Interview with Louie Tabing

CI: Can you describe how you got involved in Communication for Development to begin with and what continues to excite you about your work?

LT: I used to be a farmer. I took up agriculture in school and I majored in the field of development communication. This was in the late 1960s. I was called to Manila to handle a farm programme for both farmers and fisherman and people living in the countryside. This programme was in a radio station called "Radio Veritas" that some people might remember as the one partly responsible for sending away the Marcos regime. Our station was bombed twice, and we were still operational. We went on a private radio we then called Radio Bandito in order to continue operating. And well, it helped a lot to drive away Marcos in 1986 in the so-called "people-powered revolution". Of course, at that time, the programming had expanded beyond farm programmes.

After some years I was designated as the station manager of Radio Veritas and I had also organised the Philippine Federation of Rural Broadcasters. I was contacted by some friends from UNESCO, and they knew what we did for the country and for well, against Marcos. And they said, with what you did, do you think there was a transformation in the media system in the Philippines? And my answer was "no – the only transformation was that some of the commercial media establishments were taken by other businessmen." But the character of the media system did not change. They are all what I call the "PPPP's". They are all motivated by Profit, Power, Propaganda, Privilege, etc. But the real "P", the People, is taken only as an alibi for securing a license. The motivating factor for programming is still the ability to bring in money through advertisement. And 90% of the 600 radio stations now in the Philippines are of that type: commercial radio stations whose only motive is power, is profit. Meantime, there are religious stations and there are government stations. The government stations are nothing because nobody believes the government. The religious stations have their own agenda - the promotion of their religious denominations.

So, with that history, and with my answer, my UNESCO friends asked me, "What would you do to change the system?" And because I had some training in broadcasting in radio and television in Holland and England with the BBC, my model was more of the western european model where the broadcasting institutions are operated by the broadcasting counsels. That was my idea, that it should not be operated by people who would like to make profit for their own selfish or sectors' interests, but more of a collective model. And I said – maybe that is what I would do, if I had my way. And they said – "Why don't you try your idea in some remote area? Since you are a farmer and you are willing to work with farmers, why don't you try it in some farming villages?" And I said – "Maybe I would like to do that. Maybe what I would like to do is put up a 25 kilowatt stations for the farmers and the fishermen - or a 50 kilowatt station." And they said – "You are not going to get the money for that." So, we parted ways, and they said they probably would find a way to help me.

I got a message after some months saying that I had a radio transmitter somewhere in Philippines customs, and it was of 10 watts. A 10 watt radio transmitter. Maybe they meant 10 kilowatts? So I checked with customs and indeed, they meant 10 watts. 2 radio transmitters, actually of 10 watts. I was surprised. I did not know what to do with them. So, the first one we used in the University, as a relay station. The second one we sent to a very remote island, and the people in the community said – "We are going to put it up and we are going to use it." And with that, with what we saw as a possibility for that small low-power transmitter to be used in a remote village, I actually prepared, upon consultation with UNESCO, a project proposal. This was in 1988 or 1989. The project was born in 1991. The money was available. It was a large amount – something like US $1 million for me to set up 6 radio stations. And this money was coming from DANIDA. But, 1 million dollars, by any standard, is a lot of money, and we actually exceeded the number of stations we were supposed to put up in the pilot phase. We put up right away 5 and we were only supposed to put up 2. With 5 we found we could actually try different types of set-ups.

We were saving a lot of money because we discovered that the community was willing to shoulder part of the amount. Initially we pictured we would put up the building, we would subsidise everything, we would even buy some transportation facilities for them – either a horse or a banca, a boat, or a motorcycle for them to be mobile – it was a rather complete set-up that we were imagining. That included newspaper publication and some means for livelihood training. But when we began implementation, it did not turn out that way.

When we sent out the report, DANIDA said "You breached the agreement. You were only supposed to set up 2 stations. BUT in view of the good work you have done, we are continuing with the project." So, we went on with the project. And, when the DANIDA money was finished in the year 2000, we had been able to help set up 23 community radio stations in the Philippines (outside of the assistance that we provided to UNICEF in setting up their own initiated community radios.)

Many of the community radio stations that were set-up in the later part of the project were initiated by communities, by schools, by NGOs – we were just providing the technical assistance and training. So that is how we got into the business of community radio. Starting in 1991, I took off from my broadcasting job and concentrated on the project. About 1998, you know there is the World Association of Community Radio called AMARC? And on the 2 occasions when I attended the World Association of Community Radio called AMARC , there were only 5 or 6 representatives from Asia in a gathering of 600 or 700 people. Signifying that in Asia, there were no community radios. Whereas in Africa, in Latin America, in Europe, there are hundreds and thousands of community radios, especially here in Latin America. And because of that, they elected me Vice-President of AMARC in Asia. That is why we are busy promoting community radio in other parts of Asia as well.

There are only something like 30 community radios in the country, in the Philippines. There are 2 in East Timor, I heard there are 3 in India, and 3 in Nepal, and that is all the community radio stations in Asia. This is if you talk of low-power stations that are operated collectively, by the community, by the people.

CI: And, in the Philippines, the Tambuli Project is involved in all of the radio stations that are there?

LT: Yes, to a certain extent. Not much in putting up the equipment, but more in terms of providing technical assistance and training.

CI: You mentioned the "PPPP" Theory of yours in relation to the media in the Philippines and in Asia. Is the media trend moving in a more democratic direction?

LT: In a very small way, yes. But if you look at the general picture, I don't think the commercial stations will give up that privilege and that opportunity to earn money. The politicians who are either owners or who are in cohoots with the businessmen of the media industry will not give up that position. However, the commercial stations are finding out that our community stations, no matter how small, are getting a significant audience in towns as large as 20,000 people, 30,000 people, the biggest might be 120,000 people.. We are reaching a big share of their audience. So they in fact they have been trying to block our proposals for the community stations to remain free of franchise.

In the Philippines, franchise is something that we can only get from Congress. A law has to be passed for somebody or some institution to be able to operate a radio station. We argued that this was too much of a process for a small community to work on – the expenses, the hassle, etc. So, we were proposing that small powered stations of 500 watts and below should be exempted from the need to franchise. We would need only to get a license, a local license. And they have been opposing this. Meanwhile, they discovered that the popularising of programmes by getting people to participate is part of what is helping us get listeners. It is difficult for them to do what we are doing - moving from one village to another for wider participation. But somehow they are trying to do that or some semblance of that.

The other thing the commercial stations have copied is that if you add say 20,000 listeners here, 20,000 listeners there, and so on, then this becomes a sizable population/audience and they can sell their products to these added listeners. What one network did is to put up low power stations in secondary towns and population centers. Then they connected those to the satellite. Still, they are not able to do what we are doing where the people are participating. They have not been able to beat us with respect to that. The popularised programming with participatory involvement is, however, something that is sinking into their minds, into their strategies... And we have said – if that is one effect that we are able to have, then that is good. That is moving towards popularising and democratising communication.

CI: You may be 'winning' in a small sense…?

LT: In a small sense, yes. But changing the whole scenario into something that would be a people-operated and participatory industry...well, maybe I don't see that in my lifetime. It is a long process...unless somebody takes over who is really radical – or if they get me elected as president! But I can't get elected even as a village councilman...so that is doubtful.

CI: As I understand it, the project was supposed to end at the end of 1999 or beginning of 2000?

LT: The regional proposal was to end in the end of 1998, but it went on to about the year 2000 – January 2000.

CI: The radio stations that stemmed from that programme are still going and are growing. And is this because of the Tambuli Foundation?

LT: Yes. The word "Tambuli" is translated as "caribou horn". People in the villages a long time ago and until now used the horn to call a village assembly. We also use this phrase to describe the project - "Tanig ng Aming Munting Bayan Upang Umunlad Ang Lalong Maliliit" which translates as "The voice of the small people for their progress."

CI: What were some of the challenges that you faced, that the project faced, in continuing after the stated parameters?

LT: The sustainability of the project is a serious matter and some did not believe that it was sustainable. They were telling us that this "volunteerism" has its limits, for instance. And – "Well, you say that they are volunteering now…after one year, after two, they will go." And true enough, there are people who go after two years. And some people are even asking for pay. But the reality is that no community where we put up a radio station since the early 90's is willing to give up their radio station. They are working there for as long as the transmitter is operating – for as long as there is a radio station. So – I have proven them wrong with respect to volunteerism. Being in radio carries something like maybe a sense of power, a sense of fulfillment, a sense that you are popular in the community, you are important to the community. You are serving. Every day there is a feeling among the individual volunteers that they are important to a larger group of people. A proverb I read somewhere goes - When you are wrapped in yourself, you make a very small package. But when you are wrapped in the affairs of the community, then you make a big package. I think that is what is making the communities stick to the volunteer work – that they are part of the lives of other people and that they can influence the lives of families and individuals on a day to day basis. They can look forward to that. That is why they are so eager to prepare programmes every day.

CI: Has there been any process towards connecting these stations together – these stations that are in separate regions, separate areas?

LT: Well, that is ideal. But connecting them, say, during broadcast is not yet available. They are located in remote areas. We specifically selected that they be located in these faraway areas because these are the areas that need radio stations the most - poor districts, islands, small towns. There is no telephone. Very little communication means. No computer, no internet – in 25-30% of the areas where there are radio stations, there is no electricity. They rely on a generator or on solar power. So connecting them would mean quite a lot of expense. You would need to set up a telephone or satellite system, which to us, is not yet possible. But we are always saying that it would be good to connect them to one another. They are however, currently connected in terms of relating to one another. There is a yearly conference that we hold for the stations to exchange ideas and experiences and even exchange programmes. This conference has been held yearly since 1995.

CI: Can you asses the value of new technologies, given the fact that in many of the areas in which you work, there is no electricity, so there is no internet. Is there a value to the new technologies in your work?

LT: For community radio – my priority is for the participants to be able to look around within the community and see the opportunities within the community. We provided at least 3 stations with computers. I say to them – "Community radio is your mirror to yourselves. Internet is your window to the world." We are indeed hoping that there will be a marriage of community radio to internet. We are proposing to these 3 stations that they would need only a telephone in order for them to access the world wide web and world-wide information. With this, they could hold programmes where people could ask questions and they could search for the information on the internet, and then say within seconds – "Aha...this is what there is to know about, say – 'mad cow disease'"... and things like that. Meanwhile, these computers that we sent to the 3 stations are being used to educate the staff and people around the station about the computer and how to use the computer. They use it to prepare their scripts. In this way it is opening the eyes of very rural people on the value of new technology.

But mind you, the internet does not seem to be their priority. They are fascinated by it, but it is not a priority. Instead of a computer, they would like to have portable tape recorders that they could move around with to interview people thoughout the community. Or they would like to have a spare CD player. So from their point of view, they see the value of the computer, but if you asked if they wanted a computer that cost say $100 or a receiver for a UHF (handheld) radio – they would choose the UHF radio, because it would give them the means to talk with one another. They would be able to have reports from other sources in the community.

CI: If you could double your communication strategy and activity budget, what would you do with those funds?

LT: I would experiment on putting up a special radio. For example, we have one children's radio – the problem is that the children only use it during the weekend, when there is no school. So during the rest of the week it is not being used. And the adults who oversee this radio have said – since it is not being used, can we take over and use it for the rest of the week? So they are using something like 3 hours in the morning and 3 hours in the afternoon on the weekdays, whereas the children are only using it for 3 hours on Saturday and 3 hours on Sunday. It has turned into just another adult radio station. I would like to have a purely children's radio to experiment with. I would also like a community radio station for street children in the city and one for disadvantaged women in the city. I would have problems with licensing because the city is already so full of frequencies - frequency would be very difficult to secure. I would like to work with ethnic communities/tribes in the mountains. In at least 2 stations there is involvement of tribal peoples, but it would be very exciting to see people who are still wearing g-strings, for them to be working with a microphone, to be preparing programmes of interest to them and their communities. These are things that excite me, but I am not sure if they will materialise soon.

We have proposed and are working on a semi-commercial one kilowatt radio station - semi-commercial, but community in character – with participation from different sectors, but operated on a commercial basis. So we are able to make arrangements with a Catholic organisation that has the franchise, and we will be using this franchise for that station. Slowly we are telling the commercial stations – here is a model – here is one thing that might threaten you once again! We are having the transmitter built and a school has agreed to host the radio station once we are ready to launch.

CI: You've mentioned a few voices, a few communities that you would like to reach. I am wondering if there is a voice or a community that you feel is not being heard by the communication for development field, by the development fields, that should be listened to?

LT: Many of them that do not even have access to communication. Many of these groups of people would be very happy to have a community station set up for them - Children, Street Children, Women, Fishermen. I am also thinking of a community radio station for prisoners. There are about 7,000 people in one prison camp – you would need only a 5 watt station for them. In an area of 4 square kilometers you don't need a very powerful station. These are people I would like to relate with if I have a chance.

Outside of that – schools would like to use it as a means for extension. Firstly, they would like to use it as a means for promoting the technology that they generate and that they have in their libraries. Secondly, they would like to make use of the radio station as a training ground for students. Particularly those schools, and there are quite a few of them, that have communication courses and development communication courses. NGOs and churches would like to have radio stations. However, in some of the radio stations that we have put up, the churches have tried to dominate them.

In some cases, when we tried involving the local governments, the politicians tried to dominate them. In the composition of the management group, the community broadcast council – we said that if there are politicians, opposition parties should always be there as well. In spite of this, they managed to put in only their own people and were able to dominate the group. We have been happier working with educators. We have no guarantee that the community radio stations will not be used by politicians or churches for their own agendas. The reality is that in some cases they are being used for political and religious interests. This is one of the problems.

Another problem is that some of the equipment is breaking down. When something like the transmitter breaks down, there is no one within the community who is able to repair it. It needs to be sent to Manila and this is quite expensive. The Tambuli Foundation does not have money for this. At the moment, the Foundation is just a group of volunteers who are willing to continue to work for the cause of community radio and who have been and are excited by the cause. So when pieces of equipment break down, this is a problem that often affects sustainability. In one case, we think the station was robbed because the station campaigned so hard against illegal gambling. The suspicion is that the gambling lords stole the equipment from the station. The community is very agitated about this because they were able to stop the "Jeuteng" – the illegal gaming that was sapping the hard-earned money of farmers and fishermen. The local cooperators are now saying that they plan to put up the station again. But I have to say to them, please, do not look to Tambuli Foundation for equipment – you will have to raise money for your own. The Foundation can provide training at this point, but not equipment, not funding.

CI: Can you point to one communication initiative that has most disappointed you and why?

LT: One of the stations of the project – about the second station that we set up – which was not so far from the province where I lived. The problem was, at that time, we had a lot of money. Whatever the station needed, we could provide. They needed a building? We would provide the building. They needed computers? We sent computers. Whatever they needed, we provided. Not much process involved. They greatly relied on us. In the beginning, we were focused on – would people listen, would there be a good audience? We were focused on training, etc. The station went on the air for about 3 years, until about 1995-96. And then they started to quarrel. The town mayor was very excited about the station – and he was very well-meaning. There were politicians and community officials involved in the running of the station. The problem was that he got involved in some minor cases of...murder...and he got placed in prison. When another mayor took over, who was not of the same party, he said, "I will have nothing to do with that radio station". So, the community quarreled about it and in the end, we had to pull out the equipment and dismantle the station. So my disappointment is that I made the mistake of not reviewing the processes of the management and such. It was a very difficult experience for me – pulling out the equipment from the people.

Meanwhile – before we pulled out – it took about a year and a half, perhaps two years – we were trying to give them the opportunity to sort things out amongst themselves. During this time, I asked a school, a university with communication students, to survey the community as part of a school project. 304 out of 307 people interviewed wanted the station to stay. People were very upset. The only people who did not want the station were related to or working for the new mayor. Until a couple of months ago, people from the community were coming to us saying that they wanted to have the station back. There is still a bit of equipment on the premises. So I have said, if you can sort it out as it was originally intended – that it would not be operated for political purposes, etc, then you will still have the station. However, I mainly blame myself for the failure of this station. In every station there are problems - quarreling among the participants, dropouts from the management groups - but the people who are broadcasting, who are there from the beginning and deciding in the community...

CI: On the flip side, which one communication initiative other than the Tambuli Radio Projects has most impressed you and why?

LT: Mahawelli Community Radio in Sri Lanka (which I have only read about, I did not see) was an inspiration for me in the beginning. Of course, later on I found out that it was no longer in existence. Other initiatives that are of particular interest in the Philippines are the audio tower systems. They hook up loudspeakers on a pole, and that serves as their radio station. UNICEF has some stations that they are putting up which have the community audio tower system. In one community audio tower site, people were very very inspired using this as a radio and they became very effective members of the community. To the point where all of the participants of the radio station got elected into the village council. This was not so good, in a way, since they effectively changed the agenda of the station – it became political – it transformed the whole set up. But this situation showed us that these people really had a significant impact on the community.

One of the most impressive initiatives that I saw was a bulletin board "newspaper". This was a newspaper written on blackboards in a very very poor community in the central Philippines. In the town they had about 4 large blackboards and every day they had the news written on them. They even had graphics, drawings. This initiative was replicated in about 7 other areas next to the school in the villages. Someone would run with a bicycle or a motorcycle – so that what was written on the original blackboard was then copied onto the others. And people in these remote communities were participating. Someone who wrote well was creating the news and someone who had good handwriting was going from blackboard to blackboard and copying the news down. In the schools next to these newspaper blackboards, the children were asked to copy what was written on the blackboard every day, and then they would bring this home to their parents. This project lasted only for about 5 years about 10 years ago. Why did it end? – because they now have radio, they have paper newspapers. I think that that is an example of using appropriate technology that is greatly appreciated by the people who participate.

CI: Thank you so much for sharing your insights and your perspectives.

LT: Any time. By the way – I mention this to all of my students, to all of the people for whom I speak, to all of the people with whom I work – the participants of the projects. This is a religious quotation from the Bible – First Corinthian, Chapter 13, Verses 1-6 – It is about love and very appropriate. And it says – "You may be able to speak the languages of men and even of angels, but if you don't have love, you are just like a noisy gong and a clanging bell. You may have the gift of inspired preaching or you may be able to move mountains or you may even give up of yourself to be burnt, but if you don't have love, it does you no good." I always mention this because it think it is appropriate for practitioners and for students who would like to venture into development communication. If you do not like it – if you have good language, if you have a good voice, if you are a good writer, and you don't feel the satisfaction of seeing people improve their lives, then you do not belong in the communication business.