A Valid Lie
- Peter K F Cheung SBS
- Apr 6
- 3 min read
Updated: Apr 8
Act 1
INT. LIVING ROOM - 16:30
Modest. An upright piano dominates one corner. PETER stares at a WhatsApp message. Happy Easter...
PETER (V.O.): A relative seeks help again.
Reading.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): Two jobs. Job one - easy. Job two - complex. Requires deep analysis, sound judgment, stress tolerance.
Reading.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): Ratings... Job one - effective. Job two - moderate.
Reading.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): The relative did everything asked.
Pausing.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): Is the assessment accurate? That's the problem.
Act 2
INT. LIVING ROOM - CONTINUOUS
Peter goes to the piano. He plays and plays.
PETER (V.O.): It appears the relative is not performing to the level required.
Pausing.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): How can I help if that's factually correct?
Peter continues playing.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): The system is the system.
A little while later, Peter's WIFE comes back, and Peter pauses midpiece.
PETER: Darling, can I pick your brain about something? The same problem...
WIFE: Hasn't that been resolved?
PETER: The management comes back with something and our relative wants to reply.
Peter recites some paras.
PETER (Cont'd): ...both jobs are equally demanding...
Pausing.
PETER(Cont'd): That's a falsehood.
WIFE: Wait a minute. You say the falsehood is that Job one and Job two are equally demanding.
PETER: Correct.
WIFE: And our relative performed effectively in Job one.
PETER: Yes.
WIFE: So if the jobs are equally demanding, then effectiveness in Job one should predict effectiveness in Job two.
Peter freezes.
PETER: That's... logically valid.
WIFE: If Job one is easy and Job two is hard, then it makes sense someone could be effective at one and moderate at the other.
PETER: Oh yes, the management has removed that explanation. And the falsehood can be deployed...
WIFE: By the management's own standard, our relative possesses the competence for Job two. A moderate rating in Job two contradicts the management's premise.
PETER: The only logical conclusion is the rating is not accurate.
WIFE: If the jobs are equal, our relative's performance should be equal. If our relative's performance isn't equal, then the jobs aren't equal. So the management have to upgrade the rating.
PETER: The management is boxed.
Pausing.
PETER (Cont'd): Initially, I dismissed the falsehood as irrelevant. But you see it as the key.
Peter begins to type on his phone screen.
PETER (Cont'd): Find the flaw in the premise. Then flip it.
WIFE: It's not about the truth. It's about consistency.
PETER: The management chooses to lie. They've to live with the consequences.
Peter sends his message.
PETER (Cont'd): You're brilliant.
WIFE: You praise me for having cooked up a valid lie?
Act 3
INT. LIVING ROOM - 22:30
Peter uploads an image to a draft on his laptop. It shows a serene seascape with floating platforms appears peaceful, but the overcast sky reveals it's actually a valid lie of calm before an impending storm.
PETER (V.O.): All my life, I believe the truth is a shield. That if I just lay out the facts, reason would follow. But reason doesn't care about facts. Reason cares about premises.
Thinking.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): I can't change a false premise. But I reckon now I can live inside it so skillfully that the other person begs to leave.
Reflecting.
PETER (V.O.) (Cont'd): Now, I can take a lie seriously. And when I'm done, the logic is airtight and the trap has no exit. A lie is a cage. Consistency is for winners. Truth is for philosophers.
The END
FADE OUT
Comments