More or less correct, but it's not exactly clear whether they're counting,
for example, the 1/3 of Malaysians who can read Chinese in both their
Chinese and Bahasa Malaysia statistics (which they should, and it looks
like they may). And even so, it's not clear what they consider to be a
"native speaker" in terms of proficiency level.
--Chris
This is "estimation". And their estimation method have been publish in their web site. You are welcome to find better research result. It is usually not worthy to come out a very clear number anyway since those number obsolete every 2-3 monthes.
If you think you can do a better job than these marketing professional, you are welcome to write your own page. I simply trust their number after I look at their source.
I do believe the estimation may have error in it. It is estimation anyway. But how much and does those error matter. For example, if you look at
http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/my.html
"Ethnic groups:
Malay and other indigenous 58%, Chinese 24%, Indian 8%, others 10% (2000)
Languages:Bahasa Melayu (official), English, Chinese dialects (Cantonese,Mandarin, Hokkien, Hakka, Hainan, Foochow), Tamil, Telugu, Malayalam, Panjabi,Thai; note - in addition, in East Malaysia several indigenous languages arespoken, the largest of which are Iban and Kadazan "
It does not say how many % of the Malaysian speak Chinese. But it does said 24% of the population is Chinese. While 24% is not equal to 33% (1/3), people may argue that there are more % of Chinese online than other Ethnic group in Malaysia (which is probably true). But so what, if it is % is 24% instead of 33.33%? It will be 530K less than what it reported there.
It looks like the "the Census Bureau's report " http://www.census.gov/apsd/wepeople/we-3.pdf they quote neither define the "proficiency level." you ask for. Maybe you should suggest the US Department of Commerce Bureau of the Census to do a better job to fulfill your expectation.
