It was all over the news today – Kodak has finally filed for bankruptcy protection.

Nobody was really surprised. Kodak has been on a decline since the beginning of the 2000s as digital cameras began to supercede film cameras. Unlike the recent passing of Steve Jobs, I haven’t seen many people on my social media networks lamenting the loss of the company that popularized photography. Looks like people just aren’t shedding a tear for Kodak.

While I do feel sorry for the Kodak employees and pensioners who face an uncertain future, they had little say in how the company was run to the ground by their management over the past few decades. Yes, Kodak film allowed for the creation of millions of amazing images, but in my lifetime, Kodak didn’t care for the consumer very much.

I’m normally a very nostalgic guy, and I will always remember walking past the bright yellow decor of film-development stores that were sponsored by Kodak in the 1980s. It was always fascinating to see how long strips of negatives would pass through the innards of the gigantic machine which would spit out 3R-sized color photos.

However Kodak left more of a bitter taste in my mouth than nostalgia is worth. Let me tell you why.

1. Film was ridiculously overpriced.

When I started getting into photography in the late 1990s, it was such an expensive hobby. If I remember correctly, it was $5 per roll of film, $10 to develop a roll of film and 30 cents to print each photo in 4R size. So to shoot a roll of 36 exposures would easily cost you $25 before inflation.

That’s not counting the cost of batteries as film cameras were power guzzlers – remember the sound of film being rewound in a compact camera? Today you can shoot thousands of photos without considering the cost – it costs just about nothing on the digital platform. But we always had to consider the cost of reloading each roll of film.

You can argue that it forced us to become better photographers when we didn’t waste film, but I can also argue that Kodak profited handsomely from enthusiast photographers.

Kodak and other film makers never really sought to lower the cost of film. The centuries-old method of using silver halide worked for them until digital overtook it with dazzling speed (actually it took about 5 years for digital to go into the mainstream from the time the first decent digicams appeared in the early 2000s).

2. Kodak never understood digital, and still doesn’t

As a tech writer in the mid-2000s, I always groaned when Kodak’s PR agency would pitch their latest digicams for a review. Compared to current models of the day from Canon and Olympus, Kodak’s digital cameras often seemed like backward and ugly cousins. And their image quality was never up to par. I could be wrong, but they were probably re-branded OEM digital cameras. For a company that invented digital cameras, they put little effort and money in advancing the technology.

As film development stores began to shutter down rapidly, I didn’t see Kodak doing anything significant to save their retail partners.The shopkeepers were helpless as the landscape shifted and so was their principal supplier.

I remember it was so expensive to request for film negatives to be converted to a digital format. I tried it for a few rolls after a professional shoot and the quality of the scan was not fantastic. Where was Kodak then? Still trying to sell more Portra film to professionals, and over-saturated Gold label films to clueless tourists.

If you read any business story on Kodak’s decline, you’ll see so many other ways that they failed to capitalize on the digital tsunami. It’s not that they didn’t have the money to invest,  (especially at their peak in the 1990s), but like many legacy companies, they clung on to the past desperately and turned their noses at consumers. We just wanted a better solution instead of having to panic every time our film canisters or strips became accidentally exposed to the sun.

I embraced digital photography the minute I discovered it, and was over the moon when digicams finally reached an acceptable level of quality compared to film (that was about 2007 if I remember correctly, while dSLRs achieved that about 2004 with the Canon 1D Mark II). When I used the Canon 1D Mk II, my first 1GB memory card cost a whopping $400, but it paid for itself quickly – that card was approximately the cost of 16 rolls of film (or 576 exposures) and I shot thousands of photos in a few weeks.

It was sad at first to see how Kodak failed to change itself for the times (in contrast to its greatest nemesis Fujifilm), but after a while, one didn’t care for the company at all. It looks like after this bankruptcy protection, Kodak wants to focus on digital printing. That’s another silly move – everyone in developed countries are gradually moving to ebooks and Zinio mags on tablets, and we’re now sharing photos on Facebook folders…thousands of them, all for free. Who will pay for digital printing in the future?

Like the cliche goes, change is a constant, and we have no choice but to embrace change. If you work in a company that doesn’t embrace change, please take a look around and see if you can get out before the company becomes obsolete by its own choice or ignorance.

Kodak may emerge from its bankruptcy protection a better company, but the young people of today don’t even know how iconic it once was. Perhaps I should be sad for the past, but that feeling just isn’t happening.

In recent days, you’ve seen me voice out on why we need to do more for the needy and marginalized in this rich country. And every time I ponder on this issue, this story floods back into my mind.

Nearly ten years ago, I was still a press photographer and I was assigned to cover what the journos call a “hard luck” story. It’s self-explanatory but I’ll explain it further: This is a category of stories that often feature people down on their luck, suffering extraordinary hardships or are the victims of really unfortunate circumstances. In the earlier days of The New Paper, these stories really helped to drive readership, along with scandals and freak accident stories.

The main newsmaker was this man in his 40s who had started to lose all his limbs, starting with his appendages. He was a heavy smoker in the past, and one day, he discovered he was getting gangrene (or something similar) in his toes and fingertips.

Over time the affliction spread inwards and affected more of his limbs. He stopped smoking, and had several fingers and toes amputated, but the disease wouldn’t stop.

By the time the journalist and I met this man, he was stuck in a wheel chair with both legs amputated just below the knees, and only two fingers on each hand.

He spoke to me, then he started crying: “My wife just got retrenched from her job. If it wasn’t for our young children, I would have committed suicide by now.”

I was so shaken by a grown man crying with nowhere to go, I could only take two or three photos of the man before I shut down my camera. I wish I could put the photograph on this site, but it’s copyrighted by the newspaper.

I also remember feeling upset at how little support money they were getting from the authorities despite their situation. It was in a range of a few hundred dollars a month.

Their social welfare worker was trying her best, but there was only so much she could do. I believe she told us about this story in the hope that it would bring some public support for this man’s plight.

Then the man asked softly if I could help him in any way.

I declined, because I was covering hard luck stories regularly in those days, and newsmakers were asking to borrow money from me on several occasions because they had nowhere to turn to. My reasoning was : I’m a photographer/journalist. My pay is only sufficient for my own needs. I can’t be donating money to every newsmaker. I’m just here to do the story.

I went back to office and received a scolding from my photo editor because it was standard protocol to take many different angles of a newsmaker for easier layout. “Why did you take so few photos!?!?” But I refused to go back to the man’s house to take more photos and the story was later laid out around my few image.

Today, as the memory of this man constantly resurfaces, I keep asking myself : How could I have turned down his plea for help?

Mr Chiam See Tong from 2009: “Every Singaporean must be given the respect he deserves”. Photo by Charles Lim

Like many of you, I stayed up late to watch the announcement of the General Election 2011 results, all the way until 3am on 8th May when Potong Pasir’s narrow win by PAP was finally announced. I believe more people in Singapore watched this historic event more than several National Day Parades combined.

At the same time, I monitored my Facebook and Twitter walls as real-time updates from the mainstream media and friends came in fast and furious. People cheered the wins by the Workers’ Party in Aljunied and Hougang. People ranted that Tin Pei Ling got into Parliament while Minister George Yeo was booted out. People wrung their hands when they realized that the rest of the Opposition parties failed to win any seats at all.

And I think everyone agrees that Chiam See Tong became a national folk hero.

The outpouring of emotions continued well into this afternoon. Anger, happiness, disbelief, relief, outrage and bitterness. You name it, I read it.

Through it all, I didn’t feel the surge of emotions people were expressing. Did journalism kill my passion and my angst? Was I being too Zen about the whole elections? Or did I write my blog articles till I had nothing left to say?

Well, here’s my pragmatic take on this “watershed” elections (yes, it was a watershed event by all accounts). Where so many people are focusing on the negative outcomes (“Why did she get in? Why did they not get kicked out? Why did they lose?”) I would prefer to focus on the positive.

It was an election, never a revolution.

Some people are furious with the silent majority who gave the PAP the mandate to become the ruling party once again. They couldn’t believe that there were people who didn’t want to see change in the country.

Let’s turn the situation on its head – Did it ever occur to you that there was massive groupthink going on in the online space?

People online were screaming for a revolution, for a drastic change in the way politics were run in Singapore. But the results showed that more people voted for the incumbent than the newbies as with every elections. Sure, the PAP’s winning margin had dropped to 60.1% from 66% in 2006, but it’s still a majority. Let’s not fault voters for being pragmatic – give Singaporeans credit where it’s due.

For example, let’s talk about Bishan, where I stay.

Mr Chiam’s team lost in Bishan-Toa Payoh despite the man’s reputation and his strong team (I thought Benjamin Pwee was very impressive and it’s not because we’re both botak heads). I went to their last rally at Bishan Stadium and I could already tell from the reaction of the Bishan audience that it was difficult for the SPP to win.

The crowd was relatively muted, there to observe and to think, rather than to cheer wildly like the Workers’ Party crowd at Serangoon Stadium a few minutes’ drive away. The SPP’s main rhetoric during their last rally was to convince the fence-sitters to swing their votes towards them.

But in the end, the SPP still had a very respectable result in Bishan-TP : 43.1% of the vote, versus 56.9% for the PAP.

For a team that had never campaigned here before, why did so many people put their faith in SPP? If you ask me, SPP won over many strangers, and that’s a significant victory in itself. To win in a PAP stronghold was a longshot to begin with but the fact is SPP dared to take on a GRC with Deputy PM Wong Kan Seng in charge.

The Bishan-TP PAP team led a relatively smooth and positive campaign with no major issues or boo-boos. OK, except for this poorly-made video which led to much groans among my friends. But I have no issues with the PAP team here, and I’m not as upset over the Mas Selamat affair as other people are. I’m more concerned over housing or transport issues.

The national results, and the PAP’s declining margin, indicates that people do want change in how the country is run, but not overnight. This was no French Revolution in the making but perhaps the online audience whipped itself into a self-delusional frenzy.

And let’s face the facts – WP had really strong teams where it won. Perhaps the Opposition teams just didn’t have candidates that were strong enough, not just individually, but as a team, to convince the majority of voters.

Nicole Seah was the only recognizable figure of the NSP during the whole race, and Goh Chok Tong’s team experienced a relatively low margin of 56.7% of votes. That could go down in history as the “Tin Pei Ling effect” where an unpopular newbie nearly did in the respected Senior Minister’s team. To be honest, I didn’t even expect the NSP to get as far as 30% with their team lineup but they hit 43%.

By the way, am I upset that Ms Tin got into Parliament? Let’s just say I’d rather not be in her position where she’ll spend years, if not decades, working to dispel her current reputation, whether it is justified or not. To me, it’s not worth the salary, authority, or prestige of being an MP, to have to deal with her current situation.

If you’re still not happy with her, let me ask you – why don’t you try for the PAP or be in her shoes? Do you have the guts for politics or grassroots work? It’s always easy to criticize, but not so easy to empathize. I say this even though I prefer Ms Seah’s performance (note, “performance”, since I don’t know her in person) in this elections.

Everyone is human, everyone has feelings. Even political candidates. And the Marine Parade voters voiced their opinion of the candidates with their votes.

Look at the data, not the rhetoric

Joining Microsoft has taught me to respect the importance and sanctity of data. Data is objective, data is not emotional. The SG Elections website contains all the winning margins of every party, and you can cross-check it with previous years (taking into account change of electoral boundaries).

This was no vague newspaper straw poll or research project with questionable sampling – take a good, hard look at the data and you’d realize that although the Opposition only won two wards, they had a very decent number of votes in many other wards. This is remarkable given that we hardly hear from these guys until elections time. And worrying for the incumbent too.

Yes, Potong Pasir went to the PAP by just 114 votes, causing much grief among SPP and Opposition supporters. But the balanced observer should also focus on the fact that Sitoh Yih Pin has not given up trying, and that perhaps there are people in the estate who want change for the estate as well.

There are two sides to every story and change is the only constant.

Social media changed the landscape for the better

Let’s count the ways this elections were different, thanks to Facebook, Twitter, and dozens (no, not thousands) of bloggers.

- The PAP said sorry and admitted it had been perceived as arrogant. I never thought I would see the day, but it happened. It sent shockwaves throughout the island and the media had a field day. Although it was not said explicitly, the PAP was obviously affected by the wave of online discontent, not merely the size of the turnout at opposition rallies. And just a few weeks ago, the PAP was dismissing Internet chatter as “online noise”, so they learned a painful lesson there.

Was it a good move given that the Opposition pounced on the PM’s apology to give their own arguments more firepower? I don’t know, but it was better for civil society – the PAP finally acknowledged its shortcomings in a very public and honest manner.

The first step to change is acknowledgement, and it’s not up to us to speculate whether words will translate into action – the PAP is a smart lot, and will want to improve its results in 2016. It needs to arrest and reverse its declining popularity, and it has five years to do so.

- The mainstream media provided more balanced coverage and upped the ante. SPH and Mediacorp still appeared pro-PAP on most days with Opposition coverage buried deep inside the papers, but this was still much better than the past.

And on this point, it’s often said that the Gahmen focuses all its attention on what The Straits Times publishes because it’s “the paper of record”. Unfortunately, you can’t find the archive of ST stories online due to its paywall.

The Today newspaper has become the actual paper of record when people do their online searches now, as its archive of stories is open to all. This is something for the folks at SPH to chew on – if you aren’t making much money from selling old stories (they aren’t), you might as well open it up like Today or TIME magazine.

- Politicians became better at social media and opened up to the young audience. George Yeo’s video to young voters was a turning point for the PAP’s campaign, displaying great sincerity, humility and earnestness to win over his voters in his team’s darkest hour (at their campaign’s halfway mark when all rhetoric against the WP seemed to have flopped).

Oh yes, there was a blogger who decided to support him and the PAP using posts that included vulgar language. We’re adults here casting votes with our brains and with civility, so give your candidates and voters more respect than that.

There were other sincere videos by other PAP teams but they received little viewership. Mr Yeo’s video will remain in many minds long after this elections.

Today newspaper and Razor TV posted many videos of rally speeches, largely unedited, to allow one to escape traffic jams and judge candidates in the comfort of their own homes. The candidates took advantage of this big public service by reposting those videos on their Facebook walls.

In closing

You know, it’s been a really monumental elections to watch. Everyone’s packing up shop now that the results are out, and finally our Facebook walls can go back to the usual postings of vacation photos or new materialistic pursuits.

You can choose to remain upset about the results, but for me, I’ll remember that on the night of the elections, I saw a young crescent moon in the sky.

Personally, the elections have made me more aware that I need to do more for the disadvantaged people around me. It has made me see that change is possible, whether it is with the contrite ruling party or more credible Opposition. It has also shown me that we are in a age of heroes who can be gracious under fire, and determined despite illness and age.

Mr George Yeo and Mr Chiam See Tong, thank you for showing Singapore a better way. 

Mr Chiam See Tong during GE 2011, by Bob Lee

I’m thankful for the work of great photographers like my friend Bob Lee, who took this photo of Opposition veteran Chiam See Tong during his elections campaign. Mr Chiam suffered a stroke some years ago, and the physical effects are obvious to everyone. However, it has not diminished any of his passion for politics or the people.

This photograph speaks more to me than all the rhetoric over the airwaves or grassy fields.

Whether it is photos like the one above, or Youtube videos, it is heartbreaking to see this brave man trudge on despite his health and the odds. It doesn’t matter which party you support, you watch Mr Chiam and you forget all the “hot topics” and mudslinging happening between the PAP and the Opposition. He also brings immense pride to generations of ACS boys who believe in the same principles of honor, fair play and determination.

The PAP, with all its brilliant minds and water-tight policies, simply have no counter against this man’s emotional appeal. You may not vote for Chiam this elections, but he has (deliberately or not) become the emotional center of this contest and is the antithesis of all that the PAP stands for. The PAP will probably win the majority of the votes, but they cannot win a popularity contest versus this man, because everyone knows his story by heart and it can make a grown man cry. Thus the PAP has been wise to keep silent on Chiam so far – the public backlash would be irreparable.

Bob also took this cool time-lapse photography video on how the Worker’s Party rally filled up over a few hours at Serangoon stadium:

To most young people, it’s shocking how many people attend Opposition rallies. (“Even more than the National Day Parade!” quipped my wife).

But if you’ve been involved in previous elections, there’s always been a monster crowd as people stream in from all over the island to see what the Opposition (especially the stronger parties like WP) have to say. It’s just that it was rare to see the mainstream media publish any of these photos in the past, due to either Govt intervention or self-censorship (I suspect it was always more of the latter).

This year, the Straits Times did publish a huge photo of the Hougang crowd who turned up to hear Low Thia Khiang:

I wasn’t surprised, since any media outlet would look pretty bad if they didn’t publish what was already circulating rapidly on Facebook the very minute the photos were taken by both press and public. PN Balji (former editor of Today) commented on it in his latest editorial.

“Newspapers, TV and radio know they have to cover the elections differently this time round. Or else the eyeballs will dart elsewhere, very likely never to return.”

Few people realize that the mainstream print media’s circulation has remained largely flat as the population has grown – this means that their penetration of the population is dropping. At the same time, make no mistake, nobody reaches more people than the mainstream media. You think that fiery article you shared online is going to help swing the votes? Think again, because it probably won’t reach more than 20% of any electoral base in just exposure alone. Whether the article can persuade the voter, is another question. 

The PAP’s response to the huge crowds (versus their own small crowds, usually made up of their own supporters), was pretty tame. It was the first time though, if I remember correctly, that they’ve responded to the “Big Opposition Crowds” question.

(Home Affairs and Law Minister) Mr Shanmugam said: “In the previous election and elections before that, the rallies of some opposition parties attracted crowds of such size. It’s not unusual by any stretch of the imagination; it’s about the same as what happened in the previous elections. So I’m not sure it’s larger or smaller. The reasons have been given so many times; it had happened in 2001, it had happened in 2006. What the PAP stands for are our track record, what we are going to do, it’s all very clear. But at the same time, there isn’t too much fun and entertainment at PAP rallies either. As for the opposition, I think people are curious as to what they’ve proposed, what they want to do, and people want to listen, which is a good thing.”

Channelnewsasia, 29th April 2011

But if you read the Straits Times as a whole, it still appears pretty pro-PAP as the PAP quotes will always take up the front page and more pages are devoted to the incumbent. Their rationale would often be that this is fair coverage since they have more personalities who can make the news, versus the Opposition.

Well, I’m not here to debate whether that’s right or wrong. I’m more interested in sharing how one can be more media-literate during this critical period when both sides are tussling for your attention, your emotions and your vote.

In the age where different forms of media are bombarding people with an overflow of information, being media-literate is the first step in making the right decision for yourself and your country. After all, the media is where most of us are getting the majority of the information in order for us to make our own value judgments on candidates and policies.

It doesn’t matter whether you read SPH papers, watch Channelnewsasia broadcasts, political blogs and aggregators or just your Facebook and Twitter streams – they are all media and they need to be read in the right way.

What is Media Literacy?

According to Wikipedia:

Education for media literacy often uses an inquiry-based pedagogic model that encourages people to ask questions about what they watch, hear, and read. Media literacy education provides tools to help people critically analyze messages, offers opportunities for learners to broaden their experience of media, and helps them develop creative skills in making their own media messages. Critical analysis can include identifying author, purpose and point of view, examining construction techniques and genres, examining patterns of media representation, and detecting propaganda, censorship, and bias in news and public affairs programming (and the reasons for these). Media literacy education may explore how structural features—such as media ownership, or its funding model — affect the information presented.

In Singapore, I don’t think anyone teaches media literacy in schools. The first time most students encounter this subject is probably in university arts courses, and the immediate effect is that they become leftists and anti-establishment. Oh, the fun of being young and angry.

These past few days, as I switch on my browser on my PC or phone, I’m overwhelmed by the amount of URLs and blog postings that are being shared by my friends on the elections. Some believe it’s a “political awakening” of young Singaporeans, I say it’s just that we’ve never been able to tell everyone our thoughts before without fear of censorship or retribution.

When MM Lee Kuan Yew warns: “If Aljunied decides to go that way, well Aljunied has five years to live and repent.”, I have dozens of friends immediately protesting the use of the word “repent” as a threat and following up by linking articles on why the PAP should not be using such tactics.

When Vivian Balakrishnan touches on the gay background of Vincent Wijeysingha, I see many FB posts on homophobia or Lady Gaga’s Born This Way ad nauseum. (By the way, whether you like it or not, the majority of Singaporeans are conservative and such topics do sway their vote).

It’s become like a Roman gladiator event – every new PAP topic that enters the ring generates howls of disapprovals, no matter their validity. Such hot button topics often solidify people’s pre-existing views, rather than cause them to think WHY these topics were brought up in the first place.

The lack of media literacy and the inability to analyse and deconstruct the massive wave of information, reinforces mob thinking and irrational discourse.

Ok, that sounds cheem. To translate : if you don’t understand what you’re reading and why it was written this way, you will end up following the crowd. 

For example, I have some friends who are staunchly pro-PAP and they are likely to support just about any argument that the PAP puts forth. I have MANY friends who aren’t pro-PAP (ie. it doesn’t mean that they like the Opposition) who find every opportunity to express their feelings on Facebook/Twitter about what the PAP or Opposition just said in the press.

Now it’s weird, but in doing so, everyone has also become a media outlet themselves. That really complicates matters but media literacy helps in this case too. When you know how to filter the noise, you will know which friends have a balanced opinion, and which are just myopic.

So how to be media literate?

Not that tough, my brothers and sisters. Just keep asking yourself every time you read an article or listen to an opinion:

1. Is there sufficient airtime given to the opposing point of view?

2. What are the rationale reasons supporting each side of the argument and which do you agree more with?

3. Most importantly, what is NOT being said is often the more critical issue at hand.

For example, when the Opposition says they should be voted in to be a check and balance in Parliament, I want to ask if they can continue the same level of services for their districts that the PAP can provide. Both macro and micro needs of the people need to be met. I respect Mr Chiam with all my heart, but can his team deliver what is expected of (not merely promised by) them?

The NSP’s superstar Nicole Seah already has nearly 49,000 fans on her Facebook page (she will definitely surpass LKY as Singapore’s most popular online political character this week) and has proven to be an unflappable spokesperson on just about any issue, but can she win over the pragmatic crowd worried about their HDB assets, salaries and job security?

And when the PAP says that it wants to make our education system one of the best in the world, I wonder what it has to say about the UTTERLY UNREASONABLE workloads Primary school students have to suffer through, and losing their childhood playtime in the midst of expensive tuition lessons.

And why is it so convenient that the National Wages Council is recommending pay raises, and that LTA has declared no ERP increases this quarter? Come on lah, you can’t sweeten the ground just like that.

Who Has Your Interests At Heart?

A closing anecdote – I was reading Marvel Civil War over this weekend, and after weeks of intense fighting, espionage and massive casualties between Captain America and Iron Man’s teams (they were arguing over being officially registered with the US Govt), the Cap suddenly surrendered even though his side was winning.

Captain America: “Oh my God.”

Falcon: “What’s wrong?”

Captain America: “They’re right. We’re not fighting for the people anymore, Falcon. Look at us, we’re just fighting.”

See the page here.

It’s just a comic, you say, but how true it rings.

Our history lecturer in school Chiew Seen Kong once told us this classic quote about local politics throughout history: “When elephants fight (or make love, depending on your source), the grass suffers.”.

Sometimes, the grass doesn’t even know what the elephants are fighting about.