There is an interesting article on spousal abuse by a chap who works with PAVE, in which he talks about the issue of domestic violence and race in Singapore. The main gist of his article is that people predominantly see it as an Indian problem when the majority of the cases reported are from the Chinese demographic. He goes on to assert that Spousal Abuse is an issue in which race has no relevance.
But is this what the facts really show?
Now the requisite qualifications lest people with poor comprehension skills flip out- DV (Domestic Violence) is a serious issue, and is one that people should rightfully be concerned about. PAVE and the folks who work with them should rightfully be honoured for their work.
But what one should be concerned about is a wishful-thinking, narrative-driven read of the issue that refuses to see uncomfortable trends and realities in the data. If you read this blog enough, you will know that Red Pill thinking is all about seeing uncomfortable realities, accepting them, and working to take meaningful action to address the issue to meet desired outcomes. So do spousal abuse stats really show no trends in terms of race as this chap claims?
Let us examine his claims, in order of appearance in his article:
In Pave’s experience, most of the Singapore men who abuse – “the perpetrators” as the law refers to them – are Chinese. Malays and Indians follow, slightly over-represented compared to their proportion in the population. Even after being shown the statistics from more than a decade, the disbelieving will say: “Are you sure? Maybe Indians just live with it.”
This is his opening shot in his race has nothing to do with DV thesis. The idea he is attempting to emphasise is that Chinese make up the majority of domestic violence cases, along with disbelief from people when shown the statistics. There are a lot of secondary implications being made here- namely that the Indian community is unfairly singled out as being primary perpetuators of domestic violence in Singapore.
He adds in a small caveat however, that Malay and Indians are “slightly over-represented compared to their proportion in the population.”
How “slightly”? This is where the race-has-nothing-to-do-with-it starts to fall apart. Belatedly, he posts the 2015 stats for PAVE based on case/race breakdown:
The race breakdown of Pave’s cases in 2015? Chinese, 55 per cent; Malay, 25 per cent; Indian, 15 per cent; with a mix of others making up the rest.
When you actually plot this against the actual race breakdown of Singapore, a picture quite different emerges:
PAVE cases- 55%
PAVE cases- 15%
PAVE cases- 25%
In other words, going by PAVE statistics, the Chinese demographic was 26% less likely than expected to be committing domestic violence for their makeup of the population. The Indian demographic is 2.1 times as likely as the to commit it versus the Chinese, followed by the Malay demographic in which it is seen at an incidence 2.5 times more.
If you don’t use the Chinese demographic as a yardstick, the Indian demographic faces DV at a rate 163% of their proportion of the population while Malays experience it at a rate 187% more.
This is hardly something that could be called “slightly over-represented compared to their proportion in the population.” We are talking about a serious problem that happens at incidences that are significantly over the expected background rate.
The majority of the cases in gross numbers being Chinese have more to do with the fact that there are simply more of them around, which isn’t very strange at all. If anything it seems that the data indicates the Chinese demographic is actually much further ahead in addressing the problem.
The puzzling thing is how a person who is obviously quite intelligent with access to all the facts can come up with narrative that racial trends have little to do with domestic violence when the very data he plugs into his article demonstrate otherwise. But it’s not really puzzling the moment you realise that he started on a narrative-driven approach towards his article (and probably in his approach to addressing DV) and was attempting to make the facts fit the narrative instead of letting them form it.
Obviously there are limitations to this methodology which only uses the data provided by PAVE within the article. There could be more Chinese reporting DV with other organisations, or perhaps more Chinese cases of DV simply go unreported.
So I looked around for a bit, but what I found actually contradicts his point even further. In the period from 1992 to 2002, the number of DV cases for the Chinese demographic who were already unrepresented fell while the gross numbers for the rest remained relatively the same.
At this point, the requisite SJW response to all this would be to claim institutional racissim, sexxissm, Chinese Privilege and what have you not, but the facts remain the facts- there are clear racial trends in domestic violence in Singapore. Period. Anybody attempting to claim otherwise is being disingenuous.
Now I don’t believe in racial determinism, as much as the various ethnic groups have certain traits and practices given to them by natural selection and culture. I don’t think Indian and Malay demographics are invariably bound to commit DV at higher rates than the Chinese community in the same way I don’t think Asian men are doomed to be considered assexual creatures forever under the Ang Moh in the dating marketplace.
But I do think that the disproportionate representation of Domestic Violence along racial lines is something that is worth putting a realist’s lens to, instead of claiming ethnicity has nothing to do with it and putting our heads into the sand, worrying more about uncomfortable facts perpetuating stereotypes that will hurt people’s feelings instead of the people who really suffer under DV.
Addressing these problems require a cold, hard look at reality and the willingness to accept flaws within the practices and ideas of your own culture instead of insisting they don’t exist or it’s someone else’s fault. Red Pill thinking is required. Stop worrying about feelings and fix the problem.
And this is where the PAVE article falls flat, they attempt to fit their model of domestic violence into a narrative-driven one that seeks not to hurt anybody’s feelings while ignoring clear trends in the data. Instead they offer up a bland, politically-correct equalist narrative on how to address the issue.
This is not the way to address a serious problem.