB) Ms Nazileh Ramli Mr Khalipah Mohd Tara Mr Ng Tuck Seng

Philippines:

Ms Pilar Ramos Jimenez (Philippine Social Science Council, PSSC) X

Ms Cecilia Philippines)

Gastardo-Conaco

(University

of

the

University

of

Ms Lorna Maki l (PSSC) Ms Ruth N. Barniego (PSSC) Singapore:

Dr Eddie C.Y. Singapore, NUS)

Kuo

(National

Dr Chiew Seen-Kong (NUS) Thailand:

Dr Suchart Prasithrathsint (National Development Administration, NIDA)

Institute of

Dr Suwanlee Piarnpiti (NIDA) Mr Thawatchai Arthorn-thurasook (Mahidol University) Dr Laddawan Rodmanee (Mahidol University) Dr Luechai Chulasai (Chiangmai University) Ms Suranya Bunnag (Prince of Songkla University) Ms Amporn Chareonchai (Khon Kean University) Funding for the project was provided by the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), Rockefeller Foundation and the Human Reproduction Programme, Task Force on Psychosocial Research in Family Planning of the World Health Organization (WHO). The results of the monographs in this series:

study

Ethnicity Analysis

in

and

Fertility

are

being

Southeast

Ethni city and Fertility in Indonesia Ethnicity and Fertility in Malaysia Ethnicity and Fertility in the Philippines

xi

published

Asia:

in

six

A Comparative

Ethnicity and Fertility in Singapore Ethnicity and Fertility in Thailand ALINE WONG and NG SHUI MENG Project Co-ordinators and General Editors of the Series

xi i

I

INTRODUCTION

The Ethnicity and Fertility in Southeast Asia Study grew out of a study on Culture and Fertility in Southeast Asia (1977-79, known as Phase I of the project), in which investigators from the five ASEAN countries (Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand) examined the existing patterns of ethnic differentials in fertility in the region and explored some of the factors for such differences. A limited analysis of secondary data in the five countries showed that ethnicity itself was a significant factors of equal and sometimes even greater importance compared with the effects of other factors such as urban-rural residence, wife's education, husband's education, and household income. Utilizing the theoretical insights gained from this previous study, and bui 1ding upon a questionnaire pre-tested during the previous phase on certain aspects of ethnic identification, ethnic attitudes and cultural practices affecting fertility, the present study (Phase II, 1980-82) attempts a fuller understanding of the relationship between ethnicity and fertility among the major ethnic groups in the region by means of the survey method. five the in simultaneously out carried was Fieldwork participating countries, using a common core questionnaire and To maximize comparability, the common fieldwork procedures. country teams also adopted common data reduction methods and analytical procedures, and drew up individual country reports This is an outl1ne of the according to a common format. comparative study and a report on the comparative fi na 1ngs, based on the individual country reports.

Theoretical Background The five ASEAN countries comprise members with great disparity in terms of physical area, population size, stages of demographic 1

transition, and economic development. The region is also highly heterogeneous with regard to culture, language, religions, ethnic m1x, history, and traditions. The diversity of the ethnic situation in each of the five countries has been succinctly reviewed in the "Preliminary Report on the Ethnic Factor in Fertility in Southeast Asia" (November 1978), an outcome of the Phase I study on Culture and Fertility. The complex picture that emerges pertains not only to the 1arge numbers of ethnic groups, with their different estimated sizes and fine distinction criteria, but also to the full range of historical circumstances giving rise to their origins and cultural traditions. The picture is further complicated by the fact that, through ancient and continuous cultural contact, similar ecological environments and economic modes of production, many of the ethnic groups share similarities in terms of culture and religion, although they may be distinguished by different ethnic identities. Cultural similarities across countries, on the other hand, do not necessarily indicate similar structural positions of the ethnic groups within their country boundaries. Countries also differ in terms of their relative ethnic homogeneity or heterogeneity, as well as in terms of their assimilationist or pluralist state ideologies. It is precisely this complexity which poses the greatest challenge to the present research, as the research problem and the locale offer an almost unlimited possibility for studying the dimensions of ethnicity, in a cross-country comparative perspective. Ethnicity is broadly defined in this project as to cover identification of individuals by race, religion, language, nationality, cultural traditions, and any other similar "primordial" characteristics which together distinguish one ethnic group from another. As ethnicity is a very complex phenomenon with multiple dimensions, theoretical explanations of the relationship between ethnicity and fertility have been numerous. Based on an extensive review of the literature inside and outside the region, the Project Proposal (May 1979) presented a theoretical model which attempts to integrate several major perspectives and which serves to guide the present research. Very briefly, the perspectives are: (1) the assimilationist perspective, which explains ethnic differentials in fertility in terms of i ndi vi dua 1 background characteristics and which predicts the gradual disappearance of ethnic differentials as ethnic groups become assimilated into the majority culture; (2) the structural perspective, which explains ethnic differentials in fertility as varying with the relative positions of the ethnic groups in a societal stratification system, depending on the minority or majority status of the ethnic groups; (3) the cultural perspective, which attributes ethnic fertility differentials to differences in cultural values and group 2

practices and affecting (4) the fertility; psychosocial perspective, which supplements the cu ltu ra l perspective by considering individual attitudes and preferences with regard to childbearing. Integrating the above perspectives in an overall theoretical framework, the original model contains a large number of variables which, together with their hypothetical relationships, are depicted in Figure 1. The relationships among variables are conceptualized by first making a distinction between proximate and distal factors determining fertility. The distal factors are assumed to affect fertility only through modifying the effects of the proximate factors. In the model, there are four main groups of proximate factors: age-sex structure, nuptiality, natural fertility, and deliberate family limitation. These have been found in numerous studies on fertility to be significant for fertility outcomes, and fairly standard measures have been developed. Our contribution lies more in describing and determining the distal factors which derive from the concept of ethnicity as a cause for ethnic differentials in fertility. Thus, adopting various dimensions from the four theoretical perspectives on ethnicity and fertility, we have included variables pertaining to characteristics, social structure, culture, and psychosocial factors. Of these four blocks of distal factors, social structural and cultural variables are seen to represent more closely the nature of ethnicity. Individual characteristics and psychosocial factors, though related to ethnic group situations and cultural preferences, are not necessarily determined by ethnic identifications. By ethnic identity is meant not only the self-identification of individuals by a certain ethnic label, but also the actual, behavioural affiliations with members of the same ethnic group through formal and i nforma 1 ties, as we 11 as the person's conformity with certain ethnic group values and attitudes. In the context of the present research, the last dimension is studied on the one hand as ethnic fertility approval , that is, attitudes towards the relative population size and socio-economic position of one's own e~hnic group, and on the other, ethnic values on social and cultural relations and issues. The model focuses on two sets of dependent variables: fertility outcome and fertility preferences. The first pertains to cumulative fertility (children ever born), recent fertility (children born within last five years), and the duration ratio. The duration ratio is a ratio between chi 1dren ever born and a natural fertility schedule (given the woman's current age and age 3

FIGURE 1

ility e and Dist al Fact ors Dete rmin ing Fert Theo retic al Framework Depl eting Prox imat

"Charl!c ter 1st I cs" Educatio n Income Female employm ent Urban Ism Mttd Ia exposure Economlc dave! opment

Migrant status Exposure to family planning etc.

Soch:li structur e Occupat \ona 1 n lche

"Cult~re"

Rellg lous 1deol ogy Gander preferen ces

Stetus of women Menstru al taboos Rules of Inherita nce

Group policy etc.

Couple decision processe s Contrac ept iv•J accept lib 11\ty

at marriage), thus controlling for changes in fecundity and age. Fertility preferences pertain to ideal family size and desired family size. In the course of the research, modifications to the above mode 1 have had to be made in the 1i ght of the present survey method and the particular situation of current contraceptive practice and national family planning programmes in the Southeast Asian nations. An important decision was made at Workshop II (June 1981) that community data pertaining to the structural hypothesis have to be gathered, not in the main survey, but in supplementary community studies -- either by using existing anthropological/ethnographic data or by conducting a separate community survey (using a common questionnaire for community officials and informants) on each sampled community. These types of community data will be used as contextual variables or background for the individual country analyses as a first step. A second important decision was to drop from the 1i st of variables those which are either too sensitive or personal, or those which cannot be properly studied or derived from the survey data on individual respondents within our eligibility criteria (for example, the age-sex structure, proportion never marrying, separation and divorce, post-widowhood celibacy, frequency of intercourse, and infanticide). Some other variables are dropped because they pertain to the communities or even the nation as a whole and cannot be gathered from individual respondents (for examp 1e, 1eve 1 of economic deve 1opment, ru 1es of inheritance, and group policy). As such, these dimensions can only be tapped through in-depth studies of legal, religious, and cultural traditions and an examination of national socio-economic indicators. A third major decision was to study contraceptive practice (current use of contraception) and attitudes (approval of birth control) as two additional dependent variables, rather than as factors of fertility as laid out in the original theoretical model. This is in view of the fact that national family planning programmes which promote modern effective contraceptive methods have only come into existence very recently in the Southeast Asian countries (with the exception of Singapore). Thus, contraception is more properly studied as a dependent variable, with implications for ethnic differentials in the rates and patterns of adoption. This change of emphasis would also be made in line with the interest of family planning agencies concerned with the eva 1uat ion of their programmes as we 11 as with prob 1ems arising from any ethnic differences in their acceptance of programmes. The

revised

theoret i ca 1

mode 1 which 5

guides

the

present

country and 3.

and

c.omparative

analysis

is

set

out

in

Figures

2

Hypotheses Paths drawn between variables in Figures 2 and 3 represent a series of broad hypotheses regarding the determinants of ethnic These diagrams, however, only indicate the possible fertility. The statistical significance or strength causal relationships. of each particular relationship can only be found from the data Nevertheless, we started with a number of broad itself. hypotheses, based on the general literature and what little knowledge we had of ethnicity and fertility in Southeast Asia. The thrust of the hypotheses lay in the cultural dimensions of ethnicity. 1.

Substantial portions of ethnic fertility differentials are due to differences in social class, modernity, and other "characteristics", but other substantia 1 portions cannot be explained by reference to such factors.

2.

Cultural factors differentia 1s.

3.

Among the cultural factors, religious beliefs and practices by themselves have little direct effect on fertility or fert i 1ity preference, but may have some importance for acceptance of family planning.

4.

Religious beliefs and practices are only indirectly related to fertility and fertility preference through the impact on marriage and divorce patterns, the status of women, and the value of sons.

5.

Gender preference has some but not great importance in explaining ethnic differentials in fertility and fertility Also, desire for a balance between sons and prefere~ce. daughters is more important relative to desire for sons in whatever relationship is obtained between gender preference and fertility or fertility preferences.

6.

Among the cultural factors, the status of women has a significant effect, and the lower the status of women, the higher the marital fertility and fertility preference.

7.

Among the cultural factors related to nuptiality, the lower the status of women, the earlier is the age at marriage, and the higher the marital fertility.

substantial

explain

6

portions

of

ethnic

FIGURE 2 A Schem atic Framework for Studyi ng Diffe rentia ls In Fertil ity "Character lstlcs 11 Age/Sex Educatlon

1------

~

Age at marrIage

Number of marr !ages

Income

Occupatloo Urban residence MedIa exposure

Ethnic Identity

Ethn 1c aft II Jatl011 Ethn lc fert I I tty approval

·~·

Religiosity Gender preferences Status of women Menstrual taboos Couple decision processes

Contracept ive accessibil ity Psychic costs of contracept ion

FIGURE 3 A Schematic Framework tor Studying Differentials In Use of Contraception

11

Cheracter 1st lcs 11

Age/Sex

Education Income Occupation Female employment Urban residence Med le exposure

Ethnic Identity

Ethnlc o!!ftlllatloo Ethnic fertility approval

I ___________jr_ ___:'"'-________________ __

r

t1Cult~re"

Religiosity Gender preferences Stetus of women

Remo!JI""r htge of widows Menstrual taboos Contraceptive accessibility Psych lc costs of contrecept Ion

1

_-...=-----'"'"--

8.

Cultural acceptance of divorce is related to lower ethnic fertility, through the effects of nuptiality.

9.

Ethnic differentia 1s in fert i 1ity are more often caused by differences in nuptiality than in fertility preferences.

10.

Ethnic differentials in contraception are often caused by differences in access to family planning.

11.

Ethnic differentials in contraceptive usage are only somewhat related to fertility preferences, value of children, and psychic costs of contraception, but are much more strongly related to education, income, and other characteristics.

12.

Relationship between current contraceptive fertility and fertility preferences is weak.

practice

and

Apart from the above cross-country hypotheses, it is also possible to make some comparative hypotheses for two major ethnic groups, namely, the Chinese and the Muslims/Malays who are studied in all of the five countries. Thus, 13.

Differences between the Chinese and the other ethnic groups will be the result of the balance among several factors. Urban residence, higher education and higher age at marriage account for lower Chinese fertility, but son preference would counteract this somewhat by raising it. The same applies to Chinese fertility preferences.

14.

Differences between the Muslims/Malays and other ethnic groups are the result of the balance of several factors. Young age at marriage, lower education, and lower urbanism raise Muslim/Malay fertility, while on the other hand, higher infecundity and higher marital instability lower it. The same applies to Muslims'/Malays' fertility preferences.

Since the countries differ in terms of the number, composition, and regional distribution of ethnic groups, each country has also developed its own country-specific hypotheses with regard to ethnic differentials. These will not be dealt with here. The comparative hypotheses as presented above, however, still leave an important ethnic dimension untapped in the overall theoretical framework, namely, the structural position or minority-status of the ethnic groups. While we decided to drop the structural variables from the survey questionnaire, leaving community data to be gathered at a supp 1ementary 1eve 1 , theoretically, this dimension should not be ignored, and can 9

still be tackled through analysis of the survey data. The question of structure has been carefully considered even at the Proposal stage. Essentially, two alternatives are open to us. One alternative is to treat the minority-group status effect as equivalent to the residual effect of ethnicity after cultural practices are controlled. The other alternative is to use measures of integration into an ethnic group as representing the degree to which an individual shares the model ethnic-group status, be it majority or minority. For this alternative, we may use the data on ethnic affiliation, ethnic fertility approval and other ethnic attitudes to determine an individual 1 s degree of group belongingness, and therefore indirectly the individual •s identification with the group status. These two alternatives are not mutually exclusive, but since measures of ethnic identification have clearly to be determined as a first step, the minority group status dimension can only be dealt with later. Here, a tentative hypothesis can be presented: 15.

For the Southeast Asian countries, there is little or no association between minority-group status and lower fertility, even when the desire for acculturation and the operation of pronatalist norms are taken into account.

Finally, the effect of occupational niche on fertility can only indirectly be analysed through identifying the need for child labour in certain occupations and only if those occupations can be identified as occupational specializations of certain ethnic groups. Nevertheless, a possible hypothesis is: 16.

The economic niches that particular ethnic groups have developed sometimes operate to raise and sometimes to depress fertility, depending on such factors as the need for child labour in the occupation.

Objectives The overall objective of this research is to investigate the nature and causes of fertility differentials among major ethnic groups in the five ASEAN countries, using the theoretical framework described in the previous sections and through comparable field surveys. The specific terms of reference for the project are (1} to provide a systematic, comparative description of ethnic differentials in fertility which are related to the cultural practices of the groups; (2} to attempt to explain the differentials within a multivariate framework; (3} to assess the role of fertility differentials, if any, in 10

perceptions of ethnic relations; (4) to suggest policies for dealing with ethnic differentials in fertility in the countries studied; and (5) to provide training throughout the research process to junior members of the research teams. The first objective is necessitated by the fact that no previous attempts to provide systematic, comparative descriptions of ethnic differentia 1s in fertility has yet been made for the ASEAN countries. For the purposes of the present research, a cross-sectional description wi 11 be provided not only of ethnic fertility patterns but also of cultural practices affecting fertility differentials. Ethnic groups will also be compared in terms of social class, rural-urban residence, media exposure, and other characteristics which differentiate one group from another. The hypotheses described in the previous section will serve to guide our attempts to explain the differentials. In the course of the analysis, other hypotheses will be developed to deal with particular relationships not already covered, or those requiring further investigation. The comparative analysis, however, can only address the common factors, leaving countryspecific variables to be examined in individual country analyses.

'

The third objective is built into the independent variable "ethnic identification" in that it includes the dimension of "ethnic fertility approval". An attempt will be made to see how perceptions of one's own ethnic group's relative population size and socio-economic position would cause differences in ethnic fertility. In addition, such perceptions will be examined in terms of inter-ethnic attitudes and relations and further explained with reference to the political context and/or consequences of such inter-ethnic perceptions, attitudes, and relations. The policy objective of the study is to draw certain implications for governments and family planning agencies. Our purpose is not to treat "ethnicity" as a "manipulatable" policy factor but to suggest means whereby policies, particularly population and family planning policies, can be adapted to cater to the differential needs of the ethnic communities, based on our understanding of the patterns and causes for ethnic fertility. In particular, the questions of accessibility and acceptability of population planning programmes by different ethnic groups wi 11 be discussed in regard to policy implications. Finally, a research team is organized for each country, generally with one senior researcher and one or more junior researchers who can gain substantial research experience from participation in the project. 11

Survey Organ;zat;on The study was carried out in each country by local social scientists with varied background, training, and survey research experience. In the conduct of the survey, each country had a great measure of autonomy, tailored some aspects of the study to their specific country situations, and had independent sources of funding. However, the five country teams worked c 1ose ly together by following highly comparable research procedures which were agreed upon at a series of workshops attended by all the investigators. A co-ordination mechanism was also set up for liaison throughout the entire process, to monitor progress, to encourage the adoption of parallel procedures, and to facilitate the exchange of ide as and information throughout the duration of the project. The co-ordinators were a1so res pons i b1e for organizing the workshops, initiating the conceptual framework, drafting the core questionnaire, interviewer guide, community study guide, a common code-book, and a draft analysis paper, all of which were discussed by the who 1e group at the workshops and through memoranda circulated to all members of the research teams. In Indonesia, the survey was conducted by the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (LEKNAS) and supervised by Dr Mely Tan, with the assistance of Dr Budi Soeradji and Mr Amri Marzali. In Malaysia, the research was conducted by the National Family Planning Board (NFPB) whose Director General, Datin Dr Nor Laily Aziz, also served as director of the country study, with assistance from Dr Tan Boon Ann, Mr Tey Nai Peng, Mr Hew Wai Sin, Ms Aminah Abdul Rahman, and Ms Ramlah Haji Muda. In the Philippines, the study was carried out by the Philippine Social Science Council research network, with Ms Pilar Ramoz Jimenez and Ms Cecilia Gastardo-Conaco serving as team leaders, assisted by Ms Lorna Makil. In Singapore, the survey was conducted by Dr Eddie C. Y. Kuo with the assistance of Dr Chi ew Seen-Kong, both from the Department of Sociology of the National University of Singapore. In Thailand, Dr Suchart Prasithrathsint of the National Institute of Development Administration (NIDA) acted as team leader, supervising a network of regional teams under Dr Suwanlee Piampiti (NIDA), Mr Thawatchai Artho.rn-thurasook (Mahi do 1 University), Dr Laddawan Rodmanee (Mahidol University), Dr Luechai Chulasai (Chiangmai University), Ms Saranya Bunnag (Prince of Songkl a University), and Mr Amporn Chareonchai (Khon Kaen University). The director of the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (!SEAS), Singapore, Professor Kernial S. Sandhu, served as the overa 11 project director, co-ordination among the country teams was provided by Dr Rodolfo A. Bulatao of the National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Dr Aline K. Wong of the Department of 12

sociology at the National University of Singapore, and Dr Ng Shui Meng of !SEAS. To facilitate co-ordination, three workshops were organized. The first was held in May 1980 before the commencement of fieldwork to finalize the common core questionnaire and details of field procedures. The second workshop was held in June 1981 shortly after fieldwork had been completed and dealt with the exchange of field experiences, a common coding scheme, and procedures for checking data consistency as well as preliminary specifications for data analysis. A final workshop was held in September 1982 to discuss the preliminary country findings, policy implications, further analyses, and plans for comparative cross-national analysis. It should also be mentioned that in three countries (Indonesia, Philippines, and Thailand), the survey work involved participation from various regional institutions within each country. Thus in Indonesia, the fieldwork was carried out by LEKNAS in co-operation with the Faculty of Social Sciences and the Faculty of Letters of the University of Indonesia in Jakarta; with the Center for Population Studies of the Padjadjaran University in Bandung (West Java); with the Center for the Study and Development of Health Services of the Department of Health in Surabaya (East Java); with the Center for the Study of Regional Economies in Padang (West Sumatra); and with the Center for Research and Planning of Nommensen Christian University in Medan (North Sumatra). In the Philippines, fie 1dwork was co-ordinated through the Philippine Social Science Council research network, involving the Research and Service Center, Ateneo de Naga, Naga City; Research Bureau, Aquinas University, Legazpi City; Research and Publications Center, Philippine Christian University, Manila; Dansalan Research Center, Marawi City; and the Research and Planning Center, Angeles University Foundation, Angeles City. In Thailand, the following academic institutions were involved: School of Applied Statistics, National Institute of Development Administration, Bangkok; Departments of Economics, Sociology, and Anthropology, Chiangmai University; Faculty of Management Science, Prince of Songkla University; and Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Mahidol University, Bangkok.

Funding The country studies have and funding agencies: Centre (I DRC) funded the as the country studies

been supported by different foundations the International Development Research over a 11 co-ordination by I SEAS, as we 11 in the Philippines and Singapore; the 13

studies in Ma 1ays i a and in Indonesia were funded by the Human Reproduction Programme, Task Force on Psycho-social Research in Family Planning of the World Health Organization; and the study in Thailand was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation. To each and every one of these agencies, we here record our deep gratitude.

14

II 11£111)00L06Y

Ethnic Groups Surveyed Since it would be impractical to cover all the numerous ethnic groups in each country, the present study covers only the major ethnic groups. For Malaysia and Singapore, the three major ethnic groups are the Malays, Chinese, and Indians. (For Malaysia, only West Malaysia is covered.} In Thailand, four groups are selected: Thais, Chinese, Thai Muslims, and Southern Thai Muslims. The choice of the last two groups is based on the possible fertility differentials between them, where the former are scattered throughout the country and may have fertility patterns closer to those among the Thais and Chinese in the various regions. Both the Philippines and Indonesia have a large number of ethnic groups. The present study covers only five groups from each country. In the Philippines, the sample covers the Chinese, Maranao, Ilocanos, Bicolnaos, and Tagalogs. All of these groups are expected to have substantial differences in fertility. The Maranao are the 1argest of the Mus 1im groups in the predominantly Catholic Philippines, while the Ilocanos, Bicolanos, and Tagalogs are each chosen from among the lowland Catholics for specific reasons: the Ilocanos for their atypically low fertility, the Bicolanos for unusually high fertility, and the Tagalogs for their cultural primacy. Finally, the Chinese form a special group in the Philippine society. In Indonesia, the groups covered are: Chinese, Javanese, Sundanese, Minangkabau, and Chrtstian Batak. As in the case of the Philippines, the ethnic Chinese constitute a special group. The Javanese and Sundanese are the two largest ethnic groups in terms of population proportions. On the other hand, the Mi nangkabau and the Bataks, ~hough small in size, represent very different cultural systems ln that the former is matrilineal while the latter is patrilineal. For the Bataks, only the Christians will be 15

covered, as they are believed to be more numerous and ubiquitous, and their re 1 i gi on wou 1d provide yet another contrast with the other ethnic groups.

Sallp 1e Design

Selection of Sample Areas The most difficult problem confronting our choice of sample areas is hON to avoid as much as possible the confounding of community characteristics with ethnic group membership. The problem is posed by the fact that in no country are all the ethnic groups evenly spread across regions or communities. A more typical residential pattern is for an ethnic group to be concentrated in a particular area or type of community, and since individual members of an ethnic group are chosen for interview, this implies a certain degree of confounding between community and individual characteristics. Generally speaking, many of the groups are found in urban areas; however, choosing only urban areas as our sampling points may lead to unrepresentativeness, as many of these groups are in fact rura 1 and often 1i ve somewhat apart from one another. To attain representativeness of such groups, typical rural areas where specific groups are concentrated have to be sampled also. Based on the above considerations, separate urban and rural samples are drawn for each country. By and large, the selected urban areas are where all the ethnic groups (or as many as possible) are represented and where members of each group are interviewed. On the other hand, rural areas are selected as typical areas for particular groups and only specified groups are interviewed in each rural area. This sampling design will allow various comparisons: among rural and urban members of each ethnic group, between typi ca 1 representatives of each group, and between members of each group in the same urban communities. The scheme also allows for enough variability in the socio-economic characteristics of the sample for each group for later analysis. This general scheme is represented by the table on the following page. It assumes that three ethnic groups are involved, with an "X" indicating that a sample is drawn. In practice, the number of ethnic groups covered varies from country to country, and the distribution of the urban and rural samples also varies. For Singapore in particular, since there are no true rural areas, substitution has been made for the urban-rural distinction by choosing constituencies where the three ethnic

16

Ethn lc Group A

Ethn lc Group B

Ethn lc Group C

~ Aree 1 Aree 2 Aree 3

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

~ Aree Aree Aree Aree Aree Aree

1 2 3

X X X

4

X

5

X

6

X

groups are proportionately representative of the population (Type A areas), and where each ethnic group is over-represented compared with its population proportion (Type B areas). For the other countries, a stratified sample is drawn, first by major regions of the country and then by the distinction of urban or rural communities in each region sampled. In Malaysia, urban and rural areas are selected from each of five districts representing five regions: north-west, north, south-central, south, and east. And members of a 11 the three ethnic groups are covered in all of the urban and rural areas sampled. Similarly, in Thai land, all the major regions of the country are covered: centra 1, northeast, north, and south. In each region, provinces are samp 1ed proportion a 1 to population size. In each se 1ected province, three ethnic groups (Thai, Chinese, and Thai Muslim) are drawn from both urban and rura 1 areas. For a fourth group (Southern Thai Muslims), an urban and a rural sample are drawn from provinces in the south only. In the Philippines, provinces are selected as a first step on the basis of the ethno-linguistic characteristics of the majority population. The Chinese are covered only in Metro Manila, whereas for the other groups, both urban and rura 1 samp 1es are drawn in the pro vi nee se 1ected for that particular ethnic group (except for the Bicolanos, for whom the urban and rural samples have been drawn from two separate provinces).

17

The samp 1 i ng designs of Singapore and Indonesia approximate more closely the general scheme, except that in Singapore, the Type A and Type B areas substitute for the urban-rura 1 areas. In the Type A communities sampled, members of all the three ethnic groups are selected, whereas in the Type B areas, only members of a specific ethnic group known to be over-represented in terms of popu 1at ion proportions in each part i cu 1ar area are covered. In Indonesia, the homogeneous-heterogeneous criteria precedes somewhat the urban- rura 1 criteria. Urban areas with heterogeneous populations are sampled over various regions of the country, and all the ethnic groups are covered in these urban areas. On the other hand, only four ethnic groups have rura 1 samples drawn from homogeneous rural communities, so that the Chinese sample has no rural counterpart. In each rural community, only one specific ethnic group is studied.

Sample Size and Sample Distribution Since the samples are meant to represent ethnic groups rather than national populations, sample sizes are fixed per ethnic group rather than per country. Due to budgetary and other practical constraints (for example, the wide geographical dispersion of the ethnic groups), it was agreed that each ethnic group should have a minimum sample size of 600 to be equally divided (where possible) between the urban and rural areas. The samp 1e per country therefore ranges from 1, 800 respondents (with three ethnic groups) to 3,000 respondents (with five ethnic groups). Among the 600 respondents, it was a 1so agreed that at 1east 400-450 should be wives, and 150-200 be husbands. Wives are in the majority because the focus of the research is on fertility and contraception as dependent vari ab 1es. On the other hand, the smaller sample of husbands provides not only supplementary data on the couples (thus allowing for couple analysis at a later stage), but also valuable information on the ethnic dimensions of the study. It is felt that husbands may generally p1ay a more important role in ethnic community integration, and are more knowledgeable or are more authoritative (among the couples themselves) on matters of ethnic identification, ethnic attitudes and relations, as well as on perceptions of ethnic fertility differentials and their political consequences. The proposed sample distribution for each country is depicted in Appendix 1. By and large, the achieved samples follow these distributions very closely, and the completed sample sizes are: Malaysia, 1,888; Indonesia, 2,800; Philippines, 2,301; Singapore, 1,755; and Thailand, 3,078. 18

Selection of Households Systematic sampling of households was used in all the countries, after the regions/provinces have been selected and districts stratified as urban or rural. In Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and rural Indonesia, some existing sampling frames for the sample areas were available, while in Thailand and urban Indonesia, separate pre-listing of households in the sampled areas had to be conducted before selection. In Indonesia, different sampling frames for the urban and rural areas were employed. Rural areas were assumed to be homogeneous (according to the ethnic majority), and the 1980 Population Census blocks provided the rural sampling frame. In each survey area, 10 census blocks were randomly selected; and in each block, a 10 per cent systematic sample of the households was selected for screening of eligibility. Urban areas were defined as within the boundaries of a municipality (kotamadya). In selecting urban areas, communities were first identified as to be resided by at least three out of the five ethnic groups covered to ensure the heterogeneity criteria. In each sampled community, instead of using census blocks and census household lists, community residents 1ists were used for the systematic se 1ect ion of households to fulfill the quota for each ethnic group. In Malaysia, one district was selected from each of the states chosen to represent the five regions. Each samp 1ed district has both urban and rural areas inhabited by all the three ethnic groups. Utilizing an existing sampling frame from a survey of households (prepared by the Department of Statistics for the 1979 Labour Force Survey), a 10 per cent systematic sample of households in each sampled area was chosen for screening of eligibility. For the Philippines, systematic sampling of households was also used in all of the survey areas, except for the Chinese in Metro Manila. In each of the provinces chosen for the other ethnic groups, 2-3 urban districts (barangays) and 2-3 rural districts (barrios) were randomly chosen after the urban and rural districts had separately been stratified by population size (based on the 1975 census). For each sampled district, a complete household listing was obtained from the barangay/barrio captain or the town hall. {Where such an existing sampling frame was not available in two research areas, a separate mapping of households had to be made.) Based on the listings of households, a systematic sample was drawn to fulfill the quota for each ethnic group. For the Chinese in Metro Manila, no available sampling frame existed, and because the Chinese were generally both difficult to 1ocate and unco-operative, persona 1 contacts or the snowba 11 i ng technique had to be used to obtain the required 19

number of quota).

Chinese

(which

eventually

still

fell

short

of

the

In Singapore, two Type A convnunities and six Type B corrmuni ties were chosen from the 1 i st of e 1ectora 1 constituencies. Within each selected constitutency, a systematic sample of electors were chosen from the Electoral Registers (1979}, using varying sampling fractions. The selected persons were then screened to determine eligibility. In Thailand, provinces from each region were sampled proportional to population size. In each province, urban and rural districts were identified. The selected locations were pre-surveyed. Qualified households were pre-listed and mapped. Out of each list, potential respondents were systematically sampled. The above procedures applied to the Thais, the urban Chinese, and Southern Thai t1Jslims. As for the rural Chinese and the other Thai Mus 1i ms, s i nee they are both scarce and scattered, especially in the rural areas throughout the four regions, their households were sampled through obtaining a list of families known to the local religious leaders, caretakers of Muslim temples, village heads or in some cases, known personally to the field workers themselves.

Selection of Respondents:

Eligibility Criteria

The eligibility criteria for the selection of respondents are:

1.

Both husband and wife should be currently married and living together. Should either spouse be temporarily separated, the duration of separation should not exceed three months.

2.

Both husband and wife should belong to the same ethnic group, and this group shou 1d be one among the major ethnic groups covered in each country.

3.

The age of the wife should be between 15-44 years old, but there is no age limitation for the husband.

4.

All the eligible wives should be interviewed, whereas the husbands are interviewed only in one-third to one-fifth of the cases, depending on the country.

5.

In households where there are more than one eligible couple, all the couples are to be covered.

6.

In the case of polygamous marriages, all the wives of the marriage are to be interviewed. 20

The above criteria were adopted by the five country teams, except that in Indonesia, only one couple among the multiple-couple households was randomly selected for interview, and that in Thailand, an additional criteria was introduced, that the household head was also the main income-earner of the family. As mentioned before, in most countries the respondents were se 1ected from a systematic sample of households, except in the Philippines where the Chinese sample was through personal contact, or the snowba 11 i ng technique in order to fulfill the sample quota. Also, for certain ethnic groups in some countries, the selection of households and respondents has had to go beyond the originally designated primary sample units since the number of available households within those units was not enough to begin with. Thus, in Indonesia, for the Sundanese in Medan, the Bataks and Mi nangkabaus in Bandung and Su rabaya, and in Thailand, for the Thai Muslims, additional households were sampled from communities neighbouring the originally designated areas.

The Questionnaire

Core Questionnaire The five countries adopted a common core quest i anna ire with 195 questions. The questionnaire was constructed by modifying and refining the pilot questionnaire used in the previous phase of the study, and was thoroughly discussed at the first workshop of Phase II. The questions include both attitudinal and behavioural items, in order to determine norms, preferences, and expected behaviour apart from actual experiences. Since ethnic identity is a basic issue in the present study, detailed questions are included to cover: (a) nationality, place of birth, residential history; (b) language usage and preference, mother tongue, 1anguage used at home, with friends and at work; (c) religion, religiosity; (d) participation in ethnically-based institutions, ethnic associations, and schools; (e) ethnic self-identification; (f) ethnic identification of parents, spouse, and friends; (g) kin re 1at i onshi ps and support networks. In addition, questions also cover various ethnic attitudes: (a) perceptions of size and strength of groups, group dominance. and socio-economic position; (b) preferences for group fertility and growth; (c) social distance; and (d) preferences for pluralism vs. homogeneity. Among

cultural

practices

21

affecting

fertility,

questions

include: (a) marriage patterns, age at marriage, choice of partners, permanent celibacy; (b) post-partum abstinence, breastfeeding; (c) infant and child mortality, abortion, adoption; (d) gender preferences for children; (e) divorce, separation, remarriage of widows; (f) end of childbearing period and grandparenthood; (g) household patterns, status of women in household, household size and composition, decision-making, husband-wife interaction, and joint activities; (h) attitudes towards female employment; and (i) attitudes towards contraception and abortion. A large number of background variables, or characteristics, are covered: (a) age of each spouse, age at marriage, and marital history; (b) education, employment status and occupation of each spouse, household income and income sources; (c) parents' education and occupation; (d) urban-rural residence, migration experience; (e) media exposure and modernism vs. fatalism; (f) level of living (possession of household items). Among nuptiality and natural fertility factors are number of marriages, polygamy, and marriage duration; infecundity, breastfeeding, and post-partum abstinence. should be noted that some of these can be considered also cultural practices affecting fertility.

(a) (b) It as

Similarly, some of the psychological factors affecting fertility are also related to cultural values and practices, for example, fertility preferences, perceived advantages and disadvantages of having children, couple decision processes, and acceptances of religious/cultural norms regarding contraceptive practices. For the dependent variable, fertility questions cover (a) number of pregnancies; number of children ever born; number, age and sex of living children; infant and child mortality; (b) ideal family size, desired family size, additional children wanted and spacing of next birth; (c) miscarriages, stillbirths, and abortions. As for contraception and family planning, questions include (a) knowledge of and attitudes toward family planning; (b) present and current use of contraception; (c) contraceptive accessibility, material, and psychological costs of contraception.

Country Modifications The core questionnaire was adopted by the five country teams with

22

only some minor modifications to suit the individual country situations. Thailand made no modifications at all, while Malaysia dropped only one item in Ql32*, the statement concerning comparison among the ethnic groups in terms of "easier to get ahead", which was considered to be too sensitive. Ma 1ays i a a1so made minor modifications in the wording of two other questions. A more significant modification was made for Ql40-143, where attendance at various ethnic/religious schools was substituted by attendance at a vernacular or a religious school. Indonesia also did not make any additions to the questions, but a number of modifications were made to questions on the level of education attained by the respondent, spouse, and parents; and an additional category was provided for the source of income while possession of a TV and a radio set was asked of all households, including those without electricity. Some questions were dropped: citizenship, ancestor worship among the Chinese, and language preferred on TV programmes. In recording information on place of birth of the respondent, spouse, and parents, the name of the village and the name of the country other than Indonesia were not noted. As in the case of Malaysia, a more significant modification was made to Ql40-143, in that attendance at various ethnic/religious schools was substituted by attendance at a school organized by a religious or an ethnic institution. For Singapore, an important modification to the questions on rural-urban residence had to be made because of Singapore's special situation. Thus, Qll-15 on current and past residence in rural-urban areas were substituted by one single question on residence in a rural area outside Singapore only. The rest of the questions were not changed at all, but a number of country-specific questions have been added on. These pertain to: place of permanent residence; dialect/language groups of the respondent, spouse and parents; feeling of pride in being member of a dialect/language group, being member of an ethnic group, and being a country citizen; identification of respondent and parents as Baba (Straits-born) Chinese; attendance at schools of another language stream; preference for the type of language on radio programmes; frequency of cinema attendance and 1anguage of films preferred. Finally, the Philippines made no modification to the core questionnaire, but like Singapore, added some ten country-specific questions on: traditional/religious rites

*

Question numbers refer to Core Questionnaire. 23

regarding fertility; general approval of birth control and knowledge of contraceptive availability; exposure to family life education in the ethnic or religious school attended; preference for the sex of the first child, with an additional question on son preference; opinions on the proper age of marriage for men and women; opinions on remarriage of widows; and reasons for desirability/undesirability of members of other ethnic groups as close friends.

Translations of Questionnaires The core questionnaire was written in English. With this, the five country teams made translations into national and ethnic languages. Thus, in Malaysia, the questionnaire was translated into Bahasa Malaysia; in Thailand, into Thai; in Singapore, into Malay and Chinese (the latter was not actually administered but was used for reference only); in Indonesia, into Indonesian; and in the Philippines, into Tagalog, Bicol, Ilokano, Maranao, and Chinese. The translations were made by nationals with expertise in the languages concerned, and were then back-translated into English again by an independent group, in order to check accuracy. In general, the translations posed no problems, except that in the Philippines, some difficulty was encountered with certain terms, for example, citizenship, nationality, and ethnic group, which have no equivalents in the native languages. Under the circumstances, the closest approximations in the native languages had to be used, supp l ementea by some explanation given to the respondents during the interviews.

Pre-testing Si nee the questionnaire was DdSed on a pre-tested quest i anna ire used during Phase I, which covered most of the important variables already, no further pre-testing of the present questionnaire was necessary. However, the translated versions were tested on a small number of cases in most countries, in order to test the comprehension of the respondents of the translated versions.

Interviewers: In all

Recruitment, Training, and Matching

the countries, fieldwork was carried out by interviewers

24

under the superv1s1on of field supervisors who were in turn responsible to the chief investigators in each country. Where the survey organization involved a division of labour among regional co-ordinators, for example, in Thailand, Indonesia, and the Philippines, the interviewers were recruited locally by the regional co-ordinators. The total number of interviewers involved in the fieldwork per country ranged from 30 for Malaysia and Singapore respectively, to 76 for the Philippines. The interviewers were either university graduates/undergraduates or secondary school leavers and teachers with previous experience in survey work. Since the majority of the respondents were female, the majority of the interviewers in all countries were also female. Interviewers were chosen also for their ability to speak the native languages/dialects, which thus also meant that the interviewers most often belonged to the same ethnic groups as the respondents. The interviewers were given intensive training lasting 2-5 days or more. During training, they were briefed in detail on the objectives of the study, the questionnaire used, methods of probing, recording and field-editing of questionnaires, and so forth. All the countries adopted an Interview Guide prepared by the project co-ordinators at !SEAS (July 1980). The use of the common Interview Guide was to ensure as much as possible standardization of the meaning of terms used in each question; it also included specific instructions on checkpoints, probing, and the meaning of codes. During the training sessions, mock interviews were sometimes conducted, and in most cases, interviewers received field training through conducting trial interviews. Problems encountered were brought back to the training centres for clarification and discussion. In conducting the interviews, all the countries made attempts to match as far as possible the sex, ethnicity, and 1anguage/ di a 1ect of the interviewers and respondents. Some problems were encountered in Indonesia and Thailand in matching Chinese interviewers and Chinese respondents, and in Singapore, the shortage of Indian interviewers necessitated some Indian respondents to be interviewed by Chinese interviewers. Also, in ~ost countries, female interviewers were sometimes assigned to lnterview males, as this was a culturally more acceptable practice in Southeast Asia than was the reverse case, especially where personal questions concerning contraceptions were asked.

2~

Field Supervision and Checking Procedures Field supervision in Malaysia was provided by two officers from the National Family Planning Board, who took turns to visit the field sites in the five states. The supervisors organized the interviewers into two teams, with each covering two districts and later joined up to cover the remaining fifth district. In Singapore, field supervision was provided by a research assistant, a university postgraduate student, who provided guidance to the interviewers who were required to report back to her after completing· every 10-15 interviews. The interviewers also contacted her on the phone whenever some field problems arose. As for Thailand and the Philippines, a meeting had been convened by the principal investigators in Bangkok and Manila among all the regional co-ordinators to discuss common field procedures. Each regional co-ordinator was given full autonomy in supervising their regional fieldwork, together with their research associates and research assistants from the universities and institutes involved. In the case of Indonesia, the principal investigators from Jakarta visited the regional sites, trained the local recruits and visited the sites again near the end of fie 1dwork to conduct random checks on the comp 1eted questionnaires. Similarly, for the Maranao in the Philippines, one of the centre staff of the Philippine Social Science Council in Manila provided actual supervision in that region through field visits and c9rrespondence. The field supervisors generally had the duty of assigning interviewers to sampled households, helping to obtain co-operation and information from the local authorities, checking the completed questionnaires, sending interviewers back for clarification, and doing spot-checks on the interviewers themselves. In the Philippines, the supervisors also carried out the community survey on each sampled area. Finally, after the questionnaires had been checked and edited by the field supervisors, they were all sent back to the principal investigators at the centre for further checking and processing. Sometimes, some questionnaires had to be sent back to the regional sites for further call-backs with the respondents. In the process of mailing and handling the questionnaires to the central institutions, some questionnaires were also found to have missing pages (especially the last page on interview conditions).

26

Locating Respondents Locating of respondents posed little problem in Malaysia, but some problem in Singapore, where sometimes a whole block of dwelling units was found to have been demolished or given way to urban renewal. In Singapore also, many wives worked in the day time, so that very often both men and women had to be interviewed in the evenings or on weekends. In Thailand, locating Thai respondents was non-problematic in both urban and rural areas, as they were the majority population. For the Chinese, denial of their Chinese ethnic origin posed a special problem, as many of them insisted they were Thais. Chinese in urban areas were found to be unco-operative and suspicious, and in the rural areas, few Chinese households could be found. For the Thai Muslims scattered throughout the regions, informal sources of help with locating them had to be sought through religious leaders, caretakers of Muslim temples, and community leaders. Similarly in Indonesia, assistance from the local authorities, ethnic organizations, and churches was sought in locating both the urban and rural samples, especially for the Sundanese, Bataks, and Minangkabaus. The widely-dispersed locations of rural households in the Philippines made it di ffi cu 1t for contacts; thus, consultation with vi 11 age heads and local officials was made. And, as mentioned before, locating the Chinese in Metro Manila was particularly difficult and had to be reso 1ved through persona 1 introductions from respondents a1 ready interviewed. Among all the ethnic groups covered, the Chinese appeared to be the least co-operative. In Indonesia, the situation was aggravated by the outbreak of anti-Chinese activities in Central Java towards the end of November 19Sl.

Replacement and Completion of Samples In all the countries, the groups were deliberately oversampled in the first place in order to provide a substitution list in case some selected households could not be located, or did not meet the e 1i gi bil ity criteria, or refused to co-operate. When such a substitution list had been exhausted, interviewers were instructed to find replacements by going to the nearest households and/or the nearest community through a randomized procedure. t.l

Fieldwork was carried out independently but almost simultaneously in all the five countries, beginning in October/November 1980. The length of time taken to complete fieldwork ranged from one and a half months in Malaysia and two months in Indonesia, to six months in Singapore and the Philippines. Through the dedication of the investigators, field supervisors, and interviewers, all the required sample sizes were completed (with the exception only of the Chinese in the Philippines, having some short of the required sample size by 190 respondents). The completed Thai sample in fact exceeded slightly the original size.

Interviewing Conditions and General Reactions In Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, and the Philippines, the interview generally took 45 minutes to 1 hour to complete, while in Indonesia, it took generally 1\12 hours, with many cases taking two visits to complete. The general reactions to the interviews were that the questionnaire was too long and some of the questions were difficult to understand and/or were too personal/sensitive. 0 vera ll , the rural respondents were more co-operative than the urban ones, and the Chinese in Indonesia, Thailand, and Philippines were particularly reluctant to co-operate for fear of possible repercussions on their own ethnic group and/or themselves.

Problems with Particular Questions Questions on ethnicity, citizenship, and ethnic attitudes posed some problems in Malaysia and Indonesia. The relevant questions here are Q20, Q21, and Ql32. {Question numbers refer to those in the Core Questionnaire.) These asked the respondents to indicate whether they always consider themselves to be members of an ethnic group or sometimes something else, whether they think it is more important to be a member of an ethnic group or to be a citizen of a country, and some attitudinal statements on ethnic diversity, intermarriage, and the life changes of an ethnic group as compared to other groups. Many respondents in Malaysia were reported to say they disliked Q21 in particular. Singapore also indicated some problems with Q132, the attitudinal statements, although the exact nature of the problems was not specified, as other statements in the same question deal with fatalism and the status of women.

Another group of problematic questions concerned advantages and disadvantages of children (Q77-79), and the liked and disliked aspects of contraceptives (Q97-98). Almost all the countries indicated having problems with these questions, as Q77-79 are open-ended questions requiring probing for at least three advantages and three disadvantages, while Q97-98 involve terms such as "irreversible", "effective", "permanent" and "easily controlled by man/women" which are difficult for respondents to understand. Questions on income of respondent and spouse (Ql64, Ql70) met with uncertain and evasive responses, especially among the Chinese in Indonesia and the Philippines. Also, many wives claimed they did not know the incomes of their husbands. In the Philippines, couples are also found to be inconsistent in their reporting on the birth control methods used, and the possession of household items and amenities. For the Maranaos in particular, couple inconsistency is found in the size and composition of households (number of married couples), and their own and their children's ages. (These problems are apparently due to polygamous marriages, and the customary practice of counting age by months, rather than by years.) Finally, among the rural respondents in the Philippines, Q71 on post-partum abstinence was found to be too personal and embarrassing, particularly among the Maranaos.

Coding

Country Codebooks A basic common codebook for all the structured questions in the Core Questionnaire and for some of the important open-ended questions had been prepared by the co-ordinators and circulated to all the country teams in January 1981. This codebook also allowed for country codes to be devised by each team for its own country-specific questions. The final codebooks used by all the teams followed closely the basic common format.

Recruitment and Training of Coders In Malaysia, all

the thirty interviewers also served as coders 29

under the supervision of the staff of the National Family Planning Board. In Indonesia, twelve coders were recruited from the Central Bureau of Statistics; they were experienced coders and were mostly university graduates. In Singapore, nine coders were recruited from among university undergraduates and pre-university studen_ts. In the Philippines, fifteen experi en~ed coders from the Inst1tute of Philippine Culture, Ateneo de Man1la University, were employed full-time for coding. Similarly, experienced coders who were mainly university students and graduates were hi red in Bangkok for the centra 1 coding of the questionnaires under the supervision of a coding supervisor and the principal investigator. The coders were given training ranging from one and a half to three days to be familiarized with the questionnaire, difficult codes and interpretations, and checking for consistency.

Coding Stages In all countries, coding of the close-ended questions coding of the open-ended questions.

preceded

Although the open codes were thoroughly discussed and agreed upon by a 11 the researchers at the June 1981 workshop, the codes provided might still not have been adequate for individual countries. Hence, for the open-ended questions, countries screened 10 to 30 per cent of their questionnaires for all pass i b1e types of answers and de vi sed categories. Based on these and those provided in the common code book, the open-ended questions in all questionnaires were then coded. In some countries, special coders were assigned to do the open codes only, in order to maximize efficiency and uniformity in interpretation. In the Philippines, apart from the distinction between the c 1ose-ended and open-ended questions, cadi ng was done by stages, for example, by sections of the questionnaire.

Data Cleaning Data cleaning was made by each country on its own. Common cleaning procedures involved the checking of consistency, checking of value ranges and imputations (focusing on the "not applicable" categories through the filtering processes provided

30

in the questionnaire). Computer programmes were written for the above purposes and errors and unexpected values were checked against the original questionnaires and then corrected.

Coaparative Codes Since all the countries followed closely a common coding scheme, there was little problem in converting the country codes into comparative codes, based on a Comparative Codebook provided by the co-ordinators (August 1981). The Comparative Code book specified the methods of constructing variables, their column locations, and the uniform categories to be used.

Comparative Tape After cleaning and converting to comparative codes, each country sent in its data tape in the same format to ISEAS where the co-ordinators, with the assistance of the Computer Centre of the National University of Singapore, built a comparative tape, incorporating all the country data as sub-fi 1es for the comparative analysis. Appendix project.

II

describes

the

various

31

stages

of

the

comparative

III

THE NATURE OF ETHNIC DIFFERENCES

We begin by exam1mng the similarities and contrasts among the ethnic groups in terms of ethnic characteristics within their national and cross-cultural contexts. In most of the ASEAN countries, a systematic comparison of the ethnic groups has yet to be undertaken. The descriptive analysis in this chapter will serve as a basis for understanding the nature of ethnic differences, as well as suggest the relevant dimensions for an explanation of ethnic differentials in fertility and contraceptive practices. We shall therefore cover not only those variables used in the later multivariate analysis, but also variables which may be significant for additional or further analysis.

ETHNIC CHARACTERISTICS

Parentage and Ethnic Identification

Parentage In this study, ethnicity is taken to be the self-identification by the respondents themselves according to their parentage, upbringing, and their own customs and beliefs. Within the dominant patrilineal heritage of most of the ethnic groups, it is to be expected that the great majority of the respondents wou 1d identify themselves as belonging to the ethnic group of their fathers. Thus, for example, 98-100 per cent of the (self-identified) Chinese in all the five countries have Chinese 32

fathers; the same applies to the Indians in both Malaysia and Singapore. Even for ethnic groups which do not have a strong patrilineal tradition, such as the Malays, the Tagalogs, the Thais, and the Javanese, over 95 per cent of the respondents also identify with the ethnic group of their fathers. For the matrilineal Minangkabaus, also 95 per cent of the respondents identify with their fathers' ethnicity. (Table 3.1) Our eligibility criteria have ruled out the inclusion of intermarried respondents. The ethnicity of the mothers, where it is different from that of the fathers, roughly indicates inter-ethnic marriage among the parental generation, although the samples do not allow estimates of the rates of inter-ethnic marriage to be made. From the Table, it is apparent that the incidence of interethnic marriage is rather low, no more than 2-5 per cent in most cases. Notable exceptions are intermarriages between the Chinese and Thais, Thai Muslims and Thais for 10-20 per cent of the respondents' parents. It is a 1 so notab 1e that the Chinese-Thai intermarriages are more often found in the rura 1 areas, whereas the reverse is true for the Thai Muslim-Thai intermarriages. This is definitely related to the fact that the rural Chinese and the urban Thai Muslims are very small minorities in such areas, so that members of these dispersed communities have difficulty in finding eligible members of the same ethnic group for marriage. At the other extreme are the Maranaos in the Philippines, where almost 100 per cent intra-ethnic marriage is practised, as the southern Muslims in this country constitute a homogeneous ethnic group, segregated both geographically and institutionally from the rest of Fi1ipino society.

Ethnic and National Identification Having both parents of the same ethnic group does not necessari1y mean that the respondents always consider themse 1 ves as members of that group to the exclusion of other types of identification. For new nations consciously attempting to shape a national identity and to claim the allegiance of their citizens, members of ethnic groups have begun to adopt a national i dent i fi cation which at times may pose conflicting demands over them. In this respect, Singapore and Malaysia seem to have gone the farthest in successfully building up a national identity among the ethnic groups, as can be seen from the fact that 30-60 per cent of the Chinese, 85-95 per cent of the Ma 1ays and 85-90 per cent of the Indians in Singapore, and 20 per cent of the Chinese males in Malaysia do not always consider themselves as members of their ethnic groups, but sometimes as citizens of their own countries. For the Malays in Malaysia, the question is probably understood 33

TABLE 3. I Ethn lc Identification and Parentage INDONESIA Javanese Rural

Sundanese

Urban

Rural

M

M

M

Urban

M

Ethnic ldentlflcatlon Always conslders self group

member

100.0

100.0

Sometimes something else

Other ethnIc Identification National Identification Other Total

(207)

(60)

96.7 3.0 0.3

(301)

94.3 2.3 3.4

(87)

98.0 2.0

( 198)

100.0

(43)

95.7 2.3 2.0

( 352)

100.0

(53)

Father's Ethnlclty 96.1 3.4

Javanese Sundanese Mtnangkabau

Batak

0.5

81.7 13.3 3.3 I. 7

98.3 o. 7 1.0

Ch lnese

Total

(207)

(60)

(301)

71.3 6.9 3.4 8.0 10.3 (87)

96.5 3.5

2.3 95.3 2.3

( 198)

(43)

1.1 83.0 12.1 2.3 1.4 (348)

100.0

(53)

Mother's Ethn I city

96.6 2.9

Javanese

Sun danese

Mlnangkabau Batak Chinese

(207)

(60)

(301)

70.1 8.0 2.3 9.2 10.3 (87)

12.1 28.5 59.4 (207)

26.7 35.0 38.3 (60)

42.5 40.5 16.9 (301)

44.8 35.6 19.5 (87)

0.5 Total

Ethn lc Versus National Identification Ethn rc more fmportant

Equally Important Nationality more Important Total

81.7 13.3 3.3 1. 7

98.3 1.0

o. 7

0.5 96.5 2.5 0.5 ( 198)

9.6 41.4 49.0 ( 198)

(43)

2.0 82.6 11.7 2.3 1.4 (351)

(53)

23.3 46.5 30.2 (43)

26.7 57.1 16.2 (352)

30.2 54.7 15.1 (53)

95.3 4. 7

100.0

TABLE 3.1 (cont 1 d) Ethnic Identification and Parentage MALAYSIA Malay Rural F

Total Ethnic Identification Always considers self group member Sometimes something else Other ethnic Identification National Identification Rei lglous Identification Others Father's Ethnlclty Malay Chinese Indian Others Mother's Ethnlclty Malay Ch lnese Indian Others Ethnic versus National Identification Ethnic more Important Equally Important National lty more Important Not citizen

Urban M

(239)

(80)

F

(239)

M

(80)

98.3

100.0

98.7

100.0

1.3

o.o o.o

0.4 0.4

o.o o.o

o.o o.o

o.o

0.4

97.5

o.8 0.4 1.3

99.6

o.o o.o

0.4

97.5 1.3 1.3

o.o

95.0

o.o

o.8

3.8 1.3

98.8 1.3

98.7

98.8

o.o

o.o

o.8 0.4

1.3 1.2

o.o

0.4

25.5 39.3 35.1

95.8 0.4 2.9

50.0 12.5 37.5

20.9 36.0 43.1 0.4

51.3 22.5 26.3

TABLE 3.1 {cont 1 d)

MALAYSIA Indian

Chinese Rural F

{238)

Urban M

{80)

Urban

Rural

F

M

F

M

F

M

(240)

(80)

(238)

(80)

(213)

(75)

96.2

76.3

96.3

78.8

97.1

87.5

95.8

93.3

o.o 3.8 o.o o.o

2.5 21.3

o.o 3.8 o.o o.o

1.3 20.0

o.a 0.4 1.3 0.4

7.5 5.0

o.o 3.8 0.5 o.o

2.7 4.0

o.o 100.0

o.o 100.0

o.o

o.o

o.o 100.0 o.o o.o

o.o 100.0 o.o o.o

o.o o.o 99.6 0.4

1.3 o.o 98.8

o.o o.o 99.5 0.5

o.o o.o 98.7 1.4

o.o

0.4 99.2 o.o 0.4

o.o 100.0 o.o

o.o 99.2 o.o o.8

o.o 100.0 o.o o.o

o.o o.o 100.0 o.o

o.o 1.3 98.8

o.o o.o 99.5 0.5

o.o o.o 98.7 1.3

23.9 24.4 51.7 o.o

6.3 10.0 83.8

25.8 25.0 . 48.8 0.4

10.0 16.3 73.8

22.3 28.2 49.2 0.4

10.0 30.0 60.0

20.7 29.1 48.8 1.4

14.7 32.0 53.3

TABLE 3.1 (cont 1 dl Ethn lc Identification ond Parentage A-11 Ll PPI NES B leo I ano

Maranao

Rural

Rural

Urban

Urban

M

F

M

F

M

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

M

Ethnic Identification AI ways cons lders set f

100.0

95.5

100.0

group member Sometlmes something else

Other ethn I c Identification Identification Rellg lous Identification Others Total

0.15

National

( 198)

(50)

(201)

(50)

( 199)

(50)

( 196)

100.0

96.4 1.5 0.5 1.0 0.5 (196)

(49)

Father 1 s 1dent lty Maranao

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

Blcol ano

97.5 2.0

Tag a I og llocano

Ch lnese Others Total

( 198)

(49)

(201)

(50)

0.4 ( 199)

(50)

91.8

2.0 6.1 (49)

Mother's Ethnlclty 99.5

Maranao

100.0

100.0

100.0

Blcolano

97.5 2.0

Tagalog

100.0

98.5 0.5

98.5

0.5 ( 195)

2.0 (48)

38.0

79.1

e.o

e. 1

54.0

12.2

26.5 63.3 10.2

II ocano Ch lnese Others

Total Ethn

( 198)

(49)

(201)

(50)

0.5 ( 199)

(50)

tc versus National

Identification Ethn lc more Important

Equally Important Natlonallty more Important

69.7 15.7 14.6

68.0 14.0 18.0

64.2 28.9 7.0

42.0 30.0 28.0

38.7 22.1 39.2

Not citizen Total

( 198)

(50)

(201)

(50)

( 199)

(50)

(196)

(49)

TABLE 3.1 (cont 1 d)

RiiLIPPINES Tagalog Rural

llocano Urban

M

100.0

( 190)

1.6 94.2 0.5

100.0

(50)

2.0 96.0

3. 7 ( 190)

2.0 (50)

0.5 96.3 0.5

94.0 2.0

2.6 ( 190)

25.8 21. I 53.2 ( 190)

Rural M

100.00

(209)

1.9 89.9 2.4 0.5 5.3 (208)

95.5

0.5 (49)

2.0 92.0

100.0

(200)

0.5 99.0

o.o 6.0 (50)

0.5 (200)

4.0 (50)

2.9 86.6 1.4 0.5 8.6 (209)

2.0 (50)

1.0 (200)

28.0 26.0 46.0

48.3 21.1 30.0

42.9 34.7 22.4

40.5 38.0 21.5

(50)

(207)

Urban

(49)

(200)

Rural

Urban

M

F

M

100.0

100.0

94.2

79.0

77.9

1.9

1.4 6.8

12.8

12.8 (219)

9.3 (86)

O. I 99. I

100.0

(48)

97.9 2. I (48)

98.0 99.0

Chinese

100.0

(48)

31.3 39.6 29.2 (48)

(200)

0.5 0.5 97.5 1.5 (200)

0.5 98.0 1.5 (200)

26.5 45.0 28.5 (200)

3.9 (52)

1.9 98. I

(52)

100.0

(52)

19.2 44.2 36.5 (52)

F M

M

(221)

(85)

0.9 1.8 1.4 93.7 2.3

(48)

24.4 (86)

0.5 0.5 1.1 15.9 70.9 11.1 (189)

2.0 6.1

0.5

22.4 61.2 8.2 (49)

21.5 60.3 17.7 (209)

(50)

4.0 6.0 19.5 46.5 24.0 (200)

1.6 16.4 11.1 15.3 49.7 5.8 ( 189)

2.0 26.5 16.3 18.4 28.6 8.2 (49)

0.5 7.7 3.8 24.4 58.9 4.8 (209)

10.2 18.4 20.4 44.9 6.1 (49)

3.0 10.5 26.0 14.0 41.9 5.0 (200)

6.3 25.0 37.5 6.3 22.9 2.1 (48)

3.5 7.5 16.0 10.0 54.0 9.0 (200)

11.5 13.5 17.3 7. 7 42.3 7.7 (50)

9.9 10.8 14.4 7.2 47.3 10.4 (222)

8.1 16.3 15.1 8.1 44.2 8.1 (86)

16.9 83.1 ( 189)

2.0 38.0 60.0 (50)

16.3 83.7 (205)

24.5 75.5 (49)

0.5 23.5 76.0 (200)

31.3 68.8 (48)

17.0 83.0 (200)

1.9 19.2 78.8 (42)

4.1 37.8 58.1 (222)

8.1 46.5 45.3 (86)

2.0 34.0 54.0 10.0

8.1 8.1 5.8 24.4 37.2 16.3

TABLE 3.3 (cont 1 d) Rellg Jon and Rellg los lty SINGAFORE Chinese Type A

Religion Christianity BuddhIsm Taolsm/Confuclanlsm/Ch. religion Islam Hinduism Sikhism Other religions No rellg Ion

Type B

F

M

F

M

7.1 48.8 18.8 0.4

7.1 42.9 9.5

8.5 49.2 34.7

18.4 57.1 4.1 4.1 2.0

1.2 0.4 24.6

39.3

7.5

14.3

Frequency of Prayer Never Less than once a month At least once a month At Ieast once a week Once a day Several times a day

24.9 5.2 9.6 5.2 24.9 30.2

29.7 11.0 11.0 2.2 11.0 35.1

14.1 16.7 18.7 5.6 26.3 18.7

39.1 10.9 10.9

Attendance at Rei lglous Services Never Less than once a month Once a month Several times a month Once a week Several times a week

44.0 26.0 14.0 8.o 7.2 o.8

60.0 20.0 10.0 1. 1 6.7 2.2

26.5 45.0 14.5 5.0 8.o 1.0

43.8 27.0 6.3 2.0 18.8 2.1

Importance ot Rellg ion In Da II y L1 fe Not Important Quite important Very Important

35.6 48.4 16.0

48.4 39.6 12.0

19.5 67.0 13.5

36.7 44.9 18.4

19.6 19.6

TABLE 3.3 (cont 1 d)

SINGAR>RE

Malay

Indian

Type A

F

M

F

1.0 1.0 0.4 99.6

98.0

Type A

Type B

M

2.1 100.0

95.8 2.1

F

9.0 0.5 0.4 5.5 79.6 5.0

M

Type B

F

M

11.0 1.0

10.3

8.7

4.0 74.0 9.0 1.0

10.3 76.8 2.6

4.3 82.6 2.9 1.4

11.4

1.0

4.1 0.5

2.1

1.2 0.4 3.7 83.3

1.0 2.0 96.0

2.0 1.5 91.8

10.4 87.5

2.9 1.9 0.5 21.2 55.8 17.8

3.0 4.0 6.9 23.8 50.5 11.9

0.5 2.5 6.1 24.4 45.2 21.3

4.3 2.9 1.4 27.5 37.7 26.1

33.2 9.3 9.7 15.8 24.7 7.3

6.0 16.0 11.0 26.0 13.0 28.0

11.7 5.1 12.2 24.0 36.8 10.2

20.8 10.4 8.3 18.8 25.0 16.7

3.8 13.5 27.9 17.8 30.3 6.7

13.9 19.8 15.8 7.9 38.6 4.0

4.6 24.4 19.8 16.2 28.4 6.6

4.3 13.0 23.2 17.4 33.3 8.7

0.8 4.5 94.7

1.0 9.0 90.0

2.0 35.2 62.8

54.2 45.8

4.8 19.2 76.0

9.9 25.7 64.4

17.8 82.2

11.6 11.6 76.8

TABLE 3.3 (cont'dl Rellg I on 8nd Rellg loslty 111AI LAND Thai

Rural

Ch Jnese Urban M

M

Urban

Rural

M

M

Religion I sl.am

Protestant Catholic BuddhIsm

0.6 0.3 99.1

0.9

0.6

99.1

99.4

14.9 10.5 10.8 18.3 39.6 5.9

9.1 20.0 3.6 20.0 41.8 5.5

11.8 31.0 23.2 16.7 8.0 9.3

1.9 97.2 0.9

3.5 1.3

1.3

0.9

100.0

97.7 1.0

99. I

94.6 0.6

96.2

13.9 13.0 11.8 19.2 39.0 3.1

14.7 16.7 8.8 19.6 36.3 3.9

25.1 17.3 9.1 14.3 31.6 2.6

30.8 17.8 7.5 15.0 25.2 3. 7

36.1 10.4 7.9 15.1 26.7 3.8

34.3 13.3 10.5 11.4 26.7 3.8

7.3 27.3 20.9 20.9 20.0 3.6

10.2 38.7 18.6 17.6 10.5 4.4

18.6 32.4 15.7 17.6 9.8 5.9

16.8 43.1 16.3 17.0 5.2 1.6

19.6 39.3 12. I 16.8 5.6 6.6

19.2 42.5 16.4 8.2 8.5 5.2

23.7 44.8 8.6 8.6 10.5 3.8

I .8 98.2

3. 7 95.4 0.9

3.9 96.1

7.8 89.6 2.6

9.3 89.7 1.0

10.4 88.4 1.2

81.9 3.8

Ancestor worship

3.8

Frequency of Prayer

Never Less than once a month

At least once a month At I east once a week Once a day

Several times a day Attendance at Rei ig ious Services Never

Less than once a month Once a month

Several times a month Once a week

Several times a week Importance of Rei igion In Da i I y Lite

Not important Quite important Very important

14.3

TABLE 3.3 (coot 1 dl

"THAI LAND Thai-Muslim Rural

Southern Thai-Muslim

Urban

Rural M

M

Urban

M

M

Rellg ion Islam

99.7

99.1

99.1

99.1

0.9

0.9

0.9

15.5 7.1 4. 7 12.2 12.2 48.3

5.3 3.6 7.1 16.1 13.4 54.5

13.9 6.9 6.1 15.1 15.1 42.9

7.2 3.6 4. 5 11.7 19.8 53.2

12.8 29.4 8.1 8.8 26.4 14.5

12.5 16.2 7.1 10.7 44.6 8.9

16.7 30.3 8.2 8.2 21.5 15.1

6.3 17.2 8.1 5.4 43.2 19.8

2.4 96.0 1.6

1.8 97.3 0.9

1.9 95.6 2.5

1.8 92.8 5.4

0.5 98.5 1.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

100.0

1.6

1.0

0.5

1.1 1.0

8.6 89.8

1.0 15.8 82.2

0.5 3.2 8.8 87.0

1.5

1.0

1.0 13.2 10.7 73.6

27.7 16.8 54.5

Protestant Catholic Buddhism

Ancestor worship

0.3

Frequency of Prayer Never Less than once a month

At least once a month At I east once a week Once a day

Several

t Tmes a day

Attendance at Rei

ig Jous Services

Never Less than once a month Once a month

Several tlmes a month Once a week

Several t lmes a week Importance of Rellglon

Not Important Quite Important Very Important

1.0 2.1 94.8

1.0

1.6 4.1 2.6 13.5 12.4 65.8

4.2 11.5 15.6 67.7

95.9 4. I

95.8 4.2

In Daily Life 100.0

strongly encourage regular attendance at public religious worship, while Thai men are encouraged to spend a certain proportion of their lifespan to serve as monks at Buddhist temples. As measured by frequency of prayer, attendance at religious services and the importance of religion in daily life, it would seem that the Muslims across all the five countries are the most devout, praying several times a day, attending religious services at 1east once a week, and i ndi cat i ng re 1 i gi on as very important in daily life. By contrast, the Chinese in secular Singapore are the least religious. The data confirm the common assertion that rural populations are more religious than urban populations. However, residence makes 1 itt 1e difference for the Mus 1 ims, except for the Maranaos, and the Minangkabaus. Again, it is commonly expected that females are more religious than males. But this is not the case for Muslims, nor the Indian Hindus, especially on the frequency of attendance at religious services. Prayer services at mosques and Hindu temples are predominantly attended by male believers and sex segregation at religious worship is often practised. The above findings may have interesting implications for population planning prograiTilles. As we shall later see, decisions on farni ly size are often made by husbands as the dominant decision-maker in the family, and if Muslim males and Hindu males are more religious than their wives, more efforts need to be directed at the men to raise their knowledge, attitude, and practice of family planning. This is not to assume, of course, that certain religions are more pro-natalist than others; but it is a fact that some religions oppose certain birth control practices which may be advocated by official family planning programmes.

Ethnic Affiliations The respondents' affi 1 i at ions with their own ethnic groups are studied in three aspects: attendance at own ethnic/religious schools, membership in ethnic associations and the ethnicity of their close friends (Table 3.4).

Attendance at Ethnic/Religious Schools The question

on attendance at 68

ethnic/ re 1 i gi ous

schoo 1s was

not

asked in Indonesia. (Education in Indonesia wi 11 be separately discussed in another section.) Within the other countries, the majority of the ethnic groups have had some form of schooling, except for the Maranaos (with 40-55 per cent not having had schooling). In Thailand, the southern Thai Muslims have very much higher proportions without any schooling (10-30 per cent) compared with the Chinese, Thais, and Thai Muslims. The proportion of women not having gone to school is higher than for men in almost all the ethnic groups. On the other hand, it is interesting to note that the proportions of rural samples who have never gone to schoo 1 are not much different from the proportions among the urban samples. However, the length of schooling may differ significantly by residence. And, in the villages, attendance at religious classes is often the only elementary form of education received. Figures from Table 3.4 also show that, among those who have had some schooling, the majority have attended at one time or another an ethnic/religious school of their own ethnic community, except for the Chinese in Thailand and the Thai-Muslims. The case of the urban Chinese in the Philippines requires some clarification, as it is not clear whether 98-99 per cent of them have indeed attended a Chinese school or a Christian school. In any case, for the Chinese as for the lowland Filipinos, attendance at a Catholic school is far more likely than attendance at their own ethnic schools. In view of the ambiguity of the question, and also because Indonesia did not include this question in their survey, attendance at own ethnic/religious school has not been incorporated in the multivariate analysis for the five countries.

Membership in Ethnic Association Except for Singapore, the great majority of the ethnic groups do not belong to any association (reaching 95 per cent in the case of the Chinese in Malaysia and the southern Thai Muslims); and more females do not join associations than males. But among those who join, the likelihood of joining one's own ethnic association is higher than joining a non-ethnic or other ethnic association, particularly in the rural areas. When compared to the other ethnic groups in their own countries, the Muslims in Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand (except for the southern Thai Muslim), and in the Philippines have a higher tendency to join their own ethnic associations. The Maranaos in particular have a much higher ethnic membership (30-55 per cent) than the other ethnic groups in the Philippines. In Indonesia, however, the Christian Hataks have a much higher ethnic membership (with

TABLE 3.4 Ethnic Aft i I iations INOONESI A

Javanese Rural F

Sundanese

Urban

M

F

Rural

Urban

M

F

5.6

12.6

14. 1

7.0

15. 1

7.5

M

F

M

Membership in Own Ethnic Associations Ever belonged to own Belonged to non-ethnic/Other ethnic association Does not belong to any association

14.5

11 7

45.2

27.6

9.1

7.0

23.6

28.3

44.4

48.3

49.2

59.8

76.8

86.0

61.4

64.2

Ethnicity of Close Friends All of own group Some own group, some other No close friends

87.0 10.6 2.4

73.3 26.7

32.2 65.1 2.7

14.9 83.9 1• 1

71.2 26.3 2.5

69.8 27.9 2.3

32.7 65.1 2.3

24.5 75.5

41. 1 40.0 0

-

TABLE 3.4 (cont 1 d)

INOONESIA

Minangkabau Rural F

Membership in Own Ethnic Associations Ever belonged to own Belonged to non-ethnic/Other ethnic association Does not belong to any association Ethnicity of Close Friends All of own group Some own group, some other No close friends

Batak

Urban

M

F

Rural

Chinese Urban

Urban

M

F

M

F

M

-F

M

21.4

11.1

30.4

25.0

71.9

67.3

56.4

51.0

2.4

2.0

8.6

4.4

30.4

38.3

16.7

26.9

18.6

21.6

17.4

10.0

70.1

84.4

39.2

36.7

11.3

5.8

25.1

27.5

80.2

88.0

93.6 6.4

82.2 17.8

14.1

5.0 93.3 1.7

89.7 8.4 2.0

86.5 13.5

27.5 70.4 2.1

7.8 92.2

20.5 77.1 2.4

10.0 90.0

-

-

84.0 1.9

-

-

TABLE 3.4 (cont 1 d) Ethnic Affll lations MALAYSIA

Malay Urban

Rural F

Total Attendance at Own Ethnic/Rei lglous Schools Ever attended Never attended No school lng

(239)

82.4

M

(80)

F

(239)

M

(80)

17.6

93.8 1.3 5.0

88.3 2.1 9.6

92.5 2.5 5.0

Membership In Own Ethnic Associations Ever belonged to own Belonged to non-ethnic/other ethnic Does not belong to any association

25.1 5.0 69.9

47.5 38.8 13.8

It. 7

77 .a

30.0 36.3 33.8

Ethnlclty of Close Friends AI I of own group Some own group, some other No close friends

67.8 31.8 0.4

28.8 71.3

55.6 44.4

13.8 86.3

o.o

o.o

o.o

o.o

10.5

TABLE 3,4 (cont 1 dl

MALAYSIA

Chinese

Indian

Rural

Rural

Urban

F

M

F

(238)

(80)

(240)

M

(80)

F

(238)

Urban M

(80)

F

(213)

M

(75)

73,5 5,9 20,6

86,3 12,5 1,3

73,3 6,7 20,0

83,8 15,0 1.3

68,1 4,6 27,3

85,0 11,3 3,8

61,0 26,8 12,2

73,3 22,7 4,0

8,8 5,0 86,1

i,3 3,8 95,0

0,8 2.9 96,3

3,8 96,3

3,4 5,5 91,2

10,0 16,3 73,8

4,2 2,3 93,4

18,7 20,0 61,3

77.7 22,3

50,0 50,0 0,0

75,0 24,6 0,4

47,5 52,5 0,0

66,0 34,0

21,3 75,0 3,8

46,9 52.1 0,9

25,3 73,3 1,3

o.o

o.o

o.o

TABLE 3.4 (cont 1 d) Ethnic Affiliations RH Ll PPI NES

Blcolano

Maranao

Rural

F

M

Urban

Rural

Urban

M

F

M

M

Attendances at Own Ethn lc/

Rellg lous Schools Ever attended

57.6

44.1

56.1

52.2

93.3

42.4 ( 122)

55.9 (34)

43.9 ( 139)

47 .a (23)

6. 7 ( 15)

52.0

56.0

30.0

26.0

2.0

4.0

32.7

34.7

2.0

2.0

18.0

43.7

42.0

4.6

24.5

46.0 ( 198)

42.0 (50)

59.5 (200)

56.0 (50)

54.3 (199)

54.0 62.8 (50) (196)

40.8 (49)

92.4 7.6

88.0 12.0

81.9 18.1

90.0 10.0

72.9 27.1

100.0

100.0

(40)

(33)

Never attended

No schooling Total Membership In Own Ethnic Associations Ever belonged to own

Belong to non-ethnic/ other ethn 1c Does not be I eng to any as soc 1at 1on Total Ethnlclty of Close Fr lends AII of own group Some own group, some other No cJ ose friends Total

( 198)

(50)

1.05

( 199)

(50)

( 199)

70.0 30.0 (50)

79.6 20.4 ( 196)

49.0 51.0 (49)

TABLE 3.4 (cont 1 d)

RHLIPPINES

Tag a I og

llocano

Rural M

99.4 0.6 ( 174)

Rural

Urban

100.0

(43)

99.5 0.5 ( 182)

100.0

(45)

92.2

84.6

7.8 (51)

15.4 ( 13)

Urban

Rural

Urban M

M

Chinese

M

100.0

100.0

( 71)

( 12)

M

M

99.5 0.5 (220)

98.8 1.2 (86)

18.4

26.0

11.7

24.0

18.4

16.7

14.1

19.2

10.9

15.1

0.5

2.0

0.5

2.0

15.3

22.9

16.6

17.3

5.0

17.4

87.9 72.0 (50) (206)

74.0 (50)

66.3 ( 196)

60.4 69.3 (48) ( 199)

63.5 (52)

84.2 (221)

67.4 (86)

86.6 13.4

84.0 16.0

94.0 6.0

76.9 23.1

13.5 86.5

16.3 83.7

81.1 ( 190)

88.9 11.1 (189)

84.0 16.0 (50)

(209)

(50)

( 199)

93.8 6.3 (48)

80.9 19.1 ( 199)

(52)

(222)

(86)

TABLE 3,4 (cont 1 d) Ethnic Aft I I lations SINGAPORE

Chinese Type A

Attendance at Own Ethnic/Rei lglous Schools Ever attended Never attended No schoo I I ng Membership In Own Ethnic Associations Ever belonged to own Belonged to non-ethnic/other ethnic Does not belong to any association Ethnlclty of Close Friends AI I of own group Some own group, some other No close friends

Type B

F

M

F

M

66,5

70,1

72,9

33,5

28,9

27,1

63,0 2,2 34,8

66,7 33,3

42,9 57.1

44,4

55,6

40,0 60,0

98,0 0,8 1,2

97,8 1,1

99,5 0,5

87,8 12,2

1,1

TABLE 3,4 (cont 1 d) Ethnic Atfl I lations SINGAPORE

Chinese Type A

Attendance at Own Ethnic/Rei lglous Schools Ever attended Never attended No schoo I I ng Membership In Own Ethnic Associations Ever belonged to own Belonged to non-ethnic/other ethnic Does not belong to any association Ethnlclty of Close Friends AI I of own group Some own group, some other No close friends

Type B

F

M

F

M

66,5

70,1

72,9

33,5

28,9

27,1

63,0 2,2 34,8

66,7 33,3

42,9 57.1

44,4

55,6

40,0 60,0

98,0 0,8 1,2

97,8 1,1

99,5 0,5

87,8 12,2

1,1

TABLE 3.4 (cont 1 d) Ethnic Aft! I lations THAI LAND Thai

Chinese

Rural F

Attendance at Ethnic/ Rei lglous Schools Ever attended Never attended No schoo I I ng

93.8

Urban

Rural

Urban

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

100.0

98.8

18.6 74.6 6.8

33.6 61.7 4.7

24.8 69.5 5.7

40.0 57.1 2.9

-

1.2

98.0 1.0 1.0

2.2

6.4

4.3

14.7

3.6

13.1

5.3

11 .4

6.2

-

-

Membership In Own Ethnic Association Ever belonged to own Belonged to non-ethnic/ other ethnic Does not belong to any association

3.7

8.2

2.5

10.8

2.9

11.2

6.3

19.1

94.1

85.4

93.2

74.5

93.5

75.7

88.4

69.5

Ethnlclty Ethnlclty of Close Friends AI I of own group Some own group, some other No close friends

62.8 36.6 0.6

52.7 47.3

52.6 46.4 1.0

37.6 62.4

17.8 81.2 1.0

20.6 79.4

14.5 83.9 1.6

14.3 83.8 1.9

-

-

-

TABLE 3.4 (conT 1 d)

THAll ANn

Thai-Musllms

---

Rural

ATTendance aT Ethnic/ Rei lglous Schools Ever aTTended Never aTTended No schoo I I ng

Southern Thai-Musllms

Urban

Rural

Urban

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

36.4 56.5 7.1

42.0 52.6 5.4

27.7 65.1 7.2

31.8 67.3 0.9

48.3 29.4 22.3

62.0 29.0 9.0

40.1 29.7 30.2

40.0 42.1 17.9

13.8

18.7

10.7

13.5

1.0

6.0

3. 1

5.3

-

0.5

1.0

Membership In Own EThnic AssociaTion Ever belonged to own Belonged TO non-ethnic/ other ethnic Does not belong to any association

2.7

0.9

4.7

9.0

1.5

83.5

80.4

84.6

77.5

97.6

94.0

96.4

93.7

Ethnlclty Ethnlclty of Close Friends AII of own group Some own group, spme other No close friends

35.5 62.5 2.0

21.6 76.6 1.81

19.5 78.6 1.9

21.6 78.4

53.1 46.9

55.4 44.6

57 .a 42.2

60.4 37.5 2. 1

-

-

-

-

55-70 per cent belonging to their CMn ethnic associations), than the Muslim groups. Comparing across countries, Singapore has the highest proportions of ethnic association membership, as well as of associational membership in general. It is indeed amazing that all the respondents in the three ethnic groups belong to some kind of association, and the proportions belonging to ethnic associations of one's own group are as high as 70-95 per cent for the Ma 1ays, 40-66 per cent for the Chinese, and 10-75 per cent for the Indians. Bearing in mind that Singapore has the highest proportions of ethnic groups identifying themselves as citizens (Singaporeans) rather than as members of their ethnic groups all the time, membership in CMn ethnic associations may not carry as much personal significance for Singaporeans, as compared to that felt by other ethnic groups in other countries when they join their own ethnic associations. The above discussion on ethnic association membership would suggest that, in using this variable to explain ethnic fertility differentials, great caution has to be exercised, since (1) the great majority of the ethnic groups do not belong to any association, and (2) some ethnic groups have very much higher ethnic association membership than others. Thus, to study the impact of this factor on fertility, analysis may have to be done separately for some ethnic groups. While this factor may be of some importance for some countries, it may not be relevant at all for Singapore.

Ethnicity of Close Friends The third dimension of ethnic affiliation we have chosen to study is ethnicity of close friends. Since the rural samples are taken from more homogeneous or representative areas, it is to be expected that more ru ra 1 respondents wou 1d have a 11 c 1ose friends from the same ethnic group than would the urban respondents. Also, since women are more bound to their familial corrununities, they are expected to have a 11 close friends from the same ethnic group, than are the rna 1es. The above expectations are borne out by the data. Ethnic groups, however, vary greatly in terms of close friendships. The Chinese and the Malays in Singapore have up to 90-99 per cent of their members with all of their close friends belonging to the same ethnic group, in contrast to the Chinese and Malays in Ma 1ays i a, where 70-85 per cent of the Ma 1ay rna l es and 50 per cent of the Chinese males have close friends from a different ethnic group. Ethnic minorities which are highly "visible" or

80

distinctive by their religion or social organization tend to be closed co11111unities: thus, 80-90 per cent of the Muslim Maranaos, and 80-95 per cent of the I 1ocanos have all close friends from the same ethnic group; the same is true with 80-95 per cent of the matrilineal Mi nangkabaus in rural areas, and 85-90 per cent of the Christian Bataks in rural areas. On the other hand, the Hindu Indians have substantial proportions with close friends from other ethnic groups {35-75 per cent in Malaysia, 15-35 per cent in Singapore). One may perhaps refer back to Table 3.1 where it is shown that nearly half the Indians in Malaysia and 90 per cent in Singapore fee 1 that nation a 1 i dent ifi cation is more important than ethnic identification. Of all the countries, most socially integrated: cent of the Chinese, 60-80 per cent of the southern different ethnic groups.

the ethnic groups in Thailand are the 40-60 per cent of the Thais, 80-85 per per cent of the Thai Muslims and 30-45 Thai Muslims have close friends from

It would thus appear from the above discussion that ethnicity of close friends is a highly relevant dimension of ethnic affiliation as well as being a more salient dimension as compared to membership in ethnic associations, since (1) all the respondents have close friends, (2) ethnic groups differ significantly in the ethnicity of close friends, and (3) differences among ethnic groups reflect not only differences in religion and ethnic identification, but also differences in social integration with other ethnic groups.

Ethnic Attitudes Table 3.5 is a selective presentation of ethnic attitudes of the respondents on questions of ethnic diversity, inter-ethnic marriage, population size of ethnic groups, and their strength and socio-economic position. Two questions in the Questionnaire have not been inc 1uded here: desirability as friends of other ethnic groups and perception of ethnic group with the largest number of children, as these questions are too country-specific.

Ethnic Diversity and Intermarriage For both questions on ethnic diversity and intermarriage, agreement was sought from the respondents on a 5-point Likert sea 1e. It can be seen that agreement with the statement "ethnic diversity enriches a nation's culture" is high among all the 81

TABLE 3. 5 EthnIc AttItudes INDONES lA Sundanese

Javanese Rural

M

M

Total

(207)

Rural

Urban

(60)

(301)

(87)

Urban

M

M

(198)

(43)

(352)

(53)

Ethnic diversity enr lches a Nation's culture

3.89

4.05

4.18

4.23

3.93

3.95

4.26

4.28

3.21

3.54

3.66

3.83

3.37

3.63

3. 75

3.92

IntermarrIage among ethn lc groups shou I d be encouraged

EthnIc group Is strong If They are many True

Depends/Part Iy true False

70.9 19.9 9.2

60.0 20.0 20.0

29.9 23.8 46.3

26.7 26.7 46.5

75.8 12.9 11.3

62.8 23.3 14.0

43.6 22.1 34.4

26.4 39.6 34.0

27.5 35.3 37.2

15.0 45.0 40.0

7.0 30.6 62.5

4.6 28.7 66.7

24.9 32.0 43.1

9.8 19.5 70.7

13.4 33.0 53.6

7. 5 39.6 52.8

55.8 41.7 2.4

52.8 40.7 6.8

44.8 45.5 9. 7

49.4 41.4 9.2

55.6 41.4 3.0

46.3 46.3 7.3

30.8 59.0 10.3

26.4 69.8 3.8

Socioeconomic position

of ethnIc group 1s better with Many ch II dren Doesn 1 t matter Few chI I dren Own ethn lc group has

Too few ch II dren R 1ght number Too many ch II dren Compared to other ethnIc group

It Is eas ler for own group to Get ahead these days

3.76

3.97

3.17

3.24

3.41

3.47

3.24

3.02

TABLE 3.5 (cont'd)

INDONESIA Mi nangkabau

Urban

Rura I

(45)

Rura I

M

M

( 187)

Batak

(263)

(60)

Ch lnese

M

M

(203)

Urban

Urban

(52)

(291)

(51)

M

(285)

(50)

4.05

4.45

4.18

4.37

4.28

4.61

4.24

4.47

4.23

4.26

3.14

3.23

3.83

4.07

2.91

3.08

3.48

3.86

3.63

3.80

26.3 26.9 46.8

15.9 20.5 63.6

32.1 29.8 38.2

30.0 38.3 31.7

47.8 10.3 41.9

42.3 11.5 46.2

24.8 27.3 47.9

5.9 27.5 66.7

26.2 38.8 35.0

12.2 38.8 49.0

7. 5 3e.6 59.9

9.3 32.6 58.1

14.9 25.2 59.9

10.0 41.7 48.3

11.3 29.1 59.6

11.5 11.5 76.9

14.2 29.4 56.4

11.8 31.4 56.9

2.4 29.2 68.4

36.0 64.0

44.3 43.2 12.4

31.1 60.0 8.9

34.6 60.4 5.0

15.3 72.9 11.9

60.1 19.7 20.2

50.0 21.2 23.8

61.9 30.2 7.9

52.9 35.3 11.8

49.1 43.5 7.4

3.27

3.44

3.41

3.13

3.55

3. 73

3.20

2.98

3.15

59.6 40.4

3.14

TABLE 3.5 (cont'dl Ethnic Attitudes MALAYSIA Malay Rural F

Total

(239)

Urban M

F

M

(80)

(239)

(80)

Ethnic diversity enriches a Nation's Culture

4.3

4.0

4.3

4.1

Intermarriage among ethnic groups should be encouraged

2.8

3.1

3.1

3.1

86.6 5.9 7.5

78.8 8.8 12.5

79.9 10.0 10.0

85.0 3.8 11.3

46.3 16.3 37.5

35.1 19.2 45.6

45.0 18.8 36.3

30.0 46.3 23.8

28.5 49.8 21.7

31.3 52.5 16.3

o.o

o.o

Ethnic group Is strong If They are many True Depends/Partly true False DK/ND Socioeconomic position of ethnic group Is better with Many ch II dren Doesn't matter Few ch II dren ND Own ethnic group has Too few children Right number Too many children NO

o.o

46.0 16.3 37.7

o.o 28.0 47.7 23.8 0.4

TABLE 3.5 (cont 1 dl

MALAYSIA Indian

Chinese Rural

Urban

Rural

Urban

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

(238)

(80)

(240)

(80)

(238)

(80)

(213)

(75)

4.5

4.6

4.6

4.4

4.7

4.8

4.7

4.6

2.8

3.5

3.0

3.2

2,7

4.2

3.2

3.9

68,5 4.2 27.3

41.3 1,3 57.5

62.9 7.9 29.2

57.5

81.1 6,7 11.8 0.4

61.3 16,3 22.5

74,6 4.2 21.1

68.0 4.0 28.0

12,5 17.5 70.0

8.3 10.8

ao.a

32.5 10.0 57.5

27.7 10.1 61.8 0.4

17.5 20.0 62.5

18.3 16.9 64.8

25.3 20.0 54.7

12.5 65.8 21,3 0.4

11.3 58.8 28.8 1.3

8.8 33.6 57.6

22.5 33.8 43.8

8.5 33.3 58.2

20.0 21.3 58.7

o.o

o.o

o.o 42.5

o.o

10.5 9.2 80.3

o.o 10.1 60.1 29.8 0,0

8.8 55.0 36.3

o.o

TABLE 3,5 (cont 1 d) Ethnic Attitudes PHILIPPINES

Maranao Rural

Blcolano Urban

F

M

Ethnic diversity enriches a Nation's Culture

3.8

4,1

IntermarrIage among ethn lc groups shou I d be encouraged

3,1

Ethnic group Is strong It there are many True Depends/Partly true False Total

Rural

Urban

M

F

M

3.6

4,3

3.9

4,1

4,5

4,1

2.9

2. 7

3,5

3.3

3, 7

3.2

3. 7

80,7 10,2 10,2 (197)

76,0 12.0 12,0 (50)

74,5 23,0 2.5 (200)

76,0 14,0 10,0 (50)

81.9 7,5 10,6 ( 199)

72,0 18,0 10,0 (50)

83.1 5,6 11.3 (195)

81,6 2,0 16.3 (49)

Socioeconomic position of ethnic group Is better with Many chI I dren Doesn't matter Few ch lldren Total

69,7 26,8 3.5 (198)

74,0 24,0 2.0 (50)

53.7 40,3 6,0 (201)

60,0 36,0 4,0 (50)

4,5 7,5 87,9 ( 199)

12,0 6,0 82,0 (50)

6,2 7,7 80,2 ( 195)

6,1 4,1 89,8 (49)

Own ethnic group has Too few ch II dren RIght number Too many children Total

40.4 19,2 40,4 ( 198)

28.0 18,0 54.0 (50)

32,8 30,8 36,3 (201)

32,0 34,0 34.0 (50)

2,0 17.1 80,9 ( 199)

2,0 20,0 78,0 (50)

0.5 18,6 80.9 ( 194)

2,0 59,2 38,8 (49)

Compared to other ethnic groups It Is easier tor own group to get ahead These days

3,6

3,6

3.4

3.8

3.4

3,6

3.4

3.8

M

TABLE 3.5 (cont 1 dl

PHILIPPINES Tagalog

llocano Urban

Rural

Rural

Chinese Urban

Rural

Urban

M

F

M

3.8

3.9

4.2

4.2

4.2

4.3

3.1

3.1

3.4

3.5

3.9

3.6

3.8

55.3 25.5 19.2 (208)

44.9 34.7 20.4 (49)

62.6 28.3 9.1 ( 198)

62.5 31.3 6.3 (48)

65.5 21.5 13.0 (200)

59.6 21.2 19.2 (52)

23.0 49.1 27.3 (220)

26.7 45.3 27.9 (86)

4.0 14.0 82.1 (50)

5. 7 24.9 69.4 (209)

6.0 20.0 74.0 (50)

6.5 14.5 79.0 (200)

10.4 14.6 75.0 (48)

6.0 14.5 79.5 (200)

15.4 84.6 (52)

11.8 49.8 38.9 (221)

17.4 54.7 27.9 (86)

4.0 48.0 48.0 (50)

4.3 50.2 45.5 (209)

4.0 44.0 52.0 (50)

9.9 53.0 37.0 (200)

7.2 58.3 35.4 (48)

8.0 49.5 42.5 (200)

5.8 55.8 38.5 (52)

2.3 51.6 46.2 (221)

2.3 50.0 47.7 (66)

3.6

3.8

F

M

4.3

4.3

4.2

4.3

2.9

3.0

3.1

65.4 22.3 12.2 (188)

66.0 26.0 8.0 (50)

9.5 15.3 75.1 ( 189)

4.8 45.5 49.7 ( 189)

M

3.4

3.8

F M

M

3.2

TABLE 3.5 (cont 1 dl

SINGAPORE

Malay Type A

Indian Type B

Type A

Type B

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

4.45

3.84

4.11

4.44

4.25

4.36

4.68

4.71

3.41

2.93

3.56

3.42

3.52

3.87

3.34

3.42

53.9 28.9 16.4 o.8

40.8 53.1 6.1

71.5 11.9 15.5

60.4 12.5 27.1

42.8 35.1 22.1

33.0 29.0 37.0 1.0

38.3 19.9 41.8

27.5 13.1 59.4

15.4 32.4 52.2

14.0 46.0 40.0

19.5 45.1 35.4

27.1 41.7 31.3

6.8 23.7 69.5

3.0 24.8 72.2

1.5 11.2 87.3

2.9 7.2 89.9

41.8 47.7 10.5

39.0 49.0 12.0

9.8 80.8 9.4

18.8 81.2

5.8 58.0 36.2

9.9 60.4 29.7

27.6 46.4 26.0

34.9 50.8 14.3

3.68

3.47

3.97

4.15

3.05

3.22

3.36

3.61

TABLE 3.5 (cont 1 d) Ethnic Attitudes SINGAPORE Chinese Type A

Type B

F

M

F

M

Ethnic diversity enriches l!l Nl!ltlon 1 s Culture

4.27

3.97

3.91

4.35

Intermarriage among ethnic groups should be encouraged

3.20

3.18

3.21

3.16

Ethnic group Is strong If they are many True Depends/Partly true False Other responses

38.5 17.4 43.7 0.4

26.4 20.9 52.7

31.7 35.6 32.7

43.8 8.3 47.9

Socioeconomic position of ethnic group Is better with Many ch II dren Doesn't matter Few ch II dren

8.5 30.4 61.1

5.6 31.5 62.9

7.5 54.5 38.0

2.0 20.4 77.6

Own ethnic group has Too few children Right number Too many children

16.3 65.9 17.8

6.8 78.4 14.8

6.0 78.9 15.1

16.3 65.3 18.4

Compared to other ethnic groups, It Is easier for own group to get Ahead these days

3.61

3.63

3.63

3.82

TABLE 3.5 (cont 1 dl Ethnlc Attitudes THAILAND ChInese

Thai Rural

Urban

Rural

Urban

F

M

EthnIc dIversIty enrIches a Nation's Culture

3.17

2.88

3.05

2.99

3.45

3.53

3.37

3.42

I ntermarr 1age among ethnIc groups should be encouraged

2.84

2.81

2.90

2.88

3.13

3.37

3.25

3.45

M

M

Ethnic group is strong if they are many True Depends/Partly true False

63.2 12.6 24.2

56.9 8.3 34.8

57.1 18.5 24.4

59.8 13.7 26.5

57.0 18.4 24.6

57.9 12.1 30.0

51.9 19.6 28.5

48.5 14.9 36.6

Socioeconomic position of ethnIc group Is better than Many ch II dren Doesn't matter Few ch II dren

8.7 7.5 83.8

7.3 5.5 87.2

6.8 10.5 82.7

3.0 16.8 80.2

11.1 9.2 79.7

5.7 13.2 81.1

7.3 12.0 80.7

12.7 15.7 71.6

Own ethnIc group has Too few ch II dren RIght number Too many chI I dren

5.0 51.7 43.3

10.9 43.6 45.5

6.8 41.2 52.0

4.0 38.2 57.8

4.3 50.0 45.7

0.9 61.7 37.4

4.1 41.2 54.7

3.9 47.1 49.0

It Is easier for own group to get ahead these days

3.46

3.03

3.16

3.06

3.80

3.59

3.84

3.61

TABLE 3.5 (cont 1 d)

THAI LAND Tha 1-Mus lim Rural

Southern Thai-Muslim

Urban

Rural

Urban

M

F

M

F

M

3.63

3.40

3.49

3.34

2.83

3.17

2.69

2.58

2.89

3.17

2.92

3.11

2.28

2.25

2.21

2.16

F

M

74.5 10.2 15.3

60.4 14.4 25.2

63.0 16.5 20.5

59.5 17.1 23.4

60.7 24.0 15.3

63.4 22.8 13.8

60.4 17.7 21.9

57.4 16.0 26.6

16.5 14.8 68.7

14.3 16.1 69.6

11.7 13.6 74.7

20.9 13.6 65.5

24.4 15.2 60.4

11 .a 13.9 68.3

25.4 8.8 65.8

25.5 10.6 63.9

5.4 48.2 46.4

8.9 57.2 33.9

5.1 49.5 45.4

3.6 64.0 32.4

1.6 42.6 55.8

2.0 27.7 70.3

1.0 41.9 57.1

3.1 35.8 61.1

3.25

3.20

3.16

2.93

2.67

2.91

2.75

2.63

ethnic groups in all the countries. A slight range of agreement is observed from the very high levels in Malaysia and Singapore, to the slightly lower levels of the Philippines and Indonesia, and finally, that of Thailand (which nevertheless is still above the mid-point of the scale). No male-female differences are observed, nor rural-urban differences except for the southern Thai Muslims whose urban males are somewhat less approving of ethnic diversity than are the rural males. When it comes to the statement "intermarriage among ethnic groups should be encouraged", the level of agreement drops among all ethnic groups in all countries. The largest drops are observed for ethnic groups in Malaysia and Singapore (albeit less so for the Indians), whereas the smallest drops are found in Thailand (albeit less for the southern Thai Muslims). It would seem that where ethnic groups agree most with ethnic diversity, they would also agree least with intermarriage. This pattern is consistent with the "pluralistic" model of Malaysian and Singapore society, and the "assimilationist" model of Thai society. Furthermore, for ethnic minorities with distinctive religions or social organizations, the drop is more than the culturally dominant groups. Thus, the drop in agreement for the Minangkabaus and the Bataks are quite substantial, especially in the rural areas, similarly for the Maranaos in both rural and urban areas. It is also interesting to note that the Chinese in Indonesia and the Philippines are not as against intermarriage as the Chinese in Malaysia or Singapore. Like ethnic diversity, rural-urban differences in agreement with intermarriage are minimal, except in Indonesia where urban respondents are somewhat more open to the idea. Equally, little male-female differences are observed (although in most cases, males are marginally more for intermarriage than are females).

Strength in Numbers Respondents were asked if they thought it true or false that "an ethnic group can only be strong if there are many of them". The majority of respondents in Malaysia and Thailand, and in the Philippines (except for the urban Chinese) think it is true, whereas the majority in Singapore and Indonesia (except the rural Javanese and Sundanese) think it is false or "depends". The highest agreement is registered for the Malays in Malaysia (80-85 per cent), the Maranaos (75-80 per cent), and the Bicolanos (72-83 per cent) in the Philippines. That there is a possibility for the respondents to interpret "strength in numbers" as "strength in political position" may be

92

gathered from the marked contrasts between the responses in Malaysia and Singapore. In Malaysia, many more Malay and Indian respondents agree with the statement than their counterparts in Singapore. Similarly, in Thailand, the Thai Muslims and the southern Thai Muslims have much higher proportions agreeing with the statement than the Thais or the Chinese there. It may be surmized that these groups are assessing their own ethnic groups' position in the light of the ethnic-political situations in their respective countries. This interpretation may be further supported by the case of the Chinese. Less than a quarter of the Chinese in the Philippines (23-27 per cent) and in Indonesia (12-26 per cent) find the statement to be true, whereas 50-57 per cent of the Chinese in Thailand, 25-45 per cent of the Chinese in Singapore, and 40-70 per cent of the Chinese in Malaysia think so. It appears that only those ethnic groups which have or hope to wield political leverage in their respective countries would agree that "an ethnic group can only be strong if there are many". Another interesting observation is that for most countries rural-urban differences are not striking, except for Indonesia where rural respondents are more likely to agree with the statement than are urban respondents, as in the expected direction. What is not expected is that, in most ethnic groups in Indonesia and elsewhere, more women agree with the statement than men. Whether women interpret the question different 1y from men cannot be gathered from the data, unless one is prepared to think that women, being less-educated and politically less-sophisticated, are more likely to interpret sheer population size as political strength.

Socio-economic Position On the question of whether "it is better for the socio-economic position of an ethnic group if families have many or few children", the majority of the respondents in the Philippines (7U-90 per cent), in Thailand (60-87 per cent), and in Indonesia (50-77 per cent) think it is better with few children, except for the Maranaos and the rural Javanese. The Maranaos stand out as the only group with a majority (54-74 per cent) feeling that it is better to have many children. The next group with the highest proportion thinking many children is better are the Malays in Malaysia (35-46 per cent). On the other hand, there are rather high proportions of respondents who think that it does not matter whether an ethnic ~roup has few or many children for their socio-economic position: 50-55 per cent among the urban Chinese in the Philippines; 30-45

Y3

per cent among the Ma 1ays and 20-55 per cent among the Chinese in Singapore; and 30-50 per cent among all the ethnic groups in Indonesia. The results on this question are rather difficult interpret, as no consistent pattern seems detectable.

to

Size of Own Ethnic Group A third question is whether the respondents think that families of their own ethnic groups have too many, too few, or just the right number of children. The great majority of all the ethnic groups in the Philippines, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand tend to think that their own ethnic group has either just the right number of children or too many children; in contrast, the great majority of all the ethnic groups in Indonesia tend to think their ethnic group has either too few chi 1dren or just the right number. (The proportions who think their ethnic group has too few children actually reach the majority in the case of the Bataks.) Outside of Indonesia, it is to be noted that the Malays in Malaysia and the Maranaos in the Philippines have the highest proportions of the opinion that their own ethnic group has too few chi 1dren (2H-30 per cent and 2H-40 per cent respectively). The case of the Singapore Malays is difficult to interpret, as the range of opinion differs so considerably between the two types of communities.

Ethnic Fertility Approval The three questions on ethnic group size will be used to construct a scale of "ethnic fertility approval" for our multivariate analysis. The underlying assumptions are that, if certain ethnic groups feel that an ethnic group can only be strong if they have many children, an ethnic group's socio-economic position is better if their families have many children, and their own ethnic group has too few children, these ethnic groups are 1 ike ly to produce more chi 1dren for the above reasons. If these assumptions are borne out, there will be important implications not only for the national population and family planning programmes, but also for the future balance of ethnic populations. One should note, of course, that fertility outcome is re 1a ted to many other factors, and that in the who 1e complex of fertility determinants, ethnic fertility approval may not play a significant part. 94

To sum up, on ethnic fertility approval, the country scenario is as follows. In Malaysia, the Malays, as compared to the Chinese and the Indians, have the highest proportions who think that an ethnic group can only be strong if there are many of them, that an ethnic group's socio-economic position is better with many chi 1dren, and that their own ethnic group has too few children. Similarly in the Philippines, the Maranaos have the highest proportions of respondents thinking along the same lines, compared with the Tagalogs, Bicolanos, Ilocanos, and Chinese. In Singapore, more Ma 1ays than Chinese or Indians agree that numbers is strength, an ethnic group's socio-economic position is better with many children, and their own ethnic group has too few children. In Thailand, the Thai Muslims and the southern Thai Muslims have higher proportions than the Thais or the Chinese who think large fami 1ies would mean strength and better socio-economic position of an ethnic group, but on the other hand, the proportions of their respondents thinking that their own ethnic group has too few children are not greater than among the Thais or the Chinese. Finally, in Indonesia, while substantial minority proportions of all ethnic groups agree that numbers is strength and feel that it does not matter for socio-economic position, the great majority also feel their own ethnic group has too few or just the right number of children.

Ease of Getting Ahead Respondents were asked to compare their own ethnic group with other groups on whether it is easier for their own ethnic group to "get ahead these days". This question is not inc 1uded in the Malaysian study. For the other countries, the group with the highest agreement and the group with the 1owest are as follows: in Indonesia, the Javanese the highest, the Chinese the 1ow est; in the Philippines, the Ilocanos the highest, the Chinese the lowest; in Singapore, the Malays the highest, the Indians the lowest; in Thailand, the Chinese the highest and the southern Thai Muslims the lowest. Of all the ethnic groups in these four countries, the southern Thai Muslims feel the most disadvantaged.

DEMOGRAPHIC AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

De110graphic For demographic data, we rely more on the female responses, as in

some countries large responses are found.

inconsistencies

between

male

and

female

In all the countries the mean age of the wives is between 30 and the mid-30s, while the mean age of the husbands is from the midto 1ate 30s. The difference in the age of husbands and wives is between 4-7 years, with the biggest difference found among the Indians in Malaysia (6.0-7.1 years), the Indians in Singapore (8.0-8.5 years), the Maranaos (6.0-7 .8 years), the southern Thai Muslims (6.0-7.0 years), and the Minangkabaus (6.1-6.4 years). In general, age difference is larger in the rural areas than in urban areas, except for the Maranaos and the Bataks whose urban members may have some difficulty in locating eligible spouses of the same ethnic group, hence the bigger age difference in cities (Table 3.6).

Household Size The mean househo 1d size for most of the ethnic groups is between 5-7 persons, and rural-urban residence makes no substantial difference in household size. All the ethnic groups in Indonesia have uniformly small households, compared with the ethnic groups in other countries where the picture is more varied. The Chinese in Malaysia, the Philippines, and Thailand have larger households, compared with the other ethnic groups in the respective countries, except when compared to the Maranaos. Of all the ethnic groups in ASEAN, the Maranaos have the largest households, 12.8-15.3 persons. It is interesting to note that among the Maranaos, urban households are larger than rural households.

Household Composition The greatest majority of the households in all the ethnic groups in Indonesia (90-95 per cent) have only nuclear family units. (Households in Indonesia are also the smallest, after Singapore.) Again, the household composition in the other countries is more varied. In Malaysia and Thailand, a slight majority of all the ethnic groups are nuclear in composition, while among the remaining proportions, there are more joint/extended families with only one married couple than families with two or more couples. A slight contrast is found between the Malaysian 96

Malay, whose majority (70 per cent) are nuclear households, and the Thai Muslims and southern Thai Muslims, among whom (42-50 per cent and 40 per cent respectively) are joint families. But the greatest cant rast is posed by the Maranaos. Among this ethnic group, 70-78 per cent live in joint families with two couples or more. (The average household size for the Maranaos is 12.8-15.3 persons.) Modernization theory would lead one to expect more joint households in rural areas than in urban areas. But for many ethnic groups in ASEAN, this rura 1-u rban difference is not found. Only among the Chinese (in Malaysia and Thailand; but not in Singapore, Philippines, or Indonesia where there are no rural Chinese samples) is a substantial difference observed between rural and urban household composition. Furthermore, for the Thais, Thai Muslims, Bicolanos, and Ilocanos, a reverse situation is obtained. (The proportions of urban to rural joint households are: Thai, 47 per cent to 34 per cent; Thai Muslims, 51 per cent to 41 per cent; Bicolanos, 54 per cent to 24 per cent; Ilocanos, 61 per cent to 41 per cent.) Since the structure of households is closely related to the mode of organization of economic activities (as distinct from the culturally defined ideal household structure), one may hypothesize that the higher proportion of joint families in urban areas may be due to the alienation of land

MALAYSIA Chinese

Indian

Rural F

(238)

Urban M

(80)

F

(240)

Rural M

(80)

Urban M

F

(238)

(80)

M

F

(213)

(75)

6.8

7.6

6.9

7.1

5.8

6.5

7.3

7.3

4.9

5.4

4.9

5.5

3.7

4.2

6.1

5.8

42.0 18.9 1.7 12.6 24.8

83.8 3.8 7.5 5.0

50.8 19.6 2.5 8.8 18.3

76.3 10.0 1.3 5.0 7.5

10.5 7.1 17.2 19.3 45.8

43.8 18.8 18.8 8.8 10.0

31.9 9.9 27.7 11.7 18.8

66.7 8.0 13.3 5.3 6.7

61.8 38.2

67.5 32.5

65.0 35.0

56.3 43.8

73.5 26.5

82.5 17.5

79.3 20.7

69.3 30.7

74.4 25.6

83.8 16.3

75.0 25.0

78.8 21.3

72.7 27.3

90.0 10.0

84.5 15.5

89.3 10.7

3.6

3.4

3.7

3.3

3.7

2.6

3.2

2.6

2.6

2.0

2.4

2.1

1.7

1.7

1.9

1.6

o.o

TABLE 3.7 (cont 1 d) Education, Med t a Exposure, and Se If-eft I cacy PHI LIPPI NES Blcolano

Maranao

Rural

Urban

M

M

M

Education of Husband (Mean Years)

Rural

Urban

M

5.0

4.6

6.4

6.6

6.5

6.6

9.8

9.6

4.9

3.2

5.0

4.9

6.6

6.7

9.4

9.6

0.5 7.1 7.1 9.1 76.3 ( 198)

2.0 6.0 10.0 6.0 76.0 (50)

1.5 7.5 5.0 16.9 69.2 (201)

2.0 10.0 10.0 14.0 64.0 (50)

2.0 2.5 8.5 49.2 37.7 ( 199)

4.0 4.0 14.0 44.0 34.0 (50)

17.9 8.5 5.1 40.8 28.1 (196)

22.4 14.0 8.2 34.7 22.4 (49)

93.4 6.6 (198)

91.8 8.2 (49)

91.5 8.5 (199)

96.0 4.0 (50)

87.9 12.1 (199)

92.0 8.o (50)

84.2 15.8 (196)

87.8 12.2 (49)

1.0 99.0 (198)

2.0 98.0 (49)

5.0 95.0 (201)

2.0 98.0 (49)

9.0 91.0 (199)

10.0 90.0 (50)

44.9 55.1 (196)

40.8 59.2 (49)

GettIng ahead In II fe Is mostly a matter of luck

2.0

1.9

2.2

1.7

2.2

2.3

3.7

2.4

You feel you can contra I a lot of what happens In your life

2.9

2.9

3.3

2.2

2.4

1.9

2.6

1.9

EducatIon of Wife (Mean Years)

Frequency of ReadIng Newspaper Everyday Severa I times a week Once a week

Rarely Never

Total Listens to Rad to Regularly

Yes No

Total Watches TV Regularly

Yes No Total

TABLE 3,7 (cont 1 d)

PH I LIPPI NES Tagalog Rural

llocano

Ch lnese

M

F

M

M

F

M

7. 7

7.4

8.6

8.3

7,4

7,3

10.2

10.8

12.7

13.4

7.4

7.1

8.2

7.9

7.4

7.5

10.2

10.1

13.2

13,3

12.6 12,6 8,4 49,5 16,8 (190)

34.7 18,4 6,1 30.6 10,2 (49)

24.5 13.5 11,1 43,3 7, 7 (208)

36,7 36,7 10,2 14,3 2.0 (40)

4,5 1,5 10,0 38,0 46.0 (200)

6,3 10.4 39,6 43.8 (48)

16.5 11,5 11,0 47,0 14,0 (200)

35,5 19,3 1,9 28.8 13,5 (52)

78,4 8,1 3,6 9,0 0,9 (222)

88,4 9.3 1,2 1.2 (86)

65,8 34,2 ( 190)

60,0 40.0 (50)

74.0 26.0 (208)

68,0 32,0 (50)

17.5 82,5 (200)

22,9 77,1 (48)

25.5 74,5 (200)

26,9 73.1 (52)

38.7 61,3 (222)

36.0 64.0 (86)

62,1 37,9 ( 190)

54.0 46,0

73.6 26,4 (208)

66,0 34.0

19,6 80,4 (199)

22,9 77,1 (48)

46,5 53,5 (200)

42.3 57.7 (52)

76,1 23,9 (222)

75.6 24.4 (86)

(50)

M

Urban

Urban

Rural

Urben

(50)

1.6

1,5

1,9

1,9

1,8

1,8

2.4

2.5

2,6

2.6

3,0

2.8

3,2

3.0

2.3

2,3

2.1

1.8

2,6

2,3

TABLE 3.7 (cont 1 d) Education, Media Exposure, and Self-efficacy SINGAPORE Chinese Type A F

Education of Husband (Mean Years)

M

Type B F

M

11.8

10.6

9.9

8.8

Education of Wife (Mean Years)

6.5

7.4

5.8

9.4

Frequency of Reading Newspaper Everyday Several times a week Once a week Rarely Never

62.0 10.0 1.2 10.0 16.8

82.4 4.4 2.2 6.6 4.4

59.5 8.0 1.0 8.5 23.0

87.5 2.1

73.3 26.7

57.3 42.7

56.6 43.4

52.1 47.9

94.0 6.0

81.3 18.7

87.5 12.5

75.5 24.5

Listens to Radio Regularly Yes No

Watches TIJ Regularly Yes No

6.3 4.1

Getting ahead In life Is mostly a matter of luck

3.07

2.99

3.01

2.78

You feel you can control a lot of what happens to your II fe

3.43

3.65

3.31

3.71

TABLE 3.7 (cont 1 d)

SINGAPORE Malay Type A F

M

Indian Type B F

Type A

Type B

M

F

M

F

M

14.1

7.2

13.4

7.2

9.1

9.9

8.o

7.0

5.4

8.3

6. 1

5.8

6.4

6.5

5.8

6.9

53.8 13.0 2.8 5.3 25.1

67.0 11.0 3.0 13.0 6.0

67.9 10.2 1.5 7.7 12.8

89.6 2. 1 2.1 4.2 2.1

45.2 8.2 13.5 10.6 22.6

80.2 8.9 1.0 7.9 2.0

43.7 9.1 20.3 7.6 19.3

52.2 17.4 14.5 4.3 11.6

92.3 7.7

98.0 2.0

91.2 8.8

83.3 16.7

97.1 2.9

77.2 22.8

93.9 6.1

87.0 13.0

93.1 6.9

98.0 2.0

96.4 3.6

100.0

98.1 1.9

93.1 6.9

97.0 3.0

82.6 17.4

2.10

2.03

2.30

2.08

2.82

3.02

3.25

2.99

3.89

3.82

3.53

4.00

3.66

3.92

3.62

4.06

TABLE 3. 7 (cont'd) Education, Media ExpOSL're, and Se If-effIcacy

THAILAND ChInese

Thai

M

M

M

M

Urban

Rural

Urban

Rural

EducatIon of Husband (Mean Years)

6.60

7.30

8.92

9.49

7.55

7.51

8.55

8.63

Education of WIfe (Mean Years)

5. 51

5. 76

7.12

6.81

6.22

6.32

6.93

6.67

Frequency of ReadIng Newspaper

Everyday Se11eral times a week

Once a week Rarely Never

23.5 11.8 7.4 37.5 19.8

49.1 10.9 11.9 24.5 3.6

34.7 14.9 5.9 34.1 10.4

67.6 14.7 2.0 13.7 2.0

40.1 14.6 3.3 30.6 11.4

66.4 15.0 2.8 12.1 3. 7

53.1 14.8 3.5 18.2 10.4

68.6 11.4 1.9 7.6 10.5

63.5 36.5

70.0 30.0

58.2 41.8

64.7 35.3

46.6 53.4

57.9 42.1

42.5 57.5

47.6 52.4

44.9 55.1

47.3 52.7

62.2 37.8

55.9 44.1

56.7 43.3

62.6 37.4

66.7 33.3

64.8 35.2

LIstens to Radio Regularly

Yes No

Watches TV Regularly

Yes No

GeTting ahead in II fe Is mostly a matter of luck

2. 53

3.16

2. 77

3.23

2.69

3.06

2.93

3.03

2.46

2.46

2.38

2.03

2.32

2.09

2.44

2.22

You feel you can control a lot of what happens in your

II fe

TABLE 3.7 (cont 1 d)

THAILAND Thai-Mus II m Rural

Southern That-Muslim

Urban

Rural M

M

Urban M

M

EducatIon of Husband (Mean Years)

6.10

6.59

7.86

8.07

6.65

1.00

7.39

7.14

Education of Wife (Mean Years)

5.27

5.44

6.66

6.51

6.57

6.90

7.06

7.43

Frequency of ReadIng Newspaper Everyday Several times a week Once a week

Rarely Never

Listens to Radio Regularly Yes No

8.9 18.8 10.7

37.4 17.6 6.6 25.8 12.6

62.2 10.8 5.4 17.1 4.5

9.6 3.6 2.5 25.4 58.9

19.8 5.0 5.9 19.8 49.5

10.4 6.2 21.1 26.4 54.9

22.3 10.6 2.2 28.7 36.2

51.9 48.1

64.3 35.7

51.6 48.4

58.6 41.4

81.7 18.3

87.1 12.9

67.9 32.1

71.6 28.4

40.7 59.3

46.4 53.6

59.7 40.3

61.3 38.7

72. t 27.9

77.2 22.8

65.8 34.2

69.5 30.5

18.9 13.9 6.4 36.8 24.0

38.4

23.2

Watches TV Regularly

Yes No

Gettl ng ahead In life Is mostly a matter of luck

2.55

2.88

2. 70

3.06

2.60

2.30

2.65

2.73

You feel you can control a lot of what happens In your II te

2.42

2.14

2.34

2.21

2.44

2.47

2.65

2.59

Sense of Self-efficacy There are two statements related to the sense of self-efficacy. On a 5-poi nt sea 1e, a higher score indicates a stronger disagreement. The first statement is "Getting ahead in life is mostly a matter of luck". A higher score would mean a higher sense of self-efficacy, since the higher score indicates stronger disagreement. It can be seen from Table 3.7 that the Chinese in a 11 the ASEAN countries have the highest scores. Compared with the Chinese, the ethnic groups with the lowest scores are: Indonesia, the Bataks; Malaysia, the Malays; Philippines, the Tagalogs; Singapore, the Malays; and Thailand, the southern Thai Muslims. Interestingly, but rather inexplicably, the females have higher scores than males in Malaysia and Singapore, whereas they have lower scores than males in Indonesia and Thailand, while sex makes little difference in the Philippines. The most consistent rural-urban difference among males and females are found in Indonesia, where urban respondents have higher scores than rural respondents, in the expected direction. Another expected pattern is that of Thailand, where urban fema 1es have higher scores than rural females, although rural-urban residence makes 1ittle difference for the males, except among the southern Thai Muslims. Again, an inexplicable pattern is found in Malaysia, where for both men and women, rural samples have higher scores than urban samples. Comparing across countries, differences between ethnic groups would seem to be smallest in Singapore and Thailand (with ranges of 2.0-3.3 and 2.3-3.2 respectively), whereas Malaysia has the widest range (1.3-3.7). The second statement is "You feel you can control a lot of what happens in your life". A higher score for this statement wou 1d mean a 1ower sense of self-efficacy, s i nee a higher score indicates a stronger disagreement. It can be seen that the rankings of the groups within each country follow closely their reverse rankings on the previous statement, except in Malaysia. In all the four other countries, the Chinese have the lowest scores on the second statement. And those groups with the lowest on the first (the Bataks, the Tagalogs, the Singapore Malays, and the southern Thai Muslims). The situation in Malaysia happens to be the converse, which can be explained only if there has been some confusion in the coding. Relative to education and media exposure (which more generally reflect the level of socio-economic development of a country and of particular communities), comparison of ethnic groups on sense of self-efficacy is a much more complicated task. 120

The nature of the psychological phenomenon in itself is not yet fully understood, although some renowned sociologists consider it a very important component of the "modernity" complex. Sense of self-efficacy is related not only to (1) the level of education and personal motivation on the individual level, but is related also to (2) cultural/religious traditions on the national/community level, albeit the latter dimensions are often clouded by cultural stereotypes. (One such stereotype is the "hardworking Chinese".) (3) It is also related to an ethnic group's perception of its opportunity structure (social, economic, and political) within a particular country context. The combination of these three sets of factors may result in highly varying patterns of use by ethnic groups of their education, media knowledge, and cultural traditions as resources to advance their own group. In understanding ethnic differentials in fertility and contraceptive usage, psychological, cultural, and structural factors together with "ethnic fertility approval" need to be considered as a whole for each ethnic group.

Income and Assets Income and Income Adequacy Income figures (as means or mean income categories) are available for four of the five countries (except Indonesia). It can be seen from Table 3.8 that the Chinese have the highest incomes in all the four countries. In l'lalaysia, the Chinese are followed by the Malays and then Indians. In Singapore, the Chinese are followed by the Indians and Malays. In the Philippines, the income differential between the urban Chinese and the rural Ilocanos (the lowest) is as high as ten times. The Bicolanos fare only slightly better than the Ilocanos, while the Maranaos are second to the Chinese, and by comparison, have very high rural incomes. In Thailand, the Chinese are followed by the Thais, the Thai Muslims and then the southern Thai Muslims. For most ethnic groups in the four countries, urban incomes are higher than ru ra 1 incomes, except for the Tag a 1ogs and Ma ranaos; and for the Chinese in Malaysia and the southern Thai Muslims, rural-urban residence makes little or no difference for the husbands' incomes. In all cases, wives earn much less than husbands. The highest income differential between husbands and wives are found among the Tagalogs and the Maranaos. The majority of all

the ethnic groups, including those in 121

TABLE 3.8 1ncome and Assets INJONESIA Javanese

Rural

Sundenese

M

PerceIved Adequacy of Family Income Inadequate Just about adequate More than adequate Total Home OwnershIp Owns Rents Other

Total Number of Consumer Ourables Owned (Mean) Total

Rural

Urban M

Urban M

16.0 81.6 2.4 (206)

23.3 71.7 5.0 (60)

22.6 77.1 0.3 (301)

29.9 69.0 1.1 (81)

(198)

83.1 3.4 13.5 (207)

78.3 8.3 13.3 (60)

59.9 25.1 15.1 (299)

59.8 25.3 14.9 (87)

3.53 (207)

3.70 (60)

4.76 (301)

5.63 (87)

84.0 9.0 7.0

83.3 6.7 10.0

33.3

38.4 61.6

30.2 69.8

M

(43)

29.3 69.8 0.9 (351)

(53)

81.7 12.7 5.6 (197)

85.7 11.9 2.4 (42)

49.0 43.2 7.8 (347)

39.6 58.5 1.9 (53)

3.36 (198)

3.58 (43)

4.35 (352)

3.5; (53)

23.4 6.3 70.3

38.5 7. 7 53.8

22.6 77.4

Farm OwnershIp (Among Farmers only) Owner

Tenant

Hired labour Other Total Bus I ness OwnershIp Owns Does not ..9Wn

Total

(100)

(30)

24.2 75.8 (207)

15.0 85.0 (60)

66.7 (3)

22.6 77.4 (301)

(64)

23.0 77.0 (86)

28.8 71.2 (198)

(13)

34.9 65.1 (43)

100.0 100.0 (4)

(1)

21.3 78.7 (352)

17.0 83.0 (53)

TABLE 3.8 (cont 1 dl

INDONESIA

Rurel

Urben

Rurel

M

F

M

F

(52)

82.6 14.9 2.5 (201)

88.2 9.8 2.0 (51)

57.0 34.4 8.6 (291)

56.9 33.3 9.8 (51)

60.4 34.4 5.2 (283)

64.0 30.0 6.0 (50)

4.56 (203)

4.13 (52)

5.58 (291)

5.59 (51)

6.41 (283)

6.46 (50)

72.6 25.2 2.2

8o.o

100.0

( 135)

65.0 5.0 17.5 12.5 (40)

(5)

(I)

74.4 25.6 (203)

78.8 21.2 (52)

23.4 76.6 (291)

29.4 70.6 (51)

20.8 79.2 (283)

30.0 70.0

22.7 76.8 0.5 (203)

96.2 1.6 2.2 ( 185)

93.2 6.8 (44)

44.5 36.5 19.0 (263)

40.0 41.7 18.3 (60)

4.99 ( 187)

5.04 (45)

5.77 (263)

5.98 (60)

69.2 25.0 5.8

74.2 19.4 6.5 100.0

11.1 88.9 (45)

18.6 81.4 (263)

15.0 85.0 (60)

M

24.0 70.0 6.0 (50)

28.3 70.0 1.7 (60)

11.8 88.2 (187)

F

21.2 76.4 2.4 (283)

26.6 71.1 2.3 (263)

(I)

M

M

19.6 78.4 2.0 (51)

40.0 57.8 2.2 (45)

(31)

Urben

Urben

26.5 70.8 2. 7 (291)

44.6 54.3 1.1 (186)

(120)

Chinese

Betek

MI nengkebeu

30.8 69.2

20.0

(50)

TABLE 3~8 (cont 1 dl Income and Assets MALAYSIA Malay Rural

Total

Urban

F

M

F

M

(2391

(801

(239)

(801

Income of Husband (Mean in Local Currency)

378

502

Income of WIfe (Mean among Working Wives only, In Local Currency)

274

404

Perceived Adequacy of Family Income Inadequate Just about adequate More than adequate

41.0 54.8 4.2

33.8 66.3

Home Ownership Owns Rents Other Number of Consumer Durables Owned (Mean) Farm Ownership (among Farmers only) Owner Tenant Hired labourer Other Not applicable N.D. Business Ownership Owns Does not own

o.o

22.2 73.6 4.2

16.3 81.3 2.5

67.4 19.7 13.0

72.5 13.8 13.8

45.6 30.5 23.8

45.0 33.8 21.3

4.5

4.4

5.5

5.4

14.0 20.7 62.0 3.3 (87.9)

13.3 20.2 66.5

o.o

o.o

100.0

(81.3)

o.o 22.6 77.4

o.o

100.0

(99.6)

(92.5)

o.o

o.o o.o

26.3 73.8

18.8 81.2

23.8 76.3

TABLE 3.8 (cont 1 d)

MALAYSIA Chinese

Indian

Rural

Urban

Rural

Urban

F

M

F

M

F

M

F

M

(239)

(80)

(240)

(80)

(238)

(80)

(213)

(75)

618

615

302

504

271

313

213

347

47.1 48.7 4.2

27.5 62.5 10.0

41.3 50.4 8.3

26.3 63.8 10.0

52.1 45.0 2.9

61.3 37.5 1.3

32.9 63.8 3.3

36.0 56.0 8.0

47.9 25.6 26.5

32.5 26.3 41.3

34.2 54.2 11.7

38.8 52.5 8.8

10.9 7.6 81.5

8.8 10.0 81.3

28.2 39.9 31.9

21.3 41.3 37.3

6.6

6.9

6.7

6.8

4.2

4.4

5.5

5.4

50.0 50.0

o.o

o.o o.o

o.o o.o

33.3

o.o

o.o o.o

99.1

100.0

25.0 25.0 25.0

o.o

o.o

( 100.0)

( 56.3) 0.9

( 56.3)

(98. 1) 25.0

56.3 43.8

5.5 94.5

6.3 93.8

16.9 83. 1

31.2 26.6 34.9 7.3 (89. 1)

24.8 12.9 49.5 12.9 (90.0)

o.o 43.7 56.3

(99.2)

o.o 42.5 57.5

48.3 51.7

33.3 33.3 (96.0)

16.0 84.0

TABLE 3.8 Ccont 1 dl 1ncome end Assets

PHILIPPINES Meranao Rural

Urban M

Income of Husband !Mean In Loca I Currency l Income of WIfe (Mean Among Working Wives Only In Loca I Currency) Perceived Adequacy of Famll y Income Inadequate Just about adequate More than adequete Total Home OwnershIp Owns Rents

Others Total

Blcolano

F

Rural M

Urban M

M

4,171.42

3,695.65

982.47

1,709.29

234.16

172.86

125.34

367.92

9.6 63.6 26.8 (198)

22.0 56.0 22.0 (50)

31.8 57.7 10.4 !201)

24.0 68.0 8.0 (50)

50.8 43.7 5.5 (199)

78.3 2.0 19.7 (198)

78.0

60.0 14.0 26.0 (50)

92.5

92.0

22.0 (50)

53.8 11.6 34.7 !199)

7.5 (199)

2.0

2.4

2.2

2.1

32.8 8.1 3.0

45.8 10.4 2.1

3.0 0.5

4.0

56.1 (198)

41.7 (48)

96.5 (201)

39.9 60.1 (198)

22.0 78.0 (50)

60.2 39.8 (201)

50.0 50.0

50.5 42.9 6.6 (196)

42.9 55.1 2.0 (49)

8.0 (50)

75.5 12.8 11.7 (196)

79.6 10.2 10.2 (49)

2.1

2.3

3.3

2.9

28.0 40.0 10.0 2.0 20.0 (50)

1.5 0.5

4.1 2.0

96.0 (50)

17.6 36.2 14.6 1.5 30.2 (199)

98.0 (196)

93.9 (49)

54.0 46.0 (50)

13.1 86.9 (199)

4.0 96.0 (50)

21.9 78.1 ( 196)

20.4 79.6 (49)

o.o (50)

Number of Consumer Ourables

Owned (Mean) Farm OwnershIp Owner Tenant

Hired labourer Other Non-farmer Total Bus I ness OwnershIp

Owns Does not own

Total

TABLE 3,8 (cont 1 d)

PHILIPPINES Tagalog Rural

llocano Urban

F

M

Rurell M

2,225.34

952.97

253.76

428.12

323.36

26.5 73.5

32.0 68,0

Urban M

3,053.97

Chinese

F

Urban M

1,542.46

M

10,749.93

40,545

512.47

(189)

(50)

31.1 67.9 1.0 (209)

84.7 3.2 12.2 (189)

94.0 2.0 4,0 (50)

76.9 9,6 13.5 (208)

78.0 10.0 12.0 (50)

79,5 3.0 17.5 (200)

77.1 4,2 18.8 (48)

62.0 19.0 19.0 (200)

76.9 9.6 13,5 (52)

28.1 71.0 0.9 (221)

22.4 74.4 1.2 (86)

2,8

2.4

3.2

3.1

2.8

3.3

4.8

4. 7

8.3

8.4

2.1 10.0 11.0

4.0 18.0 8,0

0.5 1,0 0,5

14,5 22.9

4.5 3.0

5.8

76.8 (190)

70.0 (50)

98,1 (209)

2.0 98.0 (50)

11,0 16,5 3,0 5.0 64.5 (200)

62.5 (48)

1.0 91,5 (200)

92.3 (52)

100.0 (221)

100.0 (86)

16.4 83,6 (189)

12.0 88.0

19.1 80.9 (208)

20.0 80.o (50)

25,5 74.5 (200)

20.8 79.2 (48)

31.2 68.8 (199)

30.8 69,2 (52)

56,3 43.7 (222)

68.6 31.4 (86)

(50)

26.0 74,0 o.o (50)

24.7 61.3 14,0 (199)

27.1 70.8 2.1 (48)

19,6 66.8 13.6 ( 199)

19.2 76.9 3.8 (52)

7. 7 75.7 16.7 (222)

8.2 69.4 22.4 (85)

TABLE 3.8 (cont'dl Income and Assets SINGAPORE Chinese Type B

Type A F

Perceived Adequacy of Family Income Inadequate Just about adequate Home Ownership Owns Rents Other Number of Consumer Ourables Owned (Mean) Business Ownership Owns Does not own

F

4.24

Income of Husband (Mean Category) Income of Wife (Among Working Wives only, Mean Category)

M

M

4.26

2.82

3.03

9.2 78.8

13.2 73.6

8.5 82.5

12.2 69.4

48.0 52.0

53.8 46.2

59.3 40.2 0.5

63.3 36.7

6.9

7.0

7.2

7.3

11.6 88.4

15.4 84.6

24.0 76.0

12.2 87.8

TABLE 3.8 (cont 1 d)

SINGAPORE Indian

Malay Type A F

M

Type B F

2.98

2.11

M

Type A F

3.16

2.22

M

Type B F

3.48

3.28

2.30

M

2.15

6.1 85.8

8.1 75.8

5.6 88.3

12.5 83.3

8.7 62.0

3.0 60.0

11.2 65.0

15.9 58.0

29.6 70.4

36.0 64.0

66.8 33.2

93.8 6.2

39.6 59.9 0.5

43.6 54.5 1.9

26.4 73.6

7.2 92.8

6.2

6.0

6.5

6.7

6.1

6.6

5.9

5.9

5.7 94.3

3.0 97.0

7.1 92.9

8.3 91.7

6.3 93.7

8.9 91.1

5.6 94.4

5.8 94.2

TABLE 3.8 (cont 1 d) Income and Assets

THAILAND Ch lnese

Thai

Rura I M

Income of Husband (Mean Category)

Urban

Rural

Urban

M

M

M

5.89

7.15

9.90

11.33

2. 18

2. 75

1.66

2.61

Income of Wife (among Working Wives On I y, Mean Category) Perceived Adequacy of Family Income Inadequate

Just about adequate More than adequate

45.0 50.3 4. 7

40.0 59.1 0.9

44.0 50.8 5.2

39.2 58.8 2.0

27.4 64.5 8.1

26.1 69.2 4. 7

36.2 57.5 6.3

31.7 59.6 8. 7

59.3 31.1 9.6

62.7 28.2 9.1

37.2 47.7 15. I

37.2 46.1 16.7

57.3 33.3 9.4

48.6 43.9 7.5

40.6 52.8 6.6

42.9 51.4 5. 7

Home Ownership

Owns Rents

Other Number of Consumer Durables Owned

.01) (-.00) (

.03 .12

.026

Beta

• 15 .10 .03

(

Covarlates

NOTES:

Eta

.02 .oa (-.02)

.061

TABLE 5.3.2 (cont 1 d)

INDONESIA Beta

Eta

.14 .10 .02

• 12 .05 .01

Eta

• 14 .02

.04 .01 .07)

.32 .03

Beta

.10

• 14

• 12 .06

.02

.oo

Eta

Beta

.18 .12 .02