Mr. President, Members of HKIA, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I would like to begin by offering our heartiest congratulations to the Institute for the significant contributions that your profession has made in half a century. The difference which you have made can easily be discerned from looking at the buildings that we now have, and then looking in reminiscence at photographs of buildings which we used to have. People may prefer one to the other. But that is a matter of taste and perspective, and I am least qualified to comment on that.

It is my pleasure and privilege to have the opportunity to play a small part in this celebration year of HKIA, speaking on the area of accessibility.

The paradigm shift

The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) is entrusted with the statutory duty to eliminate discrimination on the grounds of gender, disability and family status, and, before long, race as well. It is not the intention of the anti-discrimination law to attain absolute parity in the circumstances of relevant individuals. Rather, it is the enjoyment of equal opportunities that the law aims to protect and promote. Amongst the groups of people the law aims to protect, persons with disability often find themselves consigned to poverty, unemployment and social isolation, by force of circumstance and because of the lack of equal opportunity available to them, and, as a result, the absence of chances of development. This is so, even if the individual may possess personal attributes, which, if he or she had not been disabled, would have secured employment.

In recent years, an important paradigm shift has taken place in the approach in dealing with disability issues, shifting from the emphasis of welfare to the right-based approach. International rights instruments recognize the fundamental right of persons with disability to benefit from measures designed to ensure their capacity to live independently, social and occupational integration and participation in the life of the community.

In 2001, the General Assembly of the United Nations (UN) decided to establish an "Ad Hoc Committee on a Comprehensive and Integral International Convention on the Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities" - a very long title for a very worthy cause. After numerous meetings, some of marathon length, the draft text of a Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities was finalized on 25th August 2006[1]. The Convention will be formally delivered to the General Assembly for adoption at its next session which begins this month. It will then be open for signing and ratification by all countries.

The Convention seeks to promote the right-based approach to dealing with disabilities. It represents a paradigm shift from the traditional way that governments look at and handle disabilities and their sufferers. The Hong Kong EOC is glad to have had the privilege of contributing to the process by sharing our experience of administrating the anti-discrimination ordinances, the complaints handling and redress mechanisms that are in place in our jurisdiction.

Removal of barrier is empowerment

One of the emphases is the removal of environmental, legal and technical barriers to enable effective participation of persons with disability in the society. Accessibility to built environment and seamless travel remain to be the main areas of concerns. Inaccessibility limits mobility of disabled persons and their pursuit of activities, which, to you and I, would have been regarded as normal or routine. The right-based approach to the concept of anti-discrimination is to give back to those affected, in this case, our disabled friends, a measure of human dignity - dignity that is the birth-right of every individual. We seek to do this by ensuring equal opportunities available to all disadvantaged groups, be they women, disabled persons or ethnic minorities.

In Hong Kong, the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (DDO) provides the right to accessible workplace, housing, hospital, libraries, restaurants, shops, commercial centers, transport hubs, leisure and cultural facilities, and so on. In short, both public and private facilities are covered. Failure to provide equal access to these facilities, or unequal treatment in service provision, constitutes a violation of the law and can be made subject matter of a complaint under the law. The available defence to such complaints is the proof of providing access or services would constitute undue hardship in terms of costs and limitations. For that, the legal provisions have direct impacts on the providers of services and facilities, manager and owners of premises. Indirectly, the provisions have bearing on the work of architects, planners and builders.

Complaint cases

For your information, complaints related to access to built environment make up about 13 % of the cases lodged under the Disability Discrimination Ordinance. Generally, there are three common areas of concern, i.e. the availability, connectivity and usability issues.

Barriers in built environment do not affect persons with disability alone. From time to time, we also receive complaints from carers against disabled toilet compartments installed inside male or female toilets. Parents also complain against the lack of unisex toilet for attending to the needs of their children. The lack of consideration to diverse needs make it impossible, or cause embarrassment, to carers when attending to disabled persons or children of the opposite gender. This reflects that diversity in people's need has not been given due weight in the design and built of facilities.

In most of the cases, we are able to help parties to come to amicable resolutions. The solutions are found amidst various options--- removal of barrier, alteration of the building or facilities, and provision of alternatives. Of course, there are cases that cannot be resolved due to physical, financial or geographical constraints. The EOC, as a statutory regulator, recognizes these constraints. We perform our statutory functions in a pragmatic manner, according due cognizance to realities.

As with all other areas of regulation, accessibility-related complaints are likely to remain high in tandem with the growth in the number of disabled persons. This growth is expected to be fuelled by an ageing population. As we, as a society, continue to make advancement in medicine, geriatrics and sanitation, leading to upward mortality adjustment for both men and women, the corollary will be that we shall have more people suffering from some form of disability. To those in the insurance business, there will be a familiar ring to this observation.

Mainstreaming special needs into design

Redressing individual accessibility problem by way of complaint may not be the most effective way to deal with inaccessibility. To achieve sustainable and operational solutions, it is more efficient to tackle the problem in a systemic manner. Due recognition of the rights of the affected groups is crucial in ensuring a sustainable built environment. Marginalizing their special needs will only incur higher alteration costs in the future. Obviously, it is far cheaper to construct an access ramp or to put on doors wide enough for wheelchair users at the time of construction than to do so afterwards. The costs would have been minimal compared to the cost of the building.

Removal, alteration and alternatives are the three key strategies in resolving the problem. But they are only effective in rectifying existing accessibility situations. The avoidance of new barriers is the most effective way in achieving equal access and seamless travel.

A comprehensive building code is a good starting point to address root causes and avoid future problems. The Barrier-free Design Manual is now under review and I understand greater details and clearer principles have been suggested in the final draft. However, can a comprehensive code solve the problem completely? Probably not. The code does not deal with mindset. A proper mindset is the most essential element in bringing about an inclusive environment - thereby avoiding the creation of new barriers.

Attending to technical compliance & diversity

Very often, we receive complaints against the unpleasant back-door passages for wheelchair users, lack of unisex toilet facilities for people with special needs, inadequate signage or direction signs for people with memory deficiency, insufficient illumination, and so on. We observe that technical compliance of the building code often overrides usability considerations. Minimum compliance may be enough to keep the lawyers at bay, but it cannot, and should not, be a norm that we as a society promote.

Barrier-free concept implies that a building and its facilities can be approached, entered and or used by all, including persons with physical or sensory disability. Such requirement can mean many different things. Using a ramp built at the back of the building will take a wheelchair user longer time to enter the building and use the facilities than a visitor without a wheelchair. It is less convenient for the PWD, not to mention the indignity of having to navigate through kitchen pantries, storage rooms and delivery bays. It would be apparent that adequate attention has not been placed on the equal opportunities law.

Usability should not just be a matter of whether or not it is possible for the person with disability to perform tasks or reach the location. It is also a matter of how dignified, easy and expeditious it is for them to do so. The human right principle of substantive equality, which strives for equal rights and opportunities and recognition of dignity and worth of every person, calls for this type of understanding. It is incumbent upon all of us - professional persons, regulator and fellow citizens alike - to assist in promoting this understanding.

Where the adoption of alternative means is unavoidable, it is essential to ensure that the alternative means can bring equality of outcome at an approximately equal level of convenience with due respect for the dignity of the users. For example -

• Both the alternative and the main passages open onto or are connected to the main street;
• The alternative route is equally clean and decent; or
• Lift service is provided as an alternative to escalator service.

As we can all see, the solution often lies in applying common sense - if only we allow that common sense to become part of our psyche.

It is also often a good practice to review and fine-tune current practices so that the structures and assumptions that we hold do not exclude persons with disability or other minority group from participation in society. Sadly, it is a fact that the needs of PWDs are not met with the same degree of efforts that correspond to size of the PWD community. This is true of most societies. The UN estimates that PWDs account for roughly 10% of the average population. They are the major 'minority' in our society. True, much depends on how one defines 'disability'. But the proportion is significant. It would be pertinent to ask oneself, how much effort or resources have we devoted to addressing the needs of this 'minority'

PWD tourism[2] was never a concern until recently; similarly with leisure facilities. We need to remember that investment in those needs also makes economic sense - disabled shoppers in an accessible shopping mall is a sign of maturity of our society as well as a mark of quality of that commercial enterprise.

Buildings are static but the needs of users change. Developers should consider future population mix and users needs. Some old buildings do not have lift openings at lower floors, because such need was not anticipated in the building stage at the time. But times have changed, along with it society's expectation. Long running slope without landings, that are dangerous for wheelchair users and the elderly, are no longer acceptable.

Architects championing human rights

I understand social inclusions and creation of sustainable built environment are amongst the focuses of the HKIA. In this respect, your Institute and the EOC are sharing the same value. It is the EOC's vision to create a pluralistic society free of discrimination where there is no barrier to equal opportunities, and it would be our privilege to work with you to achieve that vision.

As architects, you all have a matrix of considerations to consider in each project. Architecture is a creative process and there is no fixed standard design solution, as each project has its own individual characteristics. Balancing the aesthetics of the design, physical limitation, time and resources constraints is no easy task.

There is no need for me to tell you that a fully accessible building is flexible, sustainable and may well command greater market value. But architects may need to do a fair amount of persuasion to convince their developer clients and owners of facilities of such advantages and the accompanying social responsibilities.

The Equal Opportunities Commission is planning to launch an accessibility study. We shall need expert advice and support in the course of our work, and I am glad that HKIA has indicated its support in the project.

Thank you.

---

^[1]Secretary-General Kofi Annan called the agreement "a historic achievement for the 650 million people with disabilities around the world" and "this long overdue Convention will mark the beginning of a new era in which they will have the same rights and opportunities as everyone else." The General Assembly President Jan Eliasson said "this is the first convention of this magnitude for this century" and that it is conveying to the world "the message that we want to have a life with dignity for all and that all human beings are equal." New Zealand's Ambassador Don MacKay, who chaired the final sessions, also said that "this marks a great day for the UN and for persons with disabilities" and "it will make a difference for millions of people."

^[2]The Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation has a subsidiary, Easy Access Travel Ltd., which provides accessible travel services to people with special traveling needs: wheelchairs, mobility aids, assistants and carers.