The Digital Awakening » discrimination against disabled people

Of KLIA2 Aerobridges And The Disability Movement In Malaysia

Peter Tan — Mon, 22 Aug 2011 04:20:38 +0000

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 Rquirement, 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).

#tanyanajib

Peter Tan — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:01:39 +0000

Prime Minister Datuk Seri Najib Tun Razak invited Malaysians on Facebook and Twitter to ask him questions from 4.30 pm to 5.30 pm today. The Twitter hashtag is #tanyanajib while questions through Facebook can be submitted at www.facebook.com/najibrazak. I have never seen a Twitter timeline scroll down so fast. Due to the overwhelming response, the time to pose questions was extended to 6.00 pm.

I thought that this would be a good opportunity to pose the questions on longstanding disability issues to him and see if he responds. These issues are, after all, not new but ones that have gone unresolved for the longest time. Will Najib address any of them? Time will tell. By the way, at this moment, #tanyanajib is trending in ninth position worldwide. We sure have a lot of questions for the Prime Minister!

#tanyanajib Why are roads in KL full of potholes? Dangerous to motorcyclists. DBKL not doing a good job.

#tanyanajib Why is Prasarana/RapidKL so reluctant in using non-step buses? We don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Look at Japan and Australia.

#tanyanajib Why is full relief on income tax not given to purchase of rehabilitative and support equipment for disabled people?

#tanyanajib Will you amend UBBL 34A to make it COMPULSORY for all buildings and street environment to have access for disabled people?

#tanyanajib Will the MRT be barrier-free?

#tanyanajib What is the govt doing to prevent abuse of parking and toilet for disabled people?

#tanyanajib Public transport is not accessible. Disabled people stuck at home. What is the govt doing to resolve this?

#tanyanajib Will Malaysia enact punitive anti-discrimination law to protect the rights of disabled people?

#tanyanajib Join OKUs on a wheelchair ride around KL to experience the mega-problems we face everyday. Not much has changed since Akta OKU.

#tanyanajib Is the govt changing “orang kurang upaya” to something more empowering? We certainly are not people of lesser abilities.

What is the govt’s plan in making Malaysia barrier free? If yes, is there a time frame to it? #tanyanajib @ShahrizatJalil

Human Rights Day 2010: “Against All Odds”: The Malaysian Bar – December 9, 2010

Peter Tan — Mon, 13 Dec 2010 04:13:56 +0000

Press Release: Human Rights Day 2010: “Against All Odds”
Thursday, 09 December 2010 10:40am

On 10 December this year, the Bar Council Human Rights Committee once again joins the rest of the world in celebrating Human Rights Day.

Our focus this year is on the rights of persons with disabilities.

Malaysia recently ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (“CRPD”). While the Malaysian Bar welcomes this move, there are still grave concerns on the Government’s reservations to Article 3 on general principles, Article 5 on equality and non-discrimination, Article 15 on freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Article 18 on liberty of movement and nationality, and Article 30 on participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport.

Malaysia has also not signed or ratified the Optional Protocols of CRPD, which grant specific rights to the citizens/residents of a country to refer their government to the international supervisory committee for non-compliance with any of the articles.

Locally, the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 has yet to be amended to provide for any form of punishment or remedy for breaches.

These are fundamental issues that need to be addressed, to give full force and effect to the CRPD, without which the rights of persons with disabilities in this country are not even close to being fully acknowledged, what more protected.

Aimed at raising public awareness on rights of persons with disabilities, “Against All Odds” will feature a Public Forum on Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 that will take place on 12 December 2010 (Sunday) from 2:00 pm to 5:00 pm at the Bar Council Auditorium, No 15, Leboh Pasar Besar, 50050 Kuala Lumpur.

Invited panellists, and the topics of discussion, are:

(a) Professor Dr Tiun Ling Ta, President, Persatuan Orang Cacat Anggota Malaysia: “Opportunities in education – early, primary, secondary and tertiary”;
(b) Zakaria b Yahaya, Teacher, Sekolah Menengah Pendidikan Khas Setapak, Kuala Lumpur: “Observation and expectation from the vocational and recreational perspectives”;
(c) Helen Chin, advocate and solicitor: “Malaysia’s ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and human rights for the disabled community in Malaysia”;
(d) A representative from the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) (TBC): “Commitments by the government ministries and agencies”; and
(e) A representative from the Ministry of Women, Family and Community Development (TBC): “Enjoying life from human rights perspectives”.

The forum will be conducted in both Bahasa Malaysia and English.

After a successful inaugural event in 2008, the Bar Council Human Rights Debate is now being featured again in conjunction with the Human Rights Day celebrations. It is a three-day event that will be held from 10-12 December 2010 (Friday to Sunday) at KDU University College, Section 13 Campus, No 76, Jalan Universiti, Petaling Jaya, Selangor.

Aimed at promoting free speech and creating greater awareness and education of human rights standards, while at the same time advocating important principles of international rights law, the theme for this year’s Human Rights Debate is “Against All Odds – Making a Difference for Human Rights”.

Out of RM30,000.00 prize money allocated from registration fees and corporate sponsorships, RM25,000.00 will be donated equally to five institutions caring or advocating for persons with disabilities from all over the country, to be selected by the Bar Council Human Rights Committee. The remaining RM5,000.00 will be awarded as prize money to the champion of the tournament.

Teams from 18 institutions, including some from India, Bangladesh, Philippines and Singapore, as well as local universities such as Universiti Malaya and Universiti Putra Malaysia, have registered for the tournament.

This is a unique debating tournament, the first in the world to be hosted by a statutory body of legal professionals.

Admission to both the public forum and the human rights debate tournament is free, and open to the public. Due to limited space, pre-registration is required in order to attend the public forum. To register, please contact Adi Irman by telephone at 03-2031 3003 ext 105 or by email at adi@malaysianbar.org.my.

Ragunath Kesavan
President
Malaysian Bar

9 Dec 2010

HELP And BBDO/Proximity Malaysia: Wheelchair Drunk Driving Campaign

Peter Tan — Thu, 18 Nov 2010 10:32:43 +0000

HELP and BBDO/Proximity Malaysia: Wheelchair Drunk Driving campaign poster.
Click on image to enlarge.

While searching for information on wheelchair companies in Malaysia, I came across a campaign against drunk driving by HELP and BBDO/Proximity Malaysia. This poster won the 2008 Golden Kancil Award. Although that poster appeared two years ago, I need to say something that had weighed heavily in my mind since I discovered it.

Having used a wheelchair for more than half of my life, I thought I have gone through enough to not be deeply affected by discrimination, oppression and ignorance of the general public regarding the endless issues faced disabled people. But the people at HELP and BBDO/Proximity Malaysia proved me wrong. I was deeply insulted by that campaign poster against drunk driving.

The main image in the poster showed a wheelchair assembled from parts of a wrecked car driven by a supposedly drunk driver. The text stated that “Drink driving is a problem among youths” and that “HELP wanted to change this attitude by reminding youths of a fate worse than death.” Another message written on a car door says: “Drink and drive and you might live to suffer the consequences”.

Being in a wheelchair is a fate worse than death.

What? Being in a wheelchair is a fate worse than death? Wheelchair users are all suffering the consequences? This is proof of how deeply ingrained the perceptions of disabled people still are in the mind of the general public who think that our life is not worth living anymore. We are still being viewed through lenses tinted with great prejudices.

In one fell swoop, not only are wheelchair users stereotyped as drunk drivers suffering the consequences of inebriety. Wheelchair users are also portrayed as having a fate worse than death. To you people at HELP and BBDO/Proximity Malaysia, thank you so much for enlightening me that my life in a wheelchair has little value and meaning. I truly did not realise that I would have been better off dead.

Drink and drive and you might live to suffer the consequences.

I am not against campaigns against drunk driving. We certainly need to put the message across that drunk driving kills and maims, not only the driver but innocent people as well. However, I take offense that wheelchair users are portrayed in such a negative manner, especially in an era when disabled people still face hardship and inequality in society. Moreover, the impairments of most wheelchair users are due to diseases, accidents unrelated to drunk driving or congenital.

Shame on all the people at HELP and BBDO/Proximity Malaysia involved in this campaign. You have done a great injustice to wheelchair users, not only in Malaysia but all over the world, who despite the barriers that we face every day, have moved on in life. If only all of you had bothered to get to know disabled people, you would have discovered that we are determined to make the most out of our lives just like everyone else.

And NO, being in a wheelchair is NOT a fate worse than death. Although we cannot say we are enjoying it, this is who we are. We cannot change that. But what we can and want to change are all the negative perceptions surrounding disabled people. Advertising agencies, with their ability to move public opinion, should work with disabled people to dispel those myths and perceptions instead of using us as objects of bad examples.

Time to remove all reservations and sign the Optional Protocols: The Malaysian Bar – July 8, 2010

Peter Tan — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 08:13:50 +0000

The Malaysian Bar
Press Release: Time to remove all reservations and sign the Optional Protocols

Thursday, 08 July 2010 03:11pm
The Malaysian Bar welcomes the Government’s ratification of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Alongside Malaysia’s well-publicised ratification, the Government has nonetheless taken reservations to Article 3 on general principles, Article 5 on equality and non-discrimination, Article 15 on freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, Article 18 on liberty of movement and nationality, and Article 30 on participation in cultural life, recreation, leisure and sport.

This means that the Malaysian Government does not fully subscribe to the fundamental principles that persons with disabilities should enjoy such equality, non-discrimination, freedom or liberty, or to fully participate in culture, recreation, leisure and sport. This makes for a hollow ratification since such reservations take away from fundamental principles that underpin CRPD.

These kinds of reservations are consistent with the reservations made to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which Malaysia acceded to in 1995. Despite withdrawing reservations to Articles 1, 13 and 15 of CRC, Malaysia still has five reservations in place. These are to Article 2 on non-discrimination; Article 7 on name and nationality; Article 14 on freedom of thought, conscience and religion; Article 28(1)(a) on free and compulsory education at primary level; and Article 37 on torture and deprivation of liberty. This indicates that the Malaysian Government still takes the view that children can be discriminated against, have no right to a name or nationality, have no freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and staggeringly, should not be free from torture and deprivation of liberty.

The Malaysian Bar also welcome the Government’s withdrawal of reservations to Articles 5(a), 7(b) and 16(2) of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). While noteworthy strides have been made in terms of efforts to eliminate discrimination against women, Malaysia also still has five reservations in place with respect to CEDAW. These deal with equal rights for women to pass their nationality to their children (Article 9(2)); equal rights to enter into marriage (Article 16(1)(a)); equal rights and responsibilities during marriage and at its dissolution (Article 16(1)(c)); equal rights and responsibilities with regard to guardianship, wardship, trusteeship and adoption of children (Article 16(1)(f)); and the same personal rights in a marriage, including the right to choose a family name, a profession and an occupation (Article 16(1)(g)).

In addition to these reservations, the Malaysian Government has still not signed or ratified any of the Optional Protocols to CRPD, CRC or CEDAW. These Optional Protocols grant specific rights to the citizens/residents of a country to refer their government to the international supervisory committee for non-compliance with each of these conventions. At present, although Malaysia is a State Party to these conventions, Malaysians cannot hold the Government accountable if it does not honour or comply with their provisions.

Similarly, the Persons With Disabilities Act 2008, which supposedly implemented the provisions of CRPD and which came into force in July 2008, does not provide for any form of punishment or remedy for breaches. It remains to be seen how the Malaysian Government will ensure that provisions of that Act are implemented. The Act also does not ensure that the persons with disabilities are not discriminated against, e.g. in education and employment opportunities.

The ratification of CRPD, and the withdrawal of some of the reservations to CRC and CEDAW, are all positive steps. However, more can, and should, be done.

We call on the Malaysian Government to give full effect to its international obligations by removing all remaining reservations, and by signing all three Optional Protocols. It should also expand the scope of the existing Child Act 2001 and Persons With Disabilities Act 2008 to comprehensively cover all areas of CRC and CRPD respectively. Currently, many of the provisions of CRC and CRPD have been left out of the enabling Malaysian legislation.

Finally, to show that it is fully transparent and accountable to the rakyat, we call on the Malaysian Government to insert provisions in all enabling legislation to allow the Malaysian Government to be challenged in Malaysian courts for non-compliance with its full obligations under CRPD, CRC and CEDAW. In particular, as a member of the United Nations Human Rights Council, the Malaysian Government should do no less.

Lim Chee Wee
Vice-President
Malaysian Bar

8 July 2010