Cultural Debates

It has been rightly said that a ‘cultural debate’ could be done on any of our issues that we wish to discuss. I wrote on the Simulation Exercises the other day, and Eleanor had kindly posted some comments. Thanks Eleanor.

Eleanor said, “As a wheelchair user, I think perhaps our objections is that the person in a simulation exercise can get up and walk away. And then “there but for the grace of God” – I think there is a whole disability culture discussion to be done here. My wheelchair is not a barrier -it is a facilitator. People who go in a chair and then give anecdotes about how s/he finds being in it a “experience” misses the complexity of being a wheelchair user. It follows the medical model in a way – if you understand what I am trying to explain here.
People who are visually impaired or blind do not object – perhaps because they do not  ’see’ it happening. However, I am not sure my visually impaired friends do not feel the same objections about this kind of stimulation.
But you are right in that it can be included carefully into a well designed training system…to get away from the ’sayang…’ attitude.”

Just to elaborate on the Awareness Training that we adopted from UNESCAP in 2000: we also had a session called ‘Understanding Dimensions’. Disabled activist would need to learn about dimensions and the concept of space before they could actually recommend to others what is to be done.

In Malaysia, you may have to deal with F Class Contractors (the lowest classed contractors) who managed to get the contract to construct pavements in front of a school or the place you work. I have a great example of that at my work place. The pavement heights are (hmm) 1 foot high or more. ( I will try to get the pictures in here later…) and the students walking up and down these pavements (kerbs) are having a good workout on their calf and hamstring muscles!

Getting back to the point, I mean, anyone should get a lesson on understand dimensions and actually know what dimensions to recommend to the contractor (if they could do so) because what has been cast in concrete (or stone) will be difficult to rectify in retrospect!

When we trained the local authority’s technical personnel at MBPJ (Petaling Jaya City Council) (see link page 36) we want them to see the relationship between what they draw on paper and what the disabled user actually have to endure (experience) such as using the wheelchair to negotiate a steep ramp. It was not our aim to make them feel ‘the experience in a wheelchair’. We would ask them to open heavy doors of their offices with poorly designed door handles and ask them to manouvre their chair through it. “Shame” is part of the programme, we have to admit because in our culture, we use “shame” to bring on the message.

If I could device a contraption or an equipment that does not demean the ‘wheelchair user’, or perhaps an equipment that works like a wheelchair but does not look like one, and use that in the training, then that could well please everyone.

In Malaysia, with the Government dragging its feet on the Disabled Person’s Act…when is it going to pass through Parliament…and the next General Election coming…we are on this  ‘yo-yo ride’ which needs some steadying and some vision and some commitment, so while we wait we have got to do something and push on…even with the wheelchairs…

Debate on Simulation Exercises

Within the disabled community in Malaysia, there are sentiments and opinions that Simulation Exercises should not be used in training for disability awareness training for  staff working and managing the public in the public services industries such as Public Transportation and Local Authority.

The following was my email message that I sent to some members of the community

>>>
With regards to Training on Disability, I would like to give my opinion on the use of “Simulation Exercises” as a tool or method, which is a disability awareness training module that requires the participant to experience a ‘temporary state of disability’ by having them simulate, ie using a wheelchair, blind-folded etc., which is meant for them to understand barriers.

Simulation exercises should be used in conjunction of a specific context. Let me explain a bit more. In countries such as Japan, USA and the UK, they already have (i) disability discrimination laws; (ii) the disabled people had started their campaign way back in the 70s and 80s, and also, (iii) the architects and professionals would find it unacceptable where there are legal recourse (extensive laws) if they do not plan, design and managed the built environment and public transportation according to the discrimination acts and so on. They would be deem to be unprofessional if they did not include disabled people’s needs.

Simulation exercises in Malaysia and in many other UNESCAP countries MUST be used in conjunction with an ‘activist approach’ to solving the problems at the same time.It must never be a stand-alone exercise. You need to design it with a LEARNING COMPONENT, where the participant would understand the difference between an ‘impairment’ and a ‘disabling environment’ (two different concepts) and the ‘disabling environment’ is created by society and the participants themselves. This works particularly well with engineers, architects, planners, building managers, facilities managers and the CEO of an establishment.

I believe that it is not merely by chance that MPPP and MBPJ worked closely with disabled people. It could be reasoned out that, by their staff going through these types of disability awareness training, some learning and empathy had been created. However, not all of MPPP and MBPJ staff have been ‘well-trained’ and more awareness training needs to be done. It will be a long-process.

Yes, my thesis supervisor in the UK, who is also a carer to a person with learning disability, loathes simulation exercise and also many disabled people in the UK  dislike it thoroughly as it seems to be demeaning to the disabled person and the wheelchair user. Is this a visual thing? I actually never got any complaints from blind and partially sighted people when we use blind-folds, so I think it is an “identity issue”.

I would even take this subject a bit more to the debate that disabled people in Japan, USA and the UK would just need to “demand” for accessible and inclusive environment, and they will get it (how fast or slow would depend on bureaucracy) as their rights are enshrined with disability discrimination laws and the positive perception of disabled people by their countrymen. Whereas in Malaysia and many UNESCAP countries, disabled people are in actual fact at par with the poor and depraved people in the country subjected to less or non rights.

Perhaps correct me if I am wrong. I mean, disabled people in Japan, USA and UK are ’served well’ by their countrymen and protected by discrimination laws, so they can just demand whereby we have to think and do a more strategic approach. What is our best approach?

So the question is, perhaps simulation exercise if done carefully as part of a well-designed training system, coupled with the learning on how to do access surveys and audits, understanding the difference between impairment and disabling environment, learning how to specify barrier free/ inclusive or universal design and finding solutions and ways on how to solve the problems could be a more holistic approach in countries such as Malaysia where there are no discrimination laws.

Letter to Mary

Hi Mary,

In my opinion there are no “truly barrier free” public buildings in the Klang Valley. In fact, to me, there are very few of these in the places that I have been in the UK as well.

When we say “truly barrier free”, does that mean 100% barrier free and taking into consideration every nook and corner of the building and all the different needs of people, including the intellectually challenged? If yes, then there is “none”.

However, I think one of the most accessible building is Mid Valley Megamall, simply because they have improved and had constantly sought opinions from people to improve. They actually take note of people’s complaint and take action to rectify the problems. Once I complained about the accessible toilets being storage areas and places for the cleaners to lepak, and a few days later they rectified it.

One important lesson to be learned from Mid Valley Megamall is that they regard accessible parking as an important right for disabled people. I find they employ the strictest guard there (somehow these are women) who actually check for your JKM ID card. And they make sure other people don’t park there. They wait with the chains until you drive off.

Quite a few shopping malls have got accessible carparking spaces but they are not well-managed or accessible where disabled people need to go looking for the guards to assist them. Perhaps due to the demand carparking spaces in general, Mid Valley had to be well managed. On hindsight, they could very well not be well managed and ignore disabled people’s request like many do.

KLCC have lots of these carparks with the fine clearly labeled and able-bodied people don’t park in them, but the parking fees there are really expensive compared to Mid Valley. This factor need to be address by KLCC.

I find that Jaya Jusco has started to be better at managing accessible carparks as well.

This is just a few of my opinions that I have to share at this time.
Thanks.

Naziaty

Mary Chen <marychen99@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi Naziaty

I understand you are a architect/ lecturer in architecture.

 I am just wondering, which public building/s would you consider truly barrier free in Klang Valley?

mary

 

 

Naziaty Mohd Yaacob <naziaty@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi all,

An interesting letter was published in the NST today regarding the National Transport Policy.The second para. reflected on the lack of coordination between the different modes of transport on the fact that there is no such policy in Malaysia.

 

National Transport Policy: Take a look at the big picture

By DATUK AHMAD SIDEK, Petaling Jaya

27 July, 2007

I CALL on the government to revisit the Malaysia Transportation Study undertaken in 1967-68 which was financed by the United Nations Development Programme and executed by the World Bank. The suggestion is made because we do not have a National Transport Policy although we have a National Automotive Policy.

The absence of such a policy has resulted in each transport mode that comes under different ministries and departments developing and expanding on its own without any regard to the different roles of the others.

In short, they are not developed as an integrated system. This has led to misallocation of resources as manifested by the duplication of facilities and even excess capacities among the various modes.

Two special factors related to transportation must be highlighted.

First, the demand for transport is a derived demand.

Second, its investments are lumpy and capital-intensive with long gestation periods.

Hence, investment mistakes in this sector are costly and their consequences will be borne by users or people for a long time.

A revisit of the study should put us back on a proper footing in formulating a National Transport Policy and planning the development of the transport sector from now on, just as the 1967-68 transport study provided the blueprint for the development of the sector over a 10-year period covering the Second and Third Malaysia Plans (1970-1980).

The need for this study is now becoming more urgent in the light of what is happening in the various transportation modes now.

We need to evaluate the transportation projects that are in the Ninth Malaysia Plan as well as any new ones coming on stream (whether government or private sector-initiated) as a total transportation or logistic system.

Projects such as the double-tracking of the present railway line, the proposed fast Kuala Lumpur-Singapore passenger train service, additional lanes to the North-South Expressway and the emergence of cheap air travel must not be looked in isolation but as part of a total integrated transportation system.

Each of these proposals will have an impact on the other.

They are not mutually exclusive. After all, we are going after the same national traffic (freight and passenger) which is being generated by our economic growth and social development.

We also keep on constructing roads. Are these roads economically justified or are they just “supply-driven” projects whereby the construction contracts and the subsequent tolls collection become their prime consideration rather than their real economic and social justifications?

There had been instances in the past where we have abandoned existing facilities in favour of new facilities, like moving to KLIA from Subang.

Although the abandoned facilities were intended for other uses, hence the demolition of the main terminal building and other adjoining buildings, such plans never fully materialised till today.

Now we are going back again to Subang for good reasons. I only wish we did not demolish the main terminal building which could be used for this purpose.

We also have a strong appetite in the past to overbuild our transportation facilities, providing capacities well ahead of effective demand.

And we were also in the habit of underwriting huge transportation investment projects by overestimating their benefits and underestimating their costs to make them look attractive at the outset, only to find once the projects were in operation that these estimates or projections were wrong and way off the mark.

Examples of these are not difficult to pinpoint.

We need a National Transport Policy and we also need a central authority to co-ordinate the transport sector development with the National Development Plan since the various transport modes do not come under one ministry.

In the 1967-68 study, the Economic Planning Unit was given not only the responsibility for the initiation and overseeing of the study but also to co-ordinate all investments in the transport sector with the national five-year plans following the recommendations.

The EPU played a pivotal role as a resource allocator and reported directly to the prime minister at that time.

If such a study were carried out, the EPU would be the most appropriate to take on this role again and report to the prime minister.

---

© Copyright 2007 The New Straits Times Press (M) Berhad. All rights reserved.