The Right To Ride

Hendak seribu daya, tak hendak seribu dalih. This is the impression that members of Barrier-Free and Accessible Transport Group (BEAT) felt after a recent closed-door meeting with Rein Westra, CEO of Rapid KL. That meeting was the result of the campaign by BEAT to highlight that none of the Rapid KL buses are accessible to wheelchair users. BEAT is an informal coalition of sixteen NGOs serving persons with various impairments.

During the campaign at the Bangsar LRT Station on September 24, NST reported that “a RapidKL spokesperson said the transport company had bought 100 disabled-friendly buses with ramps. These would be delivered next month.” Nearly two months have passed and all BEAT members have seen are only printouts of the said buses. Whether these buses have actually been ordered is anybody’s guess.

However, the most unacceptable part was the excuses given to justify why Rapid KL still cannot provide accessible bus service in the Klang Valley. Among the reasons given were that there was not enough time to look into the needs of all quarters when the purchase of the buses was initiated, that pavements in many parts of the city are in poor condition, the high cost for the repairs and the time needed to repair them. Throughout the two-hour meeting, there never was an iota of commitment to provide accessible buses on a full-scale basis.

This all boils down to the chicken or egg issue. Rapid KL said that even if they have the money for such buses it is pointless to put them on the roads because the bad pavements will prevent wheelchair users from getting into the buses. On the other hand, local governments do not see the need to upgrade the pavements to cater to such buses when none is in service. How can there ever be a solution when such paradoxes are being perpetuated?

Rapid KL stated that they ordered 1000 new buses. Of that amount, only 100 are fitted with accessible features such as no step, low floor and ramp. Assuming that the buses have been ordered and will be put into service soon, and pavements repaired and upgraded, the numbers are still insufficient to serve all routes effectively. To just put the buses on one or several routes out of the 179 that Rapid KL is currently operating is not a solution. There will not be enough frequency and interconnectivity to make it workable. Moreover, disabled persons do not go out at certain times only or live in one or two communities. They are scattered all over the Klang Valley.

Twelve years ago, a group of wheelchair users protested against Star LRT for not taking their needs into consideration. Twelve years later Star LRT, now renamed the Ampang and Sri Petaling Line, still does not have facilities for wheelchair users. Have they not waited long enough? How long more should they wait? To add to the mobility woes of wheelchair users, KL Monorail and the newly delivered Rapid KL buses are equally inaccessible.

Without convenient ways to move about, less disabled persons lose out on education and career opportunities. Severely disabled persons are forced to stay at home most of the time. There are few opportunities for self-development, socialising and participating in activities that can lead to fulfilling lives. They are further marginalised by the non-barrier-free environment in the areas that they live in. We can only try buy we will never fully understand the desolation that these people feel being cut off from the society that they are part of. It is truly a lonely world for them with only four walls as constant companions.

Accessible public transport, along with education, health care and barrier-free environment are basic rights that we as a society must provide to our own who need it. Moreover, such buses not only benefit wheelchair users but people with mobility problems like senior citizens and pregnant women. Does it not make better sense to use buses that serve everybody than those that favour people with good mobility only?

What are we effectively telling people who depend on such modes of transportation when we cite cost and a thousand other reasons as to why they are being denied such facilities? That they are not worth our time, effort and money? The energy spent to come out with various negative excuses could have been put to more productive use in looking for workable solutions. Why are the people who manage these services not doing that? Why the resistance? These are questions begging answers.

There is a very interesting debate going in at MonsterBlog. See disability issues from my point of view and that of someone who thinks that I should not be complaining so much about the lack of accessible facilities in Malaysia. Follow this link: When The Warm Malaysian Hospitality Is Just Not Enough.

Removing The Steps Of Disablement

Bless these Muslim youths who, despite the month of Ramadan, selflessly exerted great amount of energy to help my friends and me up and down a flight of steps. Without them, we would have been stranded. Their kindness is commendable. Carrying a wheelchair down a flight of steps with someone sitting on it is no easy feat. One misstep and all would have gone tumbling down.

Nevertheless, this is what wheelchair users have to risk all the time. The environment in Malaysia is very handicapping to people who are mobility impaired. That is the reason why wheelchair users like me call ourselves “disabled persons.” We are disabled by social construct. More than anything else, it is the perception of how things should be that is creating untold inconveniences for us.

On November 10, Bernama quoted Youth and Sports Minister Datuk Azalina Othman Said as saying that the ministry is “aware that presently, not all sports facilities in the country are disabled-friendly’ and that “the cost of hosting KL ‘06 (9th FESPIC Games) was high because of the need to provide additional facilities for the disabled.”

This is the often heard misconception that disabled persons require special or extra needs as compared to the non-disabled. Consequently, providing these needs would incur an exorbitant expenditure. This issue is often misunderstood by many, including government officials and even disabled persons themselves. Cost should not be touted as the reason why barrier-free amenities are lacking in Malaysia. The question of additional or extra or special needs should not arise either. This is about basic needs that everyone is entitled to whether they are disabled persons or not.

Take the flight of steps as an example. If a ramp with a gentle gradient is built over it, there is no longer a need to carry me up or down anymore. If one is to argue that building a ramp constitutes a special and extra need, than what does constructing that flight of steps mean? Take away the ramp and people with mobility impairments become disabled. Take away the steps as well and the non-disabled become disabled too because they will be unable to get into the building. In this sense, how can a ramp be considered an additional facility while steps are not?

Steps and ramps are means of accessibility. Access to buildings and all public amenities should be constructed to be functional to everyone. This is very seldom the case though. It is apparent that most of the obstacles disabled persons have been encountering originated from a skewed perception of how things should be. The consequences of this perception in turn prevent disabled persons from participating fully in society.

Just because things have been done the same way for thousands of years do not mean that we must continue doing it the same way now. Nevertheless, architects continue to design buildings with steps but without ramps while local councils continue to turn a blind eye to these blatant omissions.

The Uniform Building By-Law (UBBL) 34A stipulates that disabled persons must be provided with access into public buildings. It states that the requirements “shall be deemed to be satisfied by compliance with Malaysian Standard MS 1184 and MS 1183.” The two standards clearly lay out the design considerations needed to make such amenities safe and functional.

Unfortunately none of the 145 municipalities in Malaysia have fully complied with UBBL 34A. Local authorities appear to be the main stumbling block to making Malaysia barrier-free by refusing to enforce UBBL 34A. In the meantime, disabled persons continue to be disabled and risk their lives traversing over all these man-made obstacles. Why? Because we simply do not have a choice.

When The Warm Malaysian Hospitality Is Just Not Enough

So, 2007 is Visit Malaysia Year again. Incidentally, this is also the year we will be celebrating our 50th Independence Day. The Ministry of Tourism is targeting more than 20 million foreign visitors for this campaign. Undeniably, Malaysia has much to offer to tourists. After all, we are a melting pot of cultures that date back to the time when Malacca was the centre of commerce between the East and West many centuries ago.

While tourism officials are busy preparing glittering bunga mangga and kompang troupes to greet the influx of tourism dollars, the government is doing nothing to make tourists with mobility impairments feel welcomed. This group of tourists include senior citizens and wheelchair users.

One only has to go on a walkabout along the many attractions in Kuala Lumpur to understand the dire situation. Walkways either do not have kerb cuts or are in a state of disrepair. Accessible toilets are far and few in between. There are no public buses that they can ride in for a city tour. How then do we expect these people to move around and enjoy their time while they are here?

At the same time, Kuala Lumpur will also be playing host to the FESPIC Games later this month. According to its website, “The FESPIC Games is the biggest multi-sports & multi-disability event for athletes with disabilities in Asia and Oceania, and the second largest Games in the world, after the Paralympic Games.”

Come November 21, as many as 4,000 athletes and officials from about 50 countries will congregate in the capital for 12 days of intense competition. Surely some of them would love to visit the many attractions that Kuala Lumpur is famous for. What impression of Malaysia will they bring back to their country when they find that they are unable to visit these places because of the lack of accessible amenities? Certainly the warm Malaysian hospitality will not be sufficient to prevail over the inconvenience and disappointment that they have to face.

With four years to prepare for the games, Kuala Lumpur is still as inaccessible as ever. We have nobody to blame but the government for being complacent in this matter. When such an important event cannot even move the government to upgrade public facilities into barrier-free ones, what more can disabled citizens expect?

The Difference Between Impairment And Disability

Words maketh the man. How true that is. However, it is also a yardstick of ones’ ignorance. Through generations of conditioning, we tend to accept that disabled persons are marginalised because something is not right with them. Subsequently, we use inappropriate words to portray them, resulting in a way of thinking that sees their condition as a fault rather than the error in our way of perceiving them.

Impairment and disability are often accepted as two words with the same meaning. In reality, there is a stark difference between the significance of those words. Impairment describes someone who is paralysed, blind or deaf, among others. It describes the “imperfect” condition of the person as opposed to people who are considered “normal” by virtue of them being in the majority.

A person with impairment experiences disability when he is excluded from active participation in society. A building with stairs only for an entrance imposes disability on a wheelchair user. Add a ramp to it and the wheelchair user with physical impairment no longer experiences disability. In short, a person with impairment is not necessarily a person with a disability. On the contrary, disability is caused by the way things are constructed. It is as simple as that.

This clearly differentiates between the antiquated Medical Model of Disability and the Social Model of Disability. The former emphasises on the medical conditions of the individual – causes, diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation. His condition is seen as an impediment and every attempt is made to rehabilitate him to become as “normal” as possible. In many ways, the person is identified by his impairments, thus reducing him to a person who is lesser in every sense as a human being.

Social Model of Disability on the other hand sees society as the disabling factor. The way how things are being built and done disenfranchises this group of people. This model propounds a change from the traditional attitudes and approach when dealing with problems associated with disabled persons.

It underlines the individual as a person with dignity, choices and independence. His rights are respected. He is treated as an equal in society. The ideal of this model is that by changing the disabling environment and mindset, disabled persons become enabled and empowered. That was clearly illustrated in the explanation of the difference between impairment and disability.

Sad to say, Malaysia in the 21st century still clings on to the Medical Model of Disability. The most obvious example is the setup of urban public transportation. All but one public transport in the Klang Valley are inaccessible to wheelchair users. That encompasses even the most modern fleet of buses plying the streets of Kuala Lumpur.

The government and public service corporations must move away from the discriminating attitude of dishing out crumbs to disabled persons as an afterthought. Disabled persons are not beggars asking for charity. They are citizens of this country and should be accorded the same rights as non-disabled citizens.

Policy makers should work together with disabled persons to understand how best to build a society that includes them in every aspect. To achieve this, all parties concerned should take heed and make it a point to seriously adopt the Social Model of Disability so that no one group is deliberately left out because there is a lack of understanding of their needs.