Rosalinda Tablang is the director and emergency aid coordinator of the medico partner organisation Samahang Operasyong Sagip (SOS). The network has almost a dozen member organisations, predominantly from the health sector, including trade unions, the national organisation of nurses and medical student organisations. Across the country, they are involved in community-based disaster preparedness, access to healthcare, emergency aid and reconstruction during and in the wake of acute crises.
medico: Typhoon Gaemi swept across the Philippines in July, causing flooding, landslides and flash floods. Over 200,000 people were left homeless. How do you provide aid in such situations?
Rosalinda Tablang: After Carina, the local name for this typhoon, we organised emergency aid in marginalised communities in the greater Manila area, which was hit by severe flooding. Our members provided families with basic necessities, distributing food and hygiene parcels and organising emergency shelters. Although the floods have now receded, the effects are still being felt everywhere. Once again, it is the most vulnerable people who are bearing the brunt and are left to fend for themselves. Actually, we always arrive too late with our emergency aid.
What do you mean?
We only have limited resources at our disposal and in acute emergencies we first have to bring together financial and material resources. Above all, however, our approach prioritises preventing emergency situations from arising in the first place through community-oriented disaster prevention. We want to strengthen the ability of communities to protect themselves from disasters and their consequences. Here, at community level, is where the first line of defence is. In view of the growing frequency of disasters, however, we are increasingly called upon to provide emergency aid. Our work is also limited by the fact that there are serious human rights problems in the country. Our ability to provide aid as a civil society network is diminishing all the time.
Let's start with the increase in catastrophic weather events. Hardly any other region in the world is as exposed to the climate crisis as the Philippine islands. According to Greenpeace Philippines, the country has long since been in a permanent state of climate emergency. What does this mean for your work?
Basically, we need to redouble our efforts to provide financial and material resources for the communities that have been hit. But we know that emergency relief measures cannot solve the problems - especially not as long as so many people in our country are living in chronic poverty. There are countless communities in vulnerable locations that simply do not have the resources to cope with disasters or to better protect themselves before disasters hit. A large part of the population lives below the subsistence level. It is difficult or even impossible for these families to prevent and cope with disasters. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that many government programmes come at the expense of environmental safety and protection of the population.
Can you explain that in more detail?
For example, the extraction of raw materials causes considerable damage to our environment and therefore to the people who live there. In other places, agricultural land is being converted into private housing projects or industrial estates in collusion with property magnates and politicians - this also has consequences for disaster prevention. The most recent typhoon caused massive flooding in the province of Bulacan. This would probably not have happened to the same extent if agricultural land had not been converted for the construction of an airport, thereby changing the soil structure and the course of the river. Apart from this, many communities have been resettled for the airport project. There are numerous examples of such aggressive development projects in the Philippines.
Marcos Junior, son of the former dictator, has been president for two years. He campaigned advocating a policy benefitting ordinary people and respecting human[1] rights.
Aggressive and destructive development projects are continuing under the Marcos government. The national budget for next year is currently being debated. A considerable portion is to be channelled into the construction of roads and bridges. The expansion of the transport infrastructure is being praised as a prerequisite for economic development. But you have to ask who really benefits from this. It is not ordinary people. It is companies and corporations that use the roads to transport their products and thus promote the extraction of raw materials. Secondly, road construction is an extremely corrupt field. It can be assumed that 30 per cent of budgets end up in the pockets of politicians.
Until recently, the government was boasting that it had provided around four billion US dollars for 5,500 flood protection projects. There was no sign of any of this during the recent typhoon. Investigations are now underway to find out where the money went instead. Such investigations do not lead to those responsible being held accountable and changes being introduced, however. President Marcos is fond of talking about the immutability and inescapability of climate change. This is undeniable. But the damage it causes and whether people can protect themselves from extreme weather events is a political question. Citing the inescapability of climate change therefore serves as a convenient excuse for the government to shirk responsibility and distract attention from its ongoing political negligence.
How was it even possible for Marcos Jr. to win the 2022 elections? His father Ferdinand Marcos once ruled the country, placing it under martial law until he was overthrown by a broad protest movement in 1986 and chased out of the country. Have the corruption and serious human rights violations of the Marcos dynasty been forgotten?
There are several reasons for Marcos Junior's victory. Soon after the fall of his father, succeeding governments showed considerable leniency. Only five years after their escape, the Marcos were allowed to return to the Philippines. They did so soon, as the most powerful family in the country. Since then, they have been preparing to return to government. This has included efforts to systematically rewrite history: Suddenly, the years of martial law are being portrayed a "golden age". Infrastructure projects from that era are highlighted, while oppression and corruption are downplayed. This is all nothing other than blatant historical revisionism, but it has been quite successful. Whether Marcos Jr. actually received the most votes in the election and how fair it was is disputed. Many experts point to the suspiciously high voter turnout and the rapid counting of votes. There are also reports that votes were bought[1]. But it is also the case that many people believed the promises made by Marcos Jr.
For example, he promised to reduce the price of a kilo of rice to 20 pesos.
Yes - and today a kilo of rice costs 60 pesos. He has promised a lot. In his first speech to the nation, he announced that "tomorrow will be a better day" for healthcare workers. He claimed that he would have primary healthcare facilities built throughout the country. He promised free healthcare for all. None of this has materialised. According to the latest figures from the Ministry of Health, there is still no healthcare in four out of ten municipalities [1]. According to the latest figures from the Ministry of Health, there are still no basic health centres in 16,231 of the country's 42,046 municipalities [1]. And even in public facilities, people still have to pay for medical services out of their own pockets - or do without them because they cannot afford them. Words and deeds do not match.
Do people perceive this contradiction?
Many people are disillusioned and regret having voted for Marcos Jr. They feel betrayed. But the problem is that he continues to pose as a problem-solver. The fact of the matter is that he is actually doing something entirely different: the government takes action against anyone who dares to criticise it. It is applying laws that were adopted under previous governments. A so-called anti-terror law was passed in 2020, which is so vaguely worded that it allows all uncomfortable or critical voices to be lumped together, labelled and charged. There is also a law to prevent the financing of terrorism. It is primarily wielded against non-governmental organisations and individuals who campaign for aid, environmental protection or human rights and who support marginalised communities. Citing this law, for example, the National Anti-Terrorism Council froze the funds of the Citizens' Disaster Response Network, the Rural Missionaries of the Philippines and the farmers' organisation Amihan. At the same time, board members of these organisations are under scrutiny. Laws serve as a weapon to attack activists and civil society organisations under the guise of fighting terrorism.
There is an infinitely long leap from criticising the government to terrorism. How is this gap bridged?
There is a strategy referred to as "red tagging" - you are labelled as "red". This means that critical engagement by individuals or organisations is then linked to the Communist Party of the Philippines or other revolutionary groups. From there it is not such a far leap to an accusation of terrorism. All recent governments have resorted to this strategy. Any form of activism or civil society involvement can lead to charges of terrorism. A few years ago, for example, it was the turn of the Alliance of Health Workers.
To what extent is the SOS network and are you personally affected by this?
Our intention is to support people in need. This puts us in a situation where we could at any time be put under surveillance, labelled as terrorists or even accused of supporting and abetting revolutionary groups. We work closely with the Citizens' Disaster Response Network, for example, whose funds have been frozen due to such allegations. Thus, the threat is real and tangible.
You provide help that the state denies people. If you only provided humanitarian aid and otherwise remained silent, you would probably be safer ...
Presumably. We are convinced, however, that emergency aid only helps temporarily and cannot solve problems. It is important for communities to prepare for impending disasters with foresight and on their own. And, as I described earlier, this also clashes with the state's development projects. Part of our work is to make the political demands of stakeholders audible and to confront political leaders with these demands. We refuse to be overcome by fear. Together with other civil society organisations, we are fighting back, not least by legal means. For example, we have taken cases of red-tagging to the Supreme Court to challenge the allegations. This has sometimes been successful. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a person who had been branded a terrorist. This decision is encouraging. Legal disputes are lengthy and their outcome is uncertain.
How else could you protect yourself?
All organisations are called upon to protect themselves as effectively as possible against attacks by the state. We do this, too. This includes networking even more closely. Unified alliances offer protection. We also leverage lobbying, mass movements and public protests. We will continue to educate people, organise rallies and question the anti-terror law as well as other repressive measures. We very much hope that international donors will continue to stand by our side. In addition to financial support, we also need moral and political solidarity. This is of tremendous importance, as we are not only confronted with disaster-related challenges, but also political repression.
How do you manage to continue your work in the face of all these hardships?
What gives me hope are the reactions of the people we help. They are marginalised and oppressed and have to deal with their problems on their own. But they do not behave like victims. Instead, they get actively involved, using their own resources to prepare for disasters, and they cope with the consequences of previous disasters together. This is how we increase in number. Despite the government's attempts to discredit us, the communities we work with support us. And that is the most important thing.
The interview was conducted by Karoline Schaefer and Tim Thiessen
