Comparative Growth of Malay, Chinese and Indian School Children in Malaysia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
COMPARATIVE GROWTH OF MALAY, CHINESE AND INDIAN SCHOOL CHILDREN IN MALAYSIA S.T. CHEN Department of Paediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. INTRODUCTION Chinese medium, one Tamil' medium and one English medium school) in and around Kua The growth of children is influenced by a la Lumpur were surveyed. Altogether 3,312 number of factors. For example, in Hong children, aged 6 to 11 years, were examined. kong (Chang et al., 1963), Malaysia (McKay et aI., 1971) India, (Banik et aI., 1970), Jamai The dates of birth of the children were ca (Ashcroft and Lovell, 1964), South Africa obtained from birth certificates and the age of (Abramson, 1959), U.S.A. (Abraham et al., each child was calculated therefrom. The 1975) and England (Acheson et al., 1954), household incomes and occupations of the children of richer parentage have been shown parents and the number of living siblings were to be bigger than those of the poor. Genetic obtained by interviewing parents or obtained factors may also be important and children of from returns of questionaires and the school different ethnic groups often do not possess registers. Weight, height, left triceps skinfold the same growth potential. thickness, left arm circumference and head circumference were all measured. However, In Peninsular Malaysia, the three main only the results of weights and heights will be ethnic groups are Malays (53 %), Chinese presented in this paper. (36%) and Indians (11%) (Malaysia, 1974a). In general, the methods of measurements The Chinese are mainly of southern Chinese used were those suggested by Jelliffe (1966). origin while the Indians are of southern India Children were weighed on an A very beam origin. Millis (1958) found that the growth balance accurate to an ounce. They were achievement of the Malay, Chinese and In lightly clad with standard thin cotton school dian preschool children from low income uniform. Measurements were read to the families in Singapore, were. rather similar last complete ounce. The height was meas during the preschool age period, although the ured by means of the Microtoise which is Indians were taller and lighter at 5 years of manufactured in France. The child without age. However, very little is known regarding shoes was positioned in the standard manner the comparative growth achievement of the (Jelliffe, 1966) below the Microtoise. The three ethnic groups in Malaysia. head piece was then brought to rest on top of The objective of this study was to compare the head and the reading taken direct at the the growth achievement ofthe Malay, Chinese visor hairline and to the last complete 0.1 cm. and Indian school children in an urban area in Malaysia. Means and standard deviations of weights and heights at the various age groups for boys and girls of the 3 ethnic groups were obtained MATERIALS AND METHODS with the aid of a computer. From February to April, 1972, five pri These means are plotted at the mid point of mary schools (two Malay medium, one the yearly age intervals as shown in Figs 1, 2, 3 Vol. 7 No. 3 September 1976 443 SOUTHEAST ASIAN J. TROP. MED. PUB. HLTH. and 4. In Fig. 1 and Fig. 2 are shown the mean come levels are presented: monthly income weight and height curves of Hong Kong M$300 and above and less than M$300 (the Chinese (Chang, 1965) for comparison. Pre average monthly household income in Ma sented with Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are mean weight laysia being M$275) (Malaysia, 1974b). and height curves of Boston children (Nelson, 1966) for comparison. Growth curves were The mean monthly household incomes of drawn with minimal smoothing. the lower income children (less than M$300 per month) are as follows: Chinese M$211, RESULTS Malays M$163 and Indians M$130. This difference is statistically significant (p < 0.01). The frequency distribution of children The mean household income of the lower according to ethnic group, sex and income is income Indian is below the poverty level shown in Table 1. which is $140 per month (Malaysia, 1974b). The parents of the children with household Socio-economic background of the study incomes of less than M$300 were mainly un children skilled and semiskilled workers while those with M$300 or more were skilled workers, Income : Of the three ethnic groups, clerks, professionals and businessmen. the Indians were the poorest, the Malays were better off, while the Chinese had the Siblings: Table 2 shows the mean number highest income. The majority of the Indian of living siblings (excluding the studied child) children (75%) came from families with a by ethnic group and income level. It can be total monthly household income of less than seen that the family size of the Indians was the M$200/-per month (US$l = M$2.5). For largest, followed by the Malays while the purposes of comparison two groups of in Chinese was the smallest. This difference is 70 BOYS GIRLS r 70 65 65 60 60 Vl vi CD CD ...J 55 55 ...J Z ~ I 50 50 l I (!) ~ UJ 45 45 UJ ~ ~ 40 ~ - CHINESE --- MALAY ;/ ••••••• INDIAN 35 -- HONG KONG CHINESE 30 l:: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AGE IN YEARS Fig. I-Mean weights of Malaysian children of various ethnic groups and of Hongkong Chinese. 444 Vol. 7 No.3 September 1976 WEIGHTS AND HEIGHTS OF MALAYSIAN SCHOOL CHILDREN 140 BOYS GIRLS 140 130 130 :i 3 u ~ ~ l- I :I: :I: c.!) c.!) UJ UJ :I: 120 120 :I: -Chinese --- Malay ••••••• Indian -- Hong Kong Chinese 7 110 1 ~ 110 I I 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AGE IN YEARS Fig. 2-Mean heights of Malaysian children of various ethnic groups and of Hongkong Chinese. 85 l BOYS GIRLS r 85 I , I 80 l /. I I- 80 75 l /' i f- 75 /' /. I 70 l I f- 70 /' .. ... / . .'. vi ~ 65 .. 65 co ... ....J ....J / .' / 0. /' .. / 0 60 Z Z 60 . / / .'. / l- / . / / I- :I: . ....... / :I: ~ 55 / / / 55 52 0 / UJ l.L.l .. / / ;!: / / . ;!: .... / 50 50 ... / / . / ... / .0 / //~/ .' 45 l / .... f- 45 / / ..... / .' _._ Boston ~/ 40 -l / .... _ Chinese upper income f- 40 /,/ __ Chinese lower income ___ Malay upper income ___ Malay lower Income f- 35 35 -l ••••••• Indian upper income ......... Indian lower income 30 +---r 30 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AGE IN YEARS Fig. 3-Mean weights of Malaysian children of various ethnic groups and income levels and of Boston children. Vol. 7 No.3 September 1976 445 SOUTHEAST ASIAN J. TROP. MED. PUB. HLTH. 150 l BOYS GIRLS 150 . / / / / I 140 1./ I 140 / ./ .... I. ~ /.. I .... / ....1 ::i U • •• I. ..' / •• 1·/ U / / •• •• " -"j z . ~ / ~ z 130 -. / ••• /, .. '/ 130 l- j: / . .... ~ ..;1 I ~ ~ I~ ~ ~ lLJ r··lLJ /.... /. .. ••• .../// r .. ... .../ . /. "/ ' / ) / , . , ~ 120 ~ .• / ..... I " 120 -.- Boston • l - Ch~nese upper .income /..(. -- Chinese lower Income /..... --- Malay upper Income / .... --- Malay lower Income / .... •••• ••• Ind Ian upper Income / .... Indian lower income / .... 11 0 I 110 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 AGE IN YEARS Fig. 4-M")an heights of Malaysian children of various ethnic groups and income levels and of Boston children. Table 1 Frequency distribution of school children according to ethnic group, sex and income. Monthly household Malay Chinese Indian Total Grand ------ income (M$) Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Total Less than 300 415 550 308 306 312 372 1,035 1,228 2,263 300 and above 78 77 429 370 42 53 549 500 1,049 Total 493 627 737 676 354 425 1,584 1,728 3,312 Table 2 Mean number of living siblings of school children by ethnic group and income. Monthly household Mean no. of living siblings income (M$) Malay Chinese Indian 300 and above 4.1 3.7 3.3 Less than 300 4.8 4.1 5.3 All income groups 4.7 3.9 5.1 446 Vol. 7 No. 3 September 1976 -- { WEIGHTS AND HEIGHTS OF MALAYSIAN SCHOOL CHILDREN statistically significant (p < 0.05). The resuIts from higher income families were as heavy also show that the family size of the poorer and as tall as the higher income Chinese children was bigger than that of the higher in children shows that the growth potential of come children (p < 0.05). the Indian is similar to that of the Chinese. The growth retardation of the Malays and the Weights and heights Indians was most probably due to poverty. The means and standard deviations for The poor families had poor nutrition, bad weights and heights at yearly age intervals for living conditions, poor hygiene and health care boys and girls of the three ethnic groups are and suffered from poor health. Chen and listed in Table 3. Dugdale (1972), in a survey of school children in three of the schools included in this study, For both boys and girls, the Malaysian found that the Indian children suffered from Chinese were heavier and taller than the more ill health than the Malays while the Malays, Indians and the Hongkong Chinese. Chinese were the healthiest of the three. Not • The mean weights and heights of the Malays, only were the Indians poorest among the Indians and the Hongkong Chinese were three ethnic groups, but they also had the rather similar except that the Malays were largest family size which further compounds slightly heavier (Figs. 1 and 2). the problem of poverty. Guzman (1973) has Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 show that the higher shown that malnutrition and excessive family income children were heavier then the lower size are associated.