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!