MCYS video on filial piety

There has been much furore in the Straits Times Forum, both online and print edition, about Ms Hannah Chee's letter in response to the latest MCYS social-message video on filial piety (both the video and the full text of Ms Chee's letter are archived here.) In both her letter and the flurry of Forum letters that ensued, we see different takes (pun unintended) on the descriptive events in the video.

I'm still a social work student, even after this long (yes), and I saw the flurry of negative commentary before seeing the actual video, and so was led to watch it for myself. I've never been enthused about government propaganda visual events (NDP!) and was prepared to be skeptical. This is what I have to say after watching the video from a social work perspective:

There is definitely insufficient information in the video to conclude what are the intentions and motivations of each member of the family, including whether or not the father is showing filial piety.

You can take this word in gold. I'll address some of the major comments that have arisen in this furore:


1. The father is showing filial piety by bringing the grandmother home to live with his family, after the death of the grandfather.

Consider separating the event and the interpretation of the event, for the moment. Event: The grandmother goes to live with the father's family after the death of her husband.

What does this show?

It definitely does not show the presence or absence of decision-making process between the father and the mother. Perhaps the mother has agreed to take in her mother-in-law, but has reservations about the matter that she has kept secret from the father. Perhaps the mother has agreed unconditionally to take in the elderly lady. Perhaps the mother disagreed vehemently but was overruled by her husband. You can't tell from the video.

It definitely does not show the reasons why the grandmother chose to live with the father's family. Is she ill - does she require special care and supervision? Is she feeling lost and confused by her husband's death, and blurrily accepts her son and daughter-in-law's offer of live-in company? Is she feeling on principle that her son by right of filial piety must take her in once her husband is dead? Is she providing a contribution to her son's family in some way by moving in, say, by taking care of the grandchild due to special increased job duties of the parents? You can't tell, either.

What is suggested (but not known for certain, either) in the scene itself is that the elderly lady still grieves her husband's death, as she holds on tightly to her husband's death photo while moving in. However, there is this cultural or religious belief that one must bring the dead relative's personal effects when one moves house, so that the dead relative will know where to go when he returns to the living loved one when the other world's gates are opened during seasons of visitation. It is entirely possible that the elderly lady is not in a state of grief, but merely transporting her late husband's personal effects, in that manner.

True, she looks a little doubtful while getting out of the taxi her son is driving, but possibly if she had been living with her late husband self-sufficiently in her own household, and now is literally faced with moving into her daughter-in-law's household with its associated unknowns and new possibilities, it might give a few moments of unease, yes. I know I would be, in that position.


2. The father disregards his wife's feelings by being kind to his mother, in the dinner table segment.

This interpretation of the dinner table segment, where the grandmother complains that the meat is too tough, and silently refuses the offer of vegetables, is the most overhyped of all the commentary associated with this video.

Consider that the grandmother is, obviously, old, therefore she might not have wished to eat at that moment because she felt significantly unwell. All of us who have lived with physically frail ageing parents would know that sometimes they would rather suffer for long periods than tell us they are feeling unwell, either for the sake of pride or for not wanting to bother the "young ones" i.e. us. She might simply have weak teeth or poor digestion!

As also said earlier in the previous section, we have no idea of the duties and compromises between grandmother, son, and daughter-in-law, such that the cooking may be a point of compromise that has been well-discussed, poorly-discussed, or not discussed at all between the three. (family triad, for the more technically-inclined). We do not know if the grandmother has ever expressed her opinion on the cooking - this could be the first time, which is why the daughter-in-law looked so shocked and reacted so poorly by dumping the 'tough' meat into the bin.

Alternatively, if the grandmother is still suffering intense grief, this may lessen both the appetite (in other words, the tolerance for food) and the empathy towards others' feelings, since some people cope with intense grief by trying not to feel anything at all. They want to feel numb, and for some time, they actually do succeed in doing so.

I note that there is an utter lack of coverage of the discussions between grandmother, son, and daughter-in-law, throughout this video.


3. The grandmother runs out of the house saying loudly that she wants to move to her sister's house in Redhill, and is restrained from leaving by her son and her daughter-in-law. Presumably this is another instance of filial piety in action.

The grandmother's reasons for wanting to move out may have nothing to do with the household per se. She may be bored with her daily life at home, in a new area without her familiar friends, and want to move to a place which has more elderly-friendly access and facilities as well as peer companionship. There is nothing terribly wrong with that. Redhill is well-known to be an elderly estate and community services and gathering places for the elderly are plentiful there. Again this possibility is not shown or discussed. The ways in which the grandmother, son, and daughter-in-law explore the grandmother's possible loneliness to attempt to resolve it, are not shown.


When I watched this video, what immediately came to mind was that this is a very good social work training case study, for students as well as non-social-workers, to explain what social work can do to understand and help this situation. All the alternative interpretations and possibilities I have introduced above are not pulled out by "common sense", or by "good intentions", but by actual shared social work experience of studying intensely and working with families and the elderly, every day. Do you think that elderly pride would come to mind if you had no social work training? Or that all these flurried hurried commentators have judged the events in the video too quickly and too narrowly? I don't think so. QED.

Little-known Facts 1 (that should be more widely known)

Some foreign workers live in bin centres when they don't want to. You know, bin centres, those little buildings in HDB carparks where all the rubbish collected from surrounding apartment blocks is brought to. They are, without fail, very stinky, and have lots of cockroaches. You can barely put a human being inside there for five minutes. Our foreign workers do this because their employers can't afford a place to put them, and there aren't enough dormitories around to house them decently. And the reason there aren't enough places fit for human living to house them, is because we, elitist status-conscious Singaporeans that we are, don't want them seen to be living near us. Think of your friendly neighbourhood cleaner living in a Bin Centre(!), the next time you petition against having decent housing for them near you.

Prisoners are only allowed to reply to two letters a month. [Update: Not a rigid rule, the Prisons Service says.]

The Medisave withdrawal limits are $450 per day for inpatient hospital stay, $300 per day for most day surgeries, $20 per day for senior citizens' daycare at daycare centres (up to $1500 per year), and $300 per year per account for chronic diseases. The chronic diseases in the list are diabetes, stroke, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, various lipid disorders, asthma, COPD. If a person with one or more of these chronic diseases qualifies for Medifund assistance, the $300 per year per account of Medisave of the person and all his immediate family (parents, spouse, children) must still be exhausted first for partial payment, while Medifund covers the remaining cash component.

I know the Medifund income criteria, but I cannot reveal it, not even under pain of death I suppose. Suffice to say that it is not the $1500 household income that is openly used by some other financial assistance schemes. This is because Medifund has a different mission from those other financial assistance schemes. When the government calls it the Medical safety net of last resort, they really mean it. You won't be left alone to be ill if you can't manage.

Comfy Chairs

From the ST, Dec 16 2006:

... thousands of middle-aged managers who lost their jobs during the late 1990s downturn and have yet to make their comeback.

Many have tertiary education, speak good English, own private property and used to hold middle and senior managerial positions paying $5,000 to $20,000 a month.

But these days they shuffle around office buildings and shopping centres, a tatty plastic bag of dog-eared CVs and documents in hand, looking for job-vacancy signs.

They first ended up on the chopping board after the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Since then, the forces of technology, management de-layering, right-sizing and outsourcing have shoved even more off their comfy swivel chairs.

[...]

In particular, psychiatrist and suicidologist Chia Boon Hock, who has studied thousands of suicide notes, is keenly watching this vulnerable group. He notes that the chief reason why those aged 45 to 59 kill themselves is financial. (emphasis mine)

Sitting on my comfy swivel chair at home reading about other mature adults being shoved off the ultimate Comfy Swivel Chair ... struck fear into this one's heart, especially when I am wondering about my own financial future here from age 40 onwards.

*

Is it more true that some industries are overhyped and later marginalized, or more that individuals blindly follow trends like lemmings under the 'old social compact' , such lemming-like behaviour subsequently much criticized by the government when things started to go sour? What do you think motivates each and every person's choice of career path?

In another paragraph of the same article, finally even the ST itself has said, "'self-improvement' is a bad word for many in this group, who used up chunks of savings to pay for courses leading to diplomas and degrees, only to find these of little use when the crunch came"! Also see this article by Terence Chong on Dec 11.

Please take heed of your own chairs before they become so much flotsam in the ocean.