There are laws in Malaysia that protect the rights of disabled persons. The Uniform Building By-Law 34A (UBBL 34A) of the Street, Drainage and Building Act has been in force since 1991 to ensure equal access to public buildings for disabled persons. The landmark Persons with Disabilities Act (Akta Orang Kurang Upaya) was enacted in 2008. Malaysia became a signatory to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 8th April, 2008 and ratified the document in 19th July, 2010.
However, Malaysia did not sign the Optional Protocol to the CRPD. The Optional Protocol allows individuals to lodge complaints with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities should a signatory country violates its obligations under the CRPD where the complainant has exhausted all avenues domestically.
The UBBL 34A requires that buildings constructed after it came into force be accessible to disabled persons and that buildings existing before that must be retrofitted with such facilities within three years. These facilities must comply with the Malaysia Standard MS 1184: Code of Practice on Access for Disabled Persons to Buildings. Twenty years later, many old buildings are still not renovated to comply to the by-law and newer buildings were built with facilities that are not usable and not built according to the code of practice. Furthermore, the PWD Act has not changed the situation for the better. Public transport, schools and other infrastructure are still inaccessible to disabled persons.
With these shortcomings in view, the Pusat Rakyat LoyarBurok (PRLB), a community centre run by the Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (MCCHR) and the Kuala Lumpur Bar Young Lawyers Committee (KLYLC) conducted a Strategic Litigation Workshop for disabled persons at the KL Bar Auditorium last Saturday to work on legal solutions to compel the authorities to comply with the UBBL 34A and the PWD Act. This workshop was the last of a series of four Public Interest Litigation Workshops to promote the human rights in the country.
It was unfortunate that the auditorium which was located in Wisma Kraftangan was inaccessible. There were no ramps for wheelchair users to get into the building. The venue was then changed to the Malaysian Bar Council’s Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium. The switchback ramp outside the building was rather steep and wheelchair users had difficulty ascending it independently on manual wheelchairs. There was also a safety issue with the landing where it did not have rails to prevent wheelchairs from going off the edge.
At the same time, pedestrian walkways leading to the building were fraught with poorly designed kerb ramps, drain covers with wide gaps and broken pavings. Incidentally, the Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (Kuala Lumpur City Hall) headquarters, the authority responsible for the upkeep of these facilities, is just a short walk away.
Disabled persons and lawyers at the Strategic Litigation Workshop held at the Malaysian Bar Council Auditorium.
Nevertheless, in spite of the barriers, about twenty disabled persons and an equal number of lawyers huddled in the auditorium. The workshop kicked off with the lawyers briefing the participants on the legal approaches and processes. Disabled participants also gave feedback on the problems with regards to inaccessibility to public buildings.
After tea break, participants were facilitated on their understanding on where disabled people stand in the scheme of things as citizens in this country in the session that was aptly called the Big Picture. What struck me most was how the interests of disabled people are under-represented in the entire political and administrative system. This session was followed by the Action Pyramid where we were presented with various options on advocacy activities that could be utilised to further the cause.
This workshop and the unfolding events represent another significant milestone in the annals of disability rights movement in Malaysia and a major step forward since the PWD Act came into force in 2008. The Kuala Lumpur legal fraternity, namely the MCCHR and KLYLC, deserve all the credit for their initiative in upholding and protecting the rights of disabled people in this country as provided for under the law.
After the conclusion of the workshop, participants were treated to a very scrumptious lunch of Peranakan cuisine at Precious Old China Restaurant & Bar in Central Market. A big thank you to all lawyers involved for generously contributing their time and effort for the betterment of disabled people in Malaysia. Things will never be quite the same for us again.
Tags: Action Pyramid, Akta OKU 2008, Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008, Big Picture, disabled people Malaysia, discrimination against disabled people, Kuala Lumpur Bar Council, Kuala Lumpur Bar Young Lawyers Committee (KLYLC), Malaysian Bar Council, Malaysian Centre for Constitutionalism and Human Rights (MCCHR), Persons with Disabilities Act 2008, Precious Old China Restaurant & Bar, Public Interest Litigation Workshop, Pusat Rakyat LoyarBurok (PRLB), PWD Act 2008, Raja Aziz Addruse Auditorium, Strategic Litigation Workshop, UBBL 34A, Undang-Undang Kecil 34A Undang-Undang Kecil Bangunan Seragam, Uniform Building By-Law 34A
“Supercrips” are people with impairments who overcome great obstacles to achieve “normality” in their lives, or even more. She is that paralysed woman who went through intense rehabilitation with a never-say-die attitude and is walking again today. And he is the man with no limbs who go about life “just like everyone else.”
The recent London 2012 Paralympics has pushed these supercrips to the forefront. People are paying more attention to these elite athletes who can outrun most non-disabled people. Their visibility in mainstream society is made more prominent by the mass and social medias that recycled images of them in their eye-catching carbon fibre prostheses.
The term “supercrip” itself is condescending. The word “cripple” is considered not politically correct when used in reference to disabled persons. We have evolved where language is concerned but this particular word lingers as supercrips continue to amaze society while creating a sense of confusion within the disability circle.
To society, they are the epitome of what other disabled people should strive for, rising from the ashes to become one with society again. Their accomplishments are often used as examples to inspire non-disabled people and other disabled people as well.
Don’t we just love the story of the armless artist who paints with his foot? Or the wheelchair user who goes everywhere and anywhere and even up stairs by himself? They don’t need reasonable accommodation. They don’t complain. They just suck it up and move on. If they can, why can’t other disabled people?
They make “ordinary” disabled people like me sound whiney and demanding for not putting in that extra effort but expecting society to solve our problems. Don’t get me wrong. I have nothing against them. They worked hard to get where they are. They live the life they want to. That is their prerogative. I have no argument with that.
What I am opposed to is how they are being used as a yardstick on other disabled people. Not every wheelchair user can get up a kerb without assistance. Not every single-leg amputee can become a world class athlete. Not every disabled person who go through rehabilitation can regain full functionality of their body.
A few years ago, I was invited to speak at a seminar organised by a municipal council on the environmental barriers faced by disabled people. Imagine my shock and horror when one of the speakers, after concluding his session on removing barriers, played a video of a disabled person going about his life effortlessly in spite of the barriers in and outside his house.
That video alone cancelled out all our arguments calling for a barrier free environment. Needless to say, the participants were more impressed with that video than the presentations of subsequent speakers. What made it more unfortunate was that the speaker is a wheelchair user and veteran activist on disability issues.
Injudicious use of such examples is damaging to the dignity of disabled persons as individuals and dilutes the advocacy of the disability movement. Disabled people who don’t achieve that certain level of independence will feel that they are not working hard enough. Society, on the other hand, will not see the urgency to make the built environment accessible since disabled people are the cause of their own problems.
The crux of the issue is that we should all accept the diversity of the humankind. People should be given a choice of who or what they want to be. There are super-achievers and there are people who just want to be ordinary. Not every non-disabled person can climb Mount Everest or run a marathon. We respect that. Likewise, not every disabled person has the capacity to become a super-achiever and may need support in their activities of daily living. We have to respect this also.
Supercrips are the exception, not the norm. Notwithstanding society’s fascination with them as the posterboy for disabled people, they are not the true face of disability, and not every disabled person wants to be a supercrip. That is the reality.
Around the world, millions of disabled people are still struggling against barriers, discrimination and oppression every day of their lives. Their stories of courage are not any less interesting. They are fighting for the right to live ordinary lives without having to accomplish extraordinary feats. Now, isn’t that one cause truly worth fighting for?
When the disability movement in Malaysia does not speak in one voice, everybody becomes confused, disabled people themselves included. The issue of aerobridges at KL International Airport 2 (KLIA2) clearly shows the split.
Do disabled people need aerobridges to board planes at the KLIA2? Christine Lee, whelchair user and co-ordinator of the Barrier-Free Environment and Accessible Transport Group (BEAT) thinks it is needed and was quoted by Bernama as saying:
“The MAHB decision not to include aerobridges is a step backward and taken in the wrong direction,” she told reporters at a gathering attended by some 30 people with various disabilities to express their displeasure over this matter, here today.
“If underdeveloped countries can have aerobridges at their airports, why is Malaysia, which is a step away from developed nation status, regressing to third world infrastructure and service provision,” said Lee of the Barrier-free Environment and Accessible Transport (BEAT).
She added that aerobridges should and must be made a universal feature in all airport designs and developments.
(Disabled Community Pushes For Aerobridges At KLIA2 – August 20, 2011)
However, Anthony Thanasayan who is also a wheelchair user and Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) councillor opines otherwise as reported in The Star:
He said he personally did not think it necessary for the aerobridges to be installed as ambulifts could cater for the disabled.
“What’s wrong with using ambulifts? Able-bodied passengers don’t need the aerobridges,” he said, adding that he was more concerned with the toilet and ramp designs at the new low-cost carrier terminal.
(Disabled group insists on aerobridge at new KLIA2 terminal – August 21, 2011)
Who should Malaysia Airports, and for that matter, the government and all other infrastructure providers, listen to? One party says we need aerobridges which is not only a convenience for disabled people but also to senior citizens, pregnant women, children and adults with prams. On the other hand, the other party says that ambulifts are sufficient.
Anthony was further reported to have argued against the use of aerobridge in Free Malaysia Today:
Thanasayan, a disabled himself felt that aerobridges were too expensive a commitment.
He suggested instead the use of the portable ambulifts in airports.
“The ambulift is more suitable as it is portable.
“Having an aerobridge will increase cost for passengers by 20%.
“It is unfair to shift the cost to able-bodied passengers.
“I have been carried up into planes in the US because the smaller airports does not have aerobridges and ambulifts,” said Thanasayan, who is the president of Petpositiev and an activist for the disabled community.
(‘Inconsiderate’ MAHB, Air Asia slammed – August 20, 2011)
This disagreement cannot come at a worse time, especially when the public and private sectors are beginning to warm up to the concept of right of access to the built-environment for disabled people. This right is recognized in the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 and clearly stated in Clause 26 (Access to public facilities, amenities and services and buildings) and Clause 27 (Access to public transport facilities).
Access for disabled persons should not be exclusive, meaning, as far as possible, we do not advocate for special or separate facilities. This is where universal design comes in. This concept promotes that the built-environment and products are made accessible and usable to both non-disabled people and disabled people.
The importance that the Malaysian government accords to universal design is reflected in the formation of the Universal Design and Built Environment Committee (Jawatankuasa Reka Bentuk Sejagat Dan Alam Bina) under the National Council for Persons with Disabilities (Majlis Kebangsaan Bagi Orang Kurang Upaya).
The National Council was constituted under Clause 3 of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 and is chaired by the Minister of Women, Family and Community Development. Unfortunately, the same National Council did not make the effort to ensure that the facilities at KLIA2 are inclusive and universally usable.
Aerobridges are a good example of universal design. It provides convenience to all categories of passengers boarding and disembarking from aircrafts irrespective of weather. Wheelchair users can go right to the boarding door before transferring to a boarding chair to get into the plane. Likewise, senior citizens and non-disabled adult passengers with children, prams and luggages in tow can walk right up to the boarding door without having to heave kids and luggages up the boarding stairs.
To answer Anthony’s question of “What’s wrong with using ambulifts?” My answer is that there is absolutely nothing wrong in using ambulifts for boarding in airports that do not have boarding bridges. However, in the case of KLIA2, it is built from the ground up and “provisions have been made in the design of the terminals at the new low cost carrier terminal, the KLIA2, to accommodate the installation of aerobridges, if required at any time by AirAsia group or other low cost carriers (LCCs).” (The Star – New LCT designed to enable installation of aerobridges – July 15, 2011). So why not install the aerobridges for the convenience and safety of everyone?
Acording the a statement by Malaysia Airports dated July 15, 2011 with the heading No Aerobridges At KLIA2 To Cater For AirAsia’s Requirement, it was mentioned that aerobridges are mandatory for airlines in other countries in the region. A calculation of the cost per passenger for the usage was also furnished.
Airports in other countries in the region make it mandatory for airlines to use aerobridges where provided, in order to enhance passenger convenience, safety and security. Should the airlines choose not to use aerobridges, they then have to park the aircraft in a remote position and bus the passengers to the terminal. AirAsia had explained that they use aerobridges at these other countries as they are compelled to adhere to the regulatory requirements at these airports, as no exemptions are given.
Based on AirAsia’s decision not to use aerobridges at klia2, the terminal for LCCs, even during inclement weather or for long haul operations, the terminal is being constructed without the installation of aerobridges and instead ramps will be provided. As AirAsia and AirAsiaX would be the major airlines at klia2, it may not be worthwhile to incur the cost if the aerobridges are not going to be used. However provision has been made in the design of the terminal to accommodate the installation of aerobridges, if so required at any time, by AirAsia group or any other LCCs. Discussions will be held with other LCCs as well on their requirements.
The current charge to the airline for the use of the aerobridge is RM85.00 per usage. Based on a full A320 aircraft carrying 180 passengers for both arriving and departing flights, the cost of using the aerobridge works out to be less than 25 sen per passenger. This makes Malaysia Airports’ charge for the aerobridge the lowest in the region.
Malaysia Airports has continually received numerous feedbacks from the public requesting that all airlines be required to use aerobridges in order to avoid inconvenience to passengers. Tan Sri Bashir added, “As such, we will continue to engage AirAsia and AirAsiaX, as well as other airlines to look into the possibility of further aligning their operations to the needs of passengers.”
If other countries are already imposing the mandatory use of aerobridges, why are we arguing against it here? It is a matter of regulatory requirements at those airports and airlines have no choice but to comply. The costs are passed down to passengers in the form of airport tax and passengers using those airports have no issue with it.
In the case of aerobridge charges at KLIA2, is 25 sen per passenger an excessive amount for a measure of convenience and safety, irrespective of whether one is a disabled person or not? I find it very surprising for Anthony to say that it is unfair for non-disabled passengers to bear the cost of providing such facilities to disabled passengers in Malaysia. Each and every passenger in the countries where aerobridge is mandatory has to pay for the usage and it is not due to providing for the needs of disabled passengers but by the force of regulation.
Malaysia have similar regulations as stated by the Malaysia Airports statement. Why then is it so different in Malaysia that disabled people are singled out and blamed should such charges be imposed? It is a regulatory requirement and has nothing to do with whether the facilities are for disabled passengers or otherwise. Therefore, the issue of passing on the cost to non-disabled passengers is untenable and without basis.
What is disappointing is that exemption is given to AirAsia and other low-cost carriers that are currently operating at KLIA-LCCT and will be operating at KLIA2 to not use aerobridges. This is at the expense of security, convenience and safety of passengers in addition to imposing a great inconvenience to disabled passengers who have to depend on ambulifts for boarding failing which we have to be bodily carried up the narrow boarding stairs. This is dangerous in many aspects, for the passenger and the crews carrying the passenger.
Malaysia Airports further stated that ramps will be provided in place of aerobridges. It was not elaborated what kind of ramps these were and whether wheelchair users can independently ascend these ramps. One point I have to wholeheartedly agree with Christine is that Malaysia is very close to becoming a developed nation but has unfortunately regressed to becoming third world again by this act of not using aerobridges, especially for a modern airport such as the KLIA2 that is being built at a cost of RM2bil and will become operational by the fourth quarter of 2012.
The issue of aerobridges is not limited only to KLIA2. It involves all major airports in the country where low-cost carriers fly to, like Penang and Kota Kinabalu. Malaysia Airports must seriously consider the views of all stakeholders in this matter as it involves the comfort, convenience and safety of passengers using the airports under its management.
At the same time, disabled advocates should take a step back to see what damage the aerobridge debacle has done to the disability movement in Malaysia. I am very concerned with the disunity displayed when confronted by major issues such as this. It is as if the head knows not what the tail is doing. If we cannot speak in one voice convincingly, no one will ever take us seriously again.
Engaging in one-upsmanship where disability issues are concerned benefits no one. In the end, the disabled community as a whole loses and suffers the consequences of disabled advocates cancelling each other out with contradictory statements.
I sincerely urge Christine and Anthony, as leaders of the respective groups, to come together to trash out the differences and come out with a common statement in this issue for the sake of all disabled people in Malaysia. Please take to heart the very apt Malay proverb: Bersatu teguh, bercerai roboh (United we stand, divided we fall).
Tags: aerobridge, Akta OKU 2008, Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008, Anthony Thanasayan, boarding bridge, Christine Lee, disabled air travel, disabled people Malaysia, discrimination against disabled people, Jawatankuasa Reka Bentuk Sejagat Dan Alam Bina, Kementerian Pembangunan Wanita Keluarga dan Masyarakat, KLIA LCCT, KLIA2, Kuala Lumpur International Airport 2, low-cost carriers, Majlis Kebangsaan Bagi Orang Kurang Upaya, Malaysia Airports Holdings Berhad, Ministry of Women Family and Community Development, National Council for Persons with Disabilities, reka bentuk sejagat, Universal Design, wheelchair user Malaysia