Piety without the Pie

A video on filial piety got me into a discussion recently. One which my opinions may not have been voiced out in the degree of clarity that I would have preferred.

The video portrays one scenario which might happen in an ordinary family:

A man whose obligation to take care of his aged and unreasonable mother, causes much unhappiness for his entire family (wife and son).

Looking at this video, two questions arise:

1) What is the message that is being driven?
2) What is the message that I take out of it?

The theme is blatantly obvious. It is meant to provoke thought and awareness on the concept of filial piety.

But this being Singapore, there is usually an agenda behind initiatives of this sort. Without any background information on the origins of the video, my initial impression was that it is part of the government's efforts at social engineering, in the attempt to combat the growing problem of our elderly being uncared for by their children.

It is also due to this inherent skepticism that Question (1) takes a backseat to Question (2).

Some people may see the video as a cop-out, due to it not addressing the full complexities involved, given the dynamics of the family portrayed. Some yet may find issue with the tone of the video, with its bleak setting and unfair treatment of the characters in the story.

These points really only matter to me if I was concerned with the message the film makers are trying to convey. I am not.

For me, any material that is meant to provoke some emotion or thought needs to pass one single litmus test - the latitude for different people to draw different conclusions.

So what I got out of the video is this:

That sometimes to show filial piety, you are faced with difficult choices and obstacles.

And that is all I got out of the video.

I do not care if the man did the right thing by siding with his wife or mother. I do not care if the mother should be excused for her attitude towards the wife. I do not care if the son never really did understand the concept of filial piety by the end of the story.

Why?

Why should I?

Why should I be bothered that a fictitious character in a story did not conform to my moral standards? Why should I be concerned that the characters in the story did not handle the situation in a better manner?

I am not looking for concensus on what is morally right or what is tactically superior.

My only concern is whether the characters and scenario are portrayed in manner that I find realistic.

And that I do.

Paranoir: Stakes on a Train

Ashjyr's Journal, June 20 2010, Sunday
-------------------------------------------------

The wonders of the Digital Age. Satellite communications at the touch of a button. Just that much harder to avoid someone.

“I've read your report on the penetration test at the train depot. I have some... queries.”

(Here it comes. The bullshit.)

“You stated that breaking and entering the train depot was 'as easy as walking into an open vault'. So you do agree that the security measures in place are sufficient. Like a bank's?”

(Are you fucking kidding me? Do you not understand sarcasm or... Oh I get it. You sneaky bastard, you...)

No. Security is inadequate. I recommend that immediate steps be taken to investigate the flaws.

“Well you know how it is, money-matters usually involve upper management. I can't make the call.”

(You mean you don't have the balls to tell them they need to wake the fuck up.)

I understand, Sir. But you need to impress on them that the next incident may involve more than a few cans of spray paint.

“Yes, but audits cost money. Additional security costs money. And surely you don't expect us to pay? The depot is under the purview of a corporate entity after all, one that makes profits for its shareholders. Why should the public be made to pay for the lapse in security?

(Tai Chi. One of the deadliest martial arts ever created. My opponent is strong, indeed.)

“If I may quote from another, 'it is impossible and unacceptable to require the taxpayer or the public to pay for the security of thousands of profit-making entities'.”

(Security of thousands of profit-making entities? What about the security of thousands of commuters?)

With all due respect, Sir, we are not talking about a convenience store or shopping mall with limited human traffic.

“And since when did you grow a conscience? Look, best I can do is to suggest that we establish a presence on key infrastructure and assets. But we can only provide counsel for the rest. They need to learn how to guard their own interests.”

And I suppose a train depot which houses trains used by thousands of commuters daily would be an example of “key infrastructure and assets”?

“Do you really need me to answer that?”

(Touche, asshole. Touche.)