Misuse of population projections: Stateless Indians in Malaysia

Written by Datuk R. Chander, CPIAsiaFriday, 08 June 2012 12:58

Commentary

Dr Paraman Subramaniam has responded at great length to my note of May 7th. He has reasserted that there are 450,000 stateless Indians in the country at this point in time. While acknowledging that there is a need to undertake deeper research by using the population census results and current population statistics maintained by the Department of Statistics as per my suggestion in the earlier note, he continues to rely on the approach adopted by Hindraf in arriving at their estimate of 450,000 stateless persons of Indian origin. He makes several points that require a response.

It will be recalled that the Hindraf calculations, which Dr Paraman subscribes to and defends, start by using the 20-year population projections published by the Department of Statistics in 1974. These projections are compared with the outcome of the 1991 Census of Population. Hindraf then uses the difference (a shortfall in the case of the projections for Indians) to represent the number that is deemed stateless. This number is then extrapolated to the present to obtain the estimate of 450,000.

Dr Paraman pointedly raises the issue as to how the projected numbers were close to the 1991 Census counts for Malays and Chinese but not so in the case of Indians. He goes on to chastise me for not responding to this divergence in outcomes between the estimates for the different ethnic groups. He fails to appreciate that the demographic patterns for the three communities differed over the period from 1970 to 1990. The trends for the Indian component of the population differed more sharply from the assumed rates embodied in the projections. There was as such no “error” in the projections for Indians.

Dr Paraman appears not to have understood the nature of population projections and their limitations. The projections prepared in 1974 followed international best practice and the methods recommended by the United Nations Population Division in its manuals¹ .Zero migration was assumed as there was no real basis to make realistic assumptions; in reality there was migration over the 20-year period. Thus the numbers shown by the projections are not comparable to the population counts shown by subsequent censuses.

A succinct description of the nature of population projections is provided on the site of Statistics New Zealand, the national statistical agency² of New Zealand:

“Nature of projections
Demographic projections are designed to meet both short-term and long-term planning needs, but are not designed to be exact forecasts or to project specific annual variation. These projections are based on assumptions made about future fertility, mortality, and migration patterns of the population. Although the assumptions are carefully formulated to represent future trends, they are subject to uncertainty. Therefore, the projections should be used as guidelines and an indication of the overall trend, rather than as exact forecasts.”

The same website makes the further point that projections are neither predictions nor forecasts. They provide an indication of possible future changes in the size, growth rate, and age-sex structure of the population ….. 
there is no certainty that any of the assumptions will be realized. (Emphasis added).

If further clarity is needed, I refer Dr Paraman to the Report of the Technical Group on Population Projections Constituted by the National Commission on Population³  issued by the Registrar General, Government of India, which made the following comment: 

“Summary of findings
Population projection is a scientific attempt to peep into the future population scenario, conditioned by making certain assumptions, using data relating to the past available at that point of time. Assumptions used and their probability of adhering in future, forms a critical input in this mathematical effort. Predicting the future course of human fertility and mortality is not easy, especially when looking beyond in time as medical and health intervention strategies, food production and its equitable availability, climatic variability, socio-cultural setting, politico economic conditions and a host of other factors influence population dynamics, making it difficult to predict the growth with certainty. Therefore, caution must be exercised while making or using the population projections in the context of various conditions imposed.”

It should be patently clear that the approach used by Hindraf, and advocated and defended by Dr Paraman, does not take of these aspects; thus the calculations leading to the estimate 450,000 do not stand up to scrutiny. There is a sense of double jeopardy in that not only is it inappropriate to use the Population Projections in the manner used by Hindraf in this particular instance, but the error is further compounded by then taking the base figure (the difference between the projections and the actual 1991 Census count) and extrapolating it to 2011 or 2012.

Dr Paraman has included in his note a range of other demographic indicators and tables for the period until 1984. These are presumably taken from Professor Saw Swee Hock’s book.

Two points can be made. Firstly, it is far from clear how these statistics are linked to the Hindraf estimates. Secondly, it is puzzling why Dr Paraman stops in the year 1984. He could have easily updated these tables by accessing published reports issued by the Department of Statistics. The case he attempts to make would be more credible were he to use updated numbers from the Censuses of 1991, 2000, 2010 and the annually published demographic statistics. Thus far, to the best of my knowledge, neither Hindraf nor Dr Paraman appear to have taken this path.

Dr Paraman goes on to cite various estimates of the stateless. He quotes Anwar Ibrahim’s reference to a figure of least 300,000 stateless Indians. It would indeed be interesting to establish the basis for this number or is this a re-cycled Hindraf estimate?

He then goes on to refer to the statement by Senator Dr. S. Ramakrishnan that there were 55,758 Malaysian-born red card identity holders in the country. Dr Paraman’s suspicion is that a high percentage of these are likely to be Indians. He makes the point that there are a further 21,456 from India who also held red identity cards. He highlighted that the National Registration Department (NRD) recently disclosed that there are 43,000 Indians, born in Malaysia, who have not applied for their MyKad.

Two points emerge. None of the numbers cited are even close to the figure of 450,000 used by Hindraf and Dr Paraman. Second, Dr Paraman gives no indication of his stand in respect of these numbers nor does he attempt a reconciliation between these numbers and the figure of 450,000.

The cause of the stateless population is ill served by use of numbers that are based on spurious calculations that have little foundation but rely on assumptions and notions of conspiracies. The cause would be far better served by engaging in a rigorous examination of all available data and establishing the truth. Respectfully, I have yet to have an indication that Dr Paraman is willing to take the lead in engaging in such a task. I repeat my earlier call for a thorough and rigorous examination of all of the data that exists.

The writer is former Chief Statistician of Malaysia

 

1 Manual III. Methods for population projections by sex and age
2 http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/NationalPopulationProjections_HOTP09base-61/Technical%20Notes.aspx
3 http://nrhm-mis.nic.in/UI/Public%20Periodic/Population_Projection_Report_2006.pdf