We’ve also re-engaged the United Nations. We have paid our bills. We have joined the Human Rights Council. (Applause.) We have signed the Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (Obama)

Check out this blog by my dear friend Tan Kuan Aw:
http://draw3draw4.blogspot.com/search/label/disability%20issues

First thing is…I am going to resign from the Council as I am now the head of department of the Architecture Department. I cannot be in a “leadership” position in two places. Anyway, a lot of work had been done at the Council level in the last year and I will still be involved. I want to concentrate more on research and building up the resources at various grassroots level. I can be more critical from the outside. Now I have to start writing and send off the resignation letter to the Minister.

Email Message on MS 1331

Hi All,

I heard KPKT is insisting about the 1:8 gradient ramp for kerbs.

Please note my explanation below. We must counter this in a big picture / holistic way because the problem is in the standards the way this is illustrated and inform is confusing.

The problem is MS 1331 needs a massive review. Some times it contradicts with MS 1184 and should illustrate best bus stop design. It also needs to be gazetted by the various states under UBBL and Streets, Drainage & Building Act.

If Penang can do a prototype that we can document in MS 1331 in terms of best practice then that would be ideal. We have an example and then we have proper measurements in the standards. We can tell people to refer to best practice and the standards amended accordingly. We have to create good examples now, in Penang and every where in Malaysia.

Its a catch 22 situation now. We have to get it right for real so that the standards can flow rather than the other way round.

The issue of the kerb ramp is like this.

LOGICAL INTERPRETATION

First, if we have a 10 mm (3/4 inch) drop wchair user can negotiate.
Secondly, if we have a 25 mm drop (1 inch) wchair user mostly cannot so you put a wedge like 45% and many wheelchair users can access. With a bit of strength say many can push.
Thirdly, if we have a 75 mm drop ( 3 inches) its dangerous, almost no one in wchair can use, so you create the 1:8 and its possible to push as its not far to push. (That’s where the 1:8 comes from)

BUT if your drop (kerb height) is 150mm (6 inches) or higher say 200 (8 inches) like what DBKL told us, no way will a 1:8 work! It has to be 1:12 or greater for a straight up ramp.

So there are problems in getting the space to accomodate the ramp.

So KPKT needs to redraw proper guidelines and shows the variety of ways how to solve the problem, and not just standardise one size fits all!

It’s the problem with the guidelines and that MS 1331 is really in dire need to being gazetted ! DBKL Planners are telling me you cannot enforce MS1331 which means street environment is left to whatever the developer wants to do. That’s why the housing estates pavements etc are not accessible.

We must strategise and push properly at all fronts.

Regards
Naziaty

Problem with Development Control – in view of the recent landslide in Hulu Kelang

There is obviously problems regarding development control. The local authority is the governing body that makes sure that development control processes actually work. But clearly something did not work this morning at 4 am in Hulu Kelang when some people died and some more buried in a landslide. (Bernama Report)

What are site inspection checks? Some overseas sample -  (Link1, Link2, Link3)

As a bread and butter procedure with regards to development control, site inspection checks are essential to maintain health and safety. Who are the developers of Bukit Antarabangsa? Who does site inspection checks? Who are the owners of Bukit Antarabangsa development? Finger-pointing is always the norm in Malaysia after a tragedy. Have we not learned anything after the Highlands Towers disaster in December 1993?

No we haven’t.

In the Bernama report, it is quoted as saying:

These landslides are believed to have been caused by movement of underground water, a condition made worse by the heavy rainfall in recent weeks.

Sure. This is like saying Malaysia experience monsoon rainy season  in the month of  December. Of course there is movement of underground water and of course, when there is more rainfall, there is more movement.

The question is:

What do we do about that?

Do we anticipate the extra movement?

Have the landscaping design and construction of the  of hill-slopes dealt with the movement?

If yes, how much of the movement has it dealt with?

Who is responsible for the landscaping work?

Who is responsible for the monitoring and site inspection?

MPAJ of course. The local authority concern. If not MPAJ directly, then MPAJ will audit the report of the consultant involved in the monitoring of the situation. The end of the road belongs to the local authority and in this case is MPAJ.

However, I do not intend to blame MPAJ alone. There must be some sort of overhaul of the system. We cannot afford the solve piecemeal style anymore. Hill-slide development – surely there have been recommendations of how to solve the problems of water movement in the earth. Drainage issues in particular.

What is the problem really?

There are a few assumptions -

• In general, the society in Malaysia do not want to pay for the cost of extra work or quality work.
• Lack of expertise or skills in finishing projects or not really have the expertise, but take on the project anyway.
• Lack of site inspection or having the skilled man power to do site inspection.

And many others regarding the development process. The owners, the consultants and those who undertook the project.

Well, we are back to square one, after 15 years, we still have not solved the problem.

Things I learned from the Council Meetings

We had several meetings, since October 17th 2008, with various departments and ministries regarding the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 Council. The sub-committee that I am focusing on is “Universal Design: Built Environment and Transportation”. It’s a huge task to unravel exactly what is going on and how to present the course of actions to be recommended to the Minister when we see her next. We have to get our facts right also! No joke one!

So I want to inform what I had learned during the meetings and the possible actions that could be undertaken. It is my opinion alone and none is being endorsed yet, so take it like what I am trying to do here – just chatting about it and think about it more – and try to give more ideas.

MAIN ISSUES

Jabatan Kerja Raya (Public Works Department) Issues:

• Buildings designed by the consultants (outside architects that were appointed by JKR) are and were not subjected to Malaysian Standards 1184 & 1183.* Of course buildings designed by JKR’s architects are subjected to the standards but as a guideline. (Please understand the difference.) The fact is although JKR follows the UBBL (Uniform Building By Law) which is under the Streets, Drainage and Building Act, the quoted standards MS 1184 & 1183 is not for JKR as it’s for public buildings (non-government buildings).
  
• We discused the revision of the Building Act in order to change the MS 1184 and 1183 (perhaps we just need to revise the standards) (need advice on this from legislators)…to change “public buildings” to All Buildings! So to be honest, if we cannot get the revision done, we are ****!! (as the JKR rep has rightly pointed in the meeting in a not so rude way!)
  
• EPU (Economic Planning Unit under Ministry of Finance) – document on “Standards and Costs”. Need to check that there is a clause (in the document) where only for a certain size (even if its a two storey building) you need to have lifts. (Guidelines for Standards & Cost for Government Projects) Only applicable for projects sent for approval. (Need to find out more about this. Never seen the document before.)
  

CVLB (Commercial Vehicle Licensing Board) issues:

• The compulsory members, CVLB (Min. of Entrepeneurship) and EPU (Min. of Finance) will need to be part of the meetings in the future especially when discussing with MOT and JKR.
  
• CVLB representative  did not turn up during the very first meeting with the Minister. And during the meetings with Min of Transport (with BEAT), we did not hear a pip from them or it was lot of waffling?? We are seeing a pattern here – apparently it is no go beyond RapidKL when there is discussion with disabled people, keeping disabled people at bay as long as CVLB can huh?  SPNB (Prasarana) shot us down during the National Transport Summit…yup, side-tracked and blamed the local government… in fact KL City Hall rep expressed their concern about this impasse with the decision on the pavement heights due to RapidKL (ahemm SPNB’s) dilly-dallying ways….We are really anxious to know about the standards in January 2008. Really, really anxious….hmmmm… how long can they side step the issues?? Not only about the pavement heights but the 100 buses etc etc…so many puzzles to solve (and I heard not a meeting is being arranged yet between JPJ – CVLB etc…)
  
• I am in the camp that is “not really please” with the Nadi Putra buses, because we are not united in our efforts to push for the buses that we want. It’s going to be a long story with the Transportation agencies, I bet you! And the more we are not really having concrete solutions, the more they will danggle sub standards solutions and dilly dallying tactics to make us frustrated!
  

MS 1331:
Malaysian Standard 1331: Access of Disabled Persons Outside Buildings (2003), have yet to be incorporated into any of the legislation. KL City Hall (DBKL) rep agreed that MS 1331 should be gazetted as in terms of planning approvals via DO (Development Order) such as housing estates, if MS 1331 is gazetted, it could be enforced. At the moment now, access requirements for outside buildings are NOT ENFORCEABLE!
Also there is only DO in the beginning and then Certificate of Fitness (CF) at the end of development control. DO’s requirement is not so detailed, so the drawings submitted need to comply so that CF is given (now they change to OIC / CC but its the same). JKR do apply for DO but CF its entirely up to them. That is JKR do not submit for CF, and it’s decided in-house.

Enforcement mechanism:
An Access unit is to be developed as an enforcement mechanism. This could solve problems with existing buildings to be upgraded. Other local authorities, apart from Kuala Lumpur City Hall, will also need to have this done and need to discuss this more. I am really counting on these access units or even Disability Unit to be incorporated in all state governments and ministries involved. In KL City Hall for example, the either is to appoint an architect with three assistants to create this Access Unit. If we apply this to non built environment set-ups then we need to find out the terms of references. At the moment we are only working on the Universal Design terms of references.

OTHER ISSUES

Training curriculum:
For architecture courses, include Universal Design in the course.
For practising architects, include in their Professional Development Course (CPD).

Technical Committee of disabled advisors to the local authority:
Need to define the terms of reference properly.

Coordination problems on street / pavements (road works):
Need to find out how to coordinate the problems with TNB, Post Office and Telekom street furniture and equipment. Perhaps need to incorporate in guidelines (MS 1331) and need to draw how to streamline them. (Check with Min of Housing and Local Govt. as well)

*

MS 1184: 2002 Code of Practice on Access for Disabled Persons to Public Buildings;

MS 1183: Part 8: 1990: Specifications for Fire Precautions in the Design and Construction of Buildings Part 8: Code of Practice for Means of Escape for Disabled People.

Business of Training – DAT and That…

I have been in the “business” of training architects for almost 14 years now. In saying that, the earlier years were formative and I was not really focused on being an academic. I had to make a decision during those first 5 years on whether I wanted to be a practising architect or an academic training future architects. I think I decided that in the year 2000. So basically, in the last 8 years was when I built my foundation on training, sometimes very consciously and sometimes unconsciously as I was and still am a full-time lecturer at a government (public/state) university in Malaysia.

I came into disability work in 1998. Being trained as an architect, as well as having to cope with being disabled (now using a pair of crutches and sometimes wheelchair as I am suffering from arthritis and post-polio syndrome), I get to be a user in a disabling environment.

What I want to say here is actually: my identity as an architectural academic, training future architects precedes my disability work on activism. I observe and suggests things based on my academic perspective focused on training. I believe certain methods work and methods comes before debate, theory and sometimes even philosophy. If a method has been tried and tested and it works, I will do it again and again until someone proves me wrong.

I have written about this before on Simulation Exercise where the emphasis is on the person being trained to master Basic Design Principles and Anthropometric and Ergonomics of the Disabled User, which I followed the UNESCAP model that I was taught in the year 2000 at Bangkok. Besides me in training, was an Architect who was then and is still the Director of the Building Department from a local authority in a northern state of Malaysia and a Planner who was then and still is the Director of Development Planning from a local authority in a state near Kuala Lumpur. They were trained with me. And as a result of them being trained using the Simulation Exercise (which we later repeated with their technical officers from their offices), there were some Barrier- Free Street and Building projects and upgrading work done in their focused locality. Both of them admitted to me that they wished they had done more, but nevertheless they had completed them and showed some positive commitment.

The term Disability Awareness Training that I used did not stem from any other definitions except from this training by UNESCAP.

As a trainer, I find the Simulation Exercise effective. Perhaps people would like to argue that I am not a full-time wheelchair user and I could stand and a walk a bit, that I may not be that sensitive to issues which may result in being demeaning to full-time wheelchair users, but people will also have to listen to my arguments as a trainer.

Malaysians are not culturally the same as people from Japan, USA and many countries in Europe that are developed. In many aspects in Malaysia, it is well developed, but in many aspects it is not. And you cannot say that Malaysian culture is not developed if it is not Western. I would like to go deeply into the subject of Malaysian people and culture, but just to cut the story short – the method employed in developed countries may not be effective as the method developed in developing countries. Like the method of Simulation Exercise in Disability Awareness Training was effective based on results that myself and many people had witnessed, and addressed the developing country’s needs.

I would like to discuss further on this matter and provide all the necessary arguments, but for now, the approach I am taking is that Simulation Exercise is a necessary method to learn about Basic Design Principles of Disabled People.

People with Disabilities Act 2007 – Council

Apologies for not updating this blog for a long time.

Recently, I was appointed by the minister concern to be a member of the Council on the People with Disabilities Act 2007, Malaysia. I am part of the committee on Universal Design: Built Environment and Transportation. Like my chairman said, “That is a lot!” She can say that again!

Here is an interesting diagram to sort of explain our scope of work:

What I am trying to say in the diagram that, we have one set on the Built Environment and another set on Transportation and where it overlaps, there is the subset on Street Environment.

Under Built Environment, commercial and “public buildings” are under the control of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, which is enforced by the various (they 118) local authorities in Malaysia. As for government buildings, the control is under Public Works Ministry who is the client (all the time) and sometimes execute the design as well. There is a bit where the Ministry of Federal Territories come in, where public buildings under the Kuala Lumpur City Hall’s control, Putrajaya’s control and Labuan’s control comes under.

As for Transportation and the subset regarding the Street Environment, there are no specifically one designated control body. It could be under the Highways Department, Ministry of Transport, Public Works Ministry or even Ministry of Entrepreneur. There is about 13 agencies involved, so I am confused!

I bump into a pole

There was an interesting piece in KL Time Out’s June edition, on how a blind masseur who lives at Bangsar Utama, Kuala Lumpur, related about how he goes about to his place of work.

I was reading the piece from an analytical eye on the “access angle” and I find it very interesting that “bumping into a pole” as something natural to do.

Having arthritis myself, I have my own quirks which would help me go about independently. Yeah, being independent is about having one’s dignity and is a common basic need for everyone.

What would be indignified for the blind masseur is when someone suddenly uncover the drains or create a barrier for his usual routine and he would fall down unnecessarily, thus breaking his arm and him not being able to massage for sometime.

I mean, in Malaysia, we try to cope. We don’t have discrimination laws, just talk and talk by people of promises to be made. Well, in a way we cannot blame them, because that’s what they have to do. So we cope and live dangerously. Nothing is totally independent.

You have got to be kidding me Queensbay Mall, Penang!

Like all Malaysians, we get excited when there is a new mall just being opened. Touted as the biggest shopping mall in the northern states, the Queensbay Mall is one of those malls where there are many entrances. So being pressed for time, I needed to get the right instructions where to go.

“Kuan Aw, where exactly must I meet you.” ” South zone entrance, tell the taxi driver…” “Okay!”

So I met Kuan Aw and Ah Yoon at the South Zone toilet area. There we checked out the accessible toilet which is clearly not accessible.

“Is the architect having a laugh?” I cried sarcastically, evaluating the insides of the toilet with my keen eye for mistakes… The architect seems to be having his/her own fanciful design here. So many rules were broken when it came to the correct design to employ. I gathered he/she must have left the designing to a first year student who did not know about the Malaysian Standards or any other standards for that matter.

“It’s incredible that the architect started with a lot of space to do the toilet, but end up doing things detrimental to access – like having a hotel-styled sink at one side? I don’t believe this!”

Kuan Aw was worried that people think that this is how an accessible toilet should be done and will imitate this example as it had been passed by the authorities and in the biggest and newest mall in the north of Malaysia. I shared his concern.

Here are some pics of the incredibly wrongly designed toilet!