Now recast him as a high-profile entertainer.

In the wee hours of May 19, a private gathering was unfolding in the Coco Banana Club in an upscale bar district of Beijing. Pop singer Man Wenjun was throwing a birthday party for his wife, Li Li, and a dozen friends were invited. Being members of the chic crowd, they provided not regular drinks and snacks but illegal drugs. Surprisingly, the police got a tip and sent in private eyes, who did not encounter much difficulty collecting evidence.

On Aug 3, the court sentenced Li Li to 1 year in prison, in addition to a fine of 2,000 yuan ($292) for "providing a place for others to take drugs". Li admitted taking half an Ecstasy pill and offering the same drug to two guests. But Man, in a written testimony, claimed she took ketamine, among other things, which she denied in court.

What's shocking in this case is not that pop stars take drugs - duh! - but that a celebrity turned against his family member when a legal crisis hit.

In a commentary in Yanzhao Metropolis Daily, Sun Zhong wrote: "Man's act seems hard to understand, but how can you say it was not one of true love and care for his wife? Ours is a society of rule of law and every citizen has the obligation to abide by the law. If our loved ones break the law, we should bravely stand up and expose it."

The Chinese word for this "brave" act is "jiefa", which was a popular word during the "cultural revolution" (1966-76). Judging from online feedback, the majority of the public did not seem to believe Man was brave. Instead, many felt he was cowardly. For once, I happen to agree with the netizens. Man might have done the right thing legally, but ethically it was nothing to be eulogized.

This reminds me of the Unabomber story. Ted Kaczynski was carrying out a campaign of mail bombings in a neo-Luddite fight against technology. The FBI was stumped. It was his brother, David, whose suspicion led to the jiefa and then to the arrest and conviction. Strangely, I did not come across much praise - ok, any praise - for David Kaczynski. Instead, whenever he was interviewed, he was shot the question: "Do you love your brother?" The younger Kaczynski would describe his torment between confessing his suspicion to the authority and, if proven true, essentially condemning his older brother to life in prison, and keeping silent and letting the Unabomber hurt more people. Both the media and David Kaczynski handled the question-and-answer sensitively. The conversation presented a picture of inner struggle between the duties of a brother and those of a citizen.

In China, as previously mentioned, jiefa took place on a large scale during the "cultural revolution" when spouses spied on each other and children were coerced into reporting on their parents. Many did not survive the ordeal, not just because they were persecuted, but because they had lost the last shelter where they could get a respite from all the madness outside. Family members were turned into informers and were prepared to report on you because of the slightest social complaint or criticism. This practice, by putting a time bomb inside the family, effectively destroyed the most fundamental fabric of Chinese society.

While the excesses of that period were rectified, the practice mutated into other, milder manifestations. In the 1980s there were many movies that featured upright judges who prosecute their family members. The story usually starts with a profligate son who abuses the father's power without his knowledge. It causes terrible consequences, such as a poor woman being killed in a traffic accident. The son covers it up, but the ever-vigilant father digs deeper and catches his son. He dispatches the death sentence as if it's a bolt from the god of thunder. He stands fast, without regard to his wife's tearful pleas, this being their only child . You get the picture.

Sometimes I get the feeling the father hates the son. There is more schadenfreude than sadness and helplessness in his legal decision. These movies were supposed to show that a really principled official should uphold justice at the expense of family loyalty. In reality, these paragons of justice were so unrealistic they ended up as parodies of heartlessness.

How would Hollywood tell this story? In a Hollywood film, the father, upon learning of the bad deeds of the son, would take the initiative to stop him and then persuade him to surrender. If the son is involved in something truly awful, the father may even sacrifice his own life to stop him. But he would rarely call the police and wait till they get the son, which seems the most logical thing to do in real life. In many movies, the father, often a cop himself, would break the law if that means saving his child. This sounds like a bagful of clichs, but in the unwritten codes of Hollywood, ethics are more important than laws - generally.

Of course you can say Hollywood tales are fictional. But they do tell us something about public attitudes in that country. The funny thing is, the United States is a country where rule of law is taken seriously and divorce rates run high; while here Confucianism places family above all else. Why should the US trumpet family values while China advertises "sacrificing one's blood relations for the sake of righteousness", a theme that runs through all folk operas and other traditional narratives? My explanation is, we are subconsciously aware of our weaknesses and want to rectify them. In the process, we tend to overreach.

What should Man Wenjun, the pop singer whose midnight bash turned bust, have done if he were a Hollywood hero? He should have come forward and taken all responsibility, thus shielding his wife from the fallout as much as he could. That's what many netizens suggested. But they may have neglected one facet: Man is the breadwinner in the family and by passing the buck to his wife he may have made the most sensible financial choice and thereby continue to sing and finance the family.

But judging from online feedback, the strategy could backfire. An overwhelming majority has exhibited disgust rather than appreciation at what he did. Supposing he was telling the truth, what he did was legally spotless, but morally repugnant. When he comes back to the stage, his image is not going to be one of righteousness, but one of hypocrisy and self-righteousness. That, for a celebrity entertainer, could be a rude awakening.

It is heartening to see that public response to Man's incrimination was not uniformly approving. Some brought up the validity of such confessions as impartial evidence. And the nature of the crime is of great relevance as drug taking harms only the drug taker and nobody else. The deep-seated fear is: Is it good for the morality of a society to have family members implicating each other in petty crimes? Is familial trust too costly a price to fight crime?