The Data Protection Act is concerned with the fair and lawful processing of personal data. Sensitive data is recognised under European and domestic law, and the conditions for processing such data are listed in the Data Protection Act.
Legally, express consent means that respondents have authorised their data to be processed for the purposes that they have been informed about. This will assist with compliance with the first principle of the Data Protection Act. If there are plans to share sensitive data, there is a responsibility to ensure that all parties processing the data are aware of the responsibilities and duties under the Data Protection Act, and that this is part of a formal data access agreement.
Following the Race Equality Advisory Forum in and concerns by some communities in Scotland about the classifications used in the Census, the Scottish Government and the General Register Office for Scotland worked together to conduct a review. This review came with specific requirements for the ethnicity classification for Scotland, which was subsequently discussed by Members of the Scottish Parliament and amended for use on the Scottish Census. Since ethnicity is a multifaceted and changing phenomenon, various possible ways of measuring ethnic groups are available and have been used over time.
What seems to be generally accepted, however, is that ethnicity includes all these aspects, and others, in combination. This has limited reliability and has become increasingly less relevant when used on its own as the proportion of ethnic minority individuals born in the UK has increased and also because it includes children born abroad to British-born parents.
Some host countries use nationality as their primary criterion, implying that migrants renounce their ethnicity once they have qualified for citizenship. However, it is clear that many of the disadvantages and other experiences associated with ethnic minority status continue long after naturalisation has been completed.
For some minority ethnic groups, language spoken at home may be an effective way of defining ethnicity. Such a question has been commonly asked in large national surveys of minority ethnic groups, not only to identify members of the minority but also to permit the matching of interviewer with respondent in cases where the interview is conducted in the indigenous language. But, as time goes on, this measure is becoming increasingly less useful: with the emergence of the second and third generations, young families may use English as their main language, even though they still identify with particular minority ethnic groups.
Skin colour is an option for considering ethnic group. A question may include aspects of national or geographical origin, with the assumption that these help to identify ethnic groups. For example, the terms West Indian or Indian are taken as shorthand terms for members of ethnic groups originating in those parts of the world.
A further development has been to combine national or geographical origin with a colour term such as Black, as in Black-African, to identify more precisely which group is being referred to for people originating from a part of the world which is itself multi-ethnic, such as sub-Saharan Africa.
One of the important defining characteristics for some ethnic minorities is their religion. Some commentators think that the religious dimension should be recognised more explicitly. Collecting data on ethnic group is complex because of the subjective, multifaceted and changing nature of ethnic identification. There is no consensus on what constitutes an ethnic group and membership is something that is self-defined and subjectively meaningful to the person concerned.
The terminology used to describe ethnic groups has changed markedly over time, and however defined or measured, tends to evolve in the context of social and political attitudes or developments. Ethnic group is also very diverse, encompassing common ancestry and elements of culture, identity, religion, language and physical appearance.
This guidance highlights some of the complexities that need to be considered when collecting and classifying data on ethnic group. In the main, it provides advice on how to ask questions on ethnic group and how to present data from surveys using the recommended harmonised country-specific questions for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
The are some differences in the questions because of the requirements of the constituent countries, and where this has implications for producing GB and UK outputs, these issues are highlighted. It is recognised that not all GB- or UK-wide surveys will have the resources required to ask different questions in different countries. In these rare situations, it is recommended that the England and Wales question be used in Scotland.
When this choice is made, a full UK and GB output can be produced. The recommended ethnic group question for use on surveys came out of a 2-year cross-government consultation programme that wanted to harmonise data collection to enable consistency and comparability of data.
It is recommended that the following question be used:. In a survey, respondents are invited to select, from a list of categories, the ethnic group to which they consider they belong. There appear to be 2 factors determining the ethnic group that is recorded for each respondent:. The first consideration is the most straightforward; the ethnic group that each person chooses as his or her own is intrinsically the ethnic group of self-identity, rather than being ascribed by anyone else. The second consideration is apparently not so clear-cut.
The ethnic group options presented to the respondent are not completely ones of self-identity, since the respondent is likely to have had no say in the names or the number of the different alternative ethnic groups presented to them.
Therefore, the freedom the respondent has to select their own group is constrained and influenced by the options presented to them. A category is used to assign data reported or measured for a particular situation according to shared characteristics.
We use them to ensure consistent description and comparison of statistics. Categories allow us, in an accurate and systematic way, to arrange our data according to common features, so that the resulting statistics can be easily reproduced and are able to be compared over time and between different sources. When collecting GB or UK data, the format of the question will vary slightly, depending on whether data is being collected in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Each of the constituent countries has different requirements that have led in some instances to the use of different terminology and different questions.
Therefore, if producing outputs for surveys with GB or UK coverage and using the Scotland harmonised country-specific questions, response categories can only be aggregated and presented at the main-level category because of the variations in the questions being asked. Mixed Multiple ethnic groups: there is no category breakdown for the country-specific question in Scotland; there are no suggested categories as opposed to the other countries, where there are options.
When collecting GB or UK data, the format of the question will vary slightly depending on whether the data is being collected in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. Since each of the constituent countries has different requirements, the use of different terminology and different questions is unavoidable to ensure that data from surveys is comparable with that from their censuses.
Therefore, if producing outputs for surveys with GB or UK coverage and using the Scotland harmonised country-specific questions, response categories should be aggregated and presented at the main-level category, and it will be necessary to explain differences in footnotes see data presentation for details.
It is recommended that the ethnic group question will be asked in a way that allows the respondent to see all possible response options before making their decision. Therefore, in face-to-face interviewer-led surveys, a single show card should be used that presents all response options. The interviewer should then ask the respondent to select the option that best describes their ethnic group or background. Similarly, a self-completion survey e. This should be in non-bold font.
These instructions should also be included on paper-based surveys. Below is the recommended country-specific ethnic group question for use in England. This question is recommended when a show card is used in a face-to-face interview or self-completion survey both paper and electronic. Irish 3. Gypsy or Irish Traveller 4. Any other White background, please describe. White and Black Caribbean 6. White and Black African 7.
White and Asian 8. Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi Chinese Any other Asian background, please describe. African Caribbean Below is the recommended country-specific ethnic group question for use in Wales. Below is the recommended country-specific ethnic group question for use in Scotland. This question has been developed to enable direct comparison with the Scottish Census and other sources in Scotland.
Scottish 2. Other British 3. Irish 4. Polish 6. Any other White ethnic group, please describe. Pakistani, Pakistani Scottish or Pakistani British 9. Indian, Indian Scottish or Indian British Bangladeshi, Bangladeshi Scottish or Bangladeshi British Chinese, Chinese Scottish or Chinese British Any other Asian, please describe. Caribbean, Caribbean Scottish or Caribbean British Black, Black Scottish or Black British Any other Caribbean or Black, please describe.
Footnotes should be included to explain the differences in the data collection. Where it is not feasible to ask the recommended country-specific Scotland ethnic group question, the recommended question for England and Wales should be used. Ensure that the Scottish option is first in the response categories. See below:. Below is the recommended country-specific ethnic group question for Northern Ireland. This question is recommended when a show card is used in a face-to-face interview or self-completion survey, both paper and electronic.
Note that the harmonised ethnic group question for Northern Ireland is different to that used in the Census of population in Northern Ireland. The Census question had fewer categories, although the harmonised question aggregates to the same categories.
Census Office took a conscious decision not to use terminology such as British Black, as it was felt this would have needed to be counterbalanced with Irish Black in a Northern Ireland context. With limited space, Census Office omitted this terminology. White and Black Caribbean 4. White and Black African 5. White and Asian 6. Indian 8. Pakistani 9. The use of a show card is not possible on the telephone; therefore the question should be asked in 2 stages because of its length.
The recommended stages are presented below as part 1 and part 2. I will read out the options; choose one option that best describes your ethnic group or background In England and Wales Interviewer to read options: 1. White, or 2. Chinese, or 6.
Arab, or 7. Other ethnic group In Scotland Interviewer to read options: 1. White or 2. Mixed or Multiple Ethnic group, or 3. Asian or Asian Scottish or Asian British, or 4. African or 5.
Caribbean or Black or 6. Arab or 7. Other ethnic group In Northern Ireland Interviewer to read options: 1. Irish Traveller, or 3. Chinese, or 7. Arab, or 8. Irish, or 3. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience. Necessary Necessary. Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics". The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary". The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance". It does not store any personal data. Functional Functional. Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance Performance. Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors. Analytics Analytics. Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. Political representation reflected the new, institutionalized Malay dominance, as the Alliance became BN, dominated by UMNO but including a larger range of parties. Malay political power became not a responsibility earned at the ballot box, but an entitlement to be protected.
The state became the driver of the domestic economy, investing heavily in infrastructure, expanding government-linked companies, and increasing overall spending, aided by discoveries of oil and gas deposits. A by-product of this spending was greater corruption and cronyism, and state resources and positions became a fount of patronage for the parties in power. During this period, elite ethnic polarization also became increasingly linked to religious divisions. During the s, as political freedoms were tightened, the only major arena left for political mobilization was religion, a space filled by students engaged in a global Islamic revival.
To offset opposition from Islamists, in the early s, the BN government, led by Mahathir Mohamad, coopted the Islamist student leader Anwar Ibrahim. Ever since, cooperation between Malay nationalists and Islamists has happened regularly, with racial and religious divisions reinforcing one another. The predominantly Chinese Democratic Action Party DAP largely represents non-Malays, champions secularism, and implicitly calls for reforms of the unchecked privileges of the Malay-oriented state.
Elections between and thus pitted two starkly polarized alternatives and elite visions of Malaysia against each other. For most of this period, the overwhelming majority of the electorate stayed loyal to the incumbent government, as BN delivered robust economic growth. The economic contraction provoked elite competition within UMNO and a challenge against prime minister Mahathir, led by his own deputy, the former student leader Anwar.
In , Anwar was arrested and tried for corruption and sodomy in a politically motivated trial. The movement transformed the opposition by moving it toward the center and enabling new electoral alliances among the previously fragmented opposition parties.
This diverse coalition began to win elections from onward, initially taking control of two state governments. As the opposition gained traction in the center, BN began losing popular support and turned to polarizing tactics to compensate. As UMNO disengaged from its political roots as a mass-membership party and became a vehicle for its elites, it relied ever more on racialized rhetoric.
He even argued that reform would threaten businesses tied to the patronage machine. Although Najib had managed to hold onto power in despite losing the popular vote, in , BN lost power for the first time. He joined in , leading a new Malay race-based party along with then former deputy prime minister Muhyiddin Yassin, who had been sacked for raising concerns about 1MDB in In February , after less than two years in power, the PH government dramatically collapsed, destabilized by internal divisions.
As prime minister, Mahathir was unable or unwilling to leave behind racial politics, respond to criticisms that he was selling out Islam to the secularists, and engage in meaningful reform. Furthermore, even though personality differences between Mahathir and Anwar and disagreements over power sharing fueled acrimony, it was the deeply entrenched divisions over governance that severed, distracted, and delegitimized PH.
In by-elections, the two parties tapped into Malay resentments over ethnic displacement, stoked antireform resistance, and called for the protection of Islam. Ultimately, they united with disgruntled, less reform-oriented factions within PH to form a new coalition, the National Alliance Perikatan Nasional, or PN , which took power in March Muhyiddin, formerly an UMNO deputy prime minister and home minister in the PH government, became prime minister at the head of a Malay ethnonationalist government.
PN was not elected, opting to come to power through the back door with support from those who argued that power should be overwhelmingly in Malay hands. Casting itself as a Malay-dominant, pro-Islamist protector, PN sustains itself by appealing to all three main divisions in society. Yet PN has an untested, razor-thin majority in parliament and comprises parties that are competing for the same slice of the electorate.
Arguably having risen to power by stoking polarization, Muhyiddin is now grappling firsthand with its consequences, even as he faces a historic national crisis: the coronavirus pandemic.
Yet polarization has remained close to the surface during the pandemic. As xenophobic sentiments have increased, foreign workers and refugees have become a proxy for race-based anger. Large religious gatherings have also been blamed for spreading the virus, often through hostile and otherizing lenses.
Some observers are critical of them as a waste of public resources in a time of need; others regard them as entitlements necessary for political stability. In fact, the virus is already showing signs of becoming a new arena for political jockeying. The period has seen controversial, politicized appointments in government-linked companies, which have undercut governance reforms, as well as the dismissal of criminal charges against those seen to be engaged in corruption under UMNO rule.
Over the past twenty years, Malaysia has witnessed intensive mobilization around polarizing divisions by elites aiming to both hold on to and win power. Political contests have become zero-sum games that have normalized a destructive takedown political culture. The state continues to serve as a vehicle for elite patronage, even plunder. As political parties lose ground in the center, they return to polarizing rhetoric and mobilization to secure their bases.
When elites reach accommodation on these issues to win broader public support, enduring divisions hamper cooperation in office, foster public anger and distrust among their core supporters, and ultimately contribute to political instability. They involve deep socioeconomic changes that have contributed to different outlooks within Malaysian society. The growth of the middle class also supported an expansion of civil society, which mobilized around issues such as corruption, electoral reform, and human rights.
Ironically, the economic changes that BN brought about strengthened the opposition and thereby intensified political competition.
0コメント