When my Mom takes time off from work, I gain weight faster than I could say “fat”.
These are the reasons why.
On another note…
have you actually travelled? because the elderly do make up a significant part of the population, and these are the people who actually use the disabled facilities because most of them rely on wheelchairs or little motor vehicles to get around in western countries. the disabled not a majority of the population? think again.
There, so what on earth are you still rambling about normal people having the rights to use toilets for the handicap? If you’ve travelled more than me, you’ve obviously wasted all the airfares.
besides, i think people with handicaps are wise enough to go to the washroom at designated times seeing how it might take longer for them to get to the washroom. my own grandma is wheelchair bound, and she does that. so frankly, the point of “having their bladders bursting bit” isn’t entirely valid here. you’re simply demeaning the IQ and common sense of the handicaps here by insisting on your way of things, but not theirs.
If there are available toilets for them, they don’t need to have designated pee time, hello? Your statement reeks so much discrimination it makes me want to vomit. Your granny probably does that because there are so many inconsiderate people in the world, including yourself. And if there’s any IQ I’m demeaning, it’s obviously yours.
making them feel like inferior and sub-human by thinking they are dependent on the society just because they have a handicap is totally degrading.
Depriving them off the rights to pee comfortably is degrading. Nuf’ said.
i’m all for it as well. i just think it’s really ridiculous you are being so self-righteous here when you actually sit on those seat designated for the elderly or “the disabled” like you said (if you really are for promoting the rights of these people, they really prefer to be known as “those with a handicap”, not “the disabled”). what if you fall asleep or you’re too engrossed in reading that you actually fail to see someone who needs the seat more than you? isn’t that a big inconvenience to those people too?
Dare I say you’re championing rights for normal people? Oh dear, aren’t you demeaning the normal people!
You’ve got a point babe on the reading thing, but suffice to say I’ve got my eyes peeled for the pregnant/old/disabled people if ever I’m sitting of those designated seats. I don’t think I would need to explain myself regarding this point as it sure does begin to seem like I’m explaining to a 3 year old nursery kid. Everything is contextual isn’t it, you could throw at me every situation conceivable to demerit my argument but at the end of the day you’re still a cubicle stealer while I’m not. Bottomline is, your, xiaxue’s and some people’s attitude breeds inconsideration and that’s that.
i certainly don’t see any signs saying washrooms with facilities for the handicaps are meant for those with handicaps only. that said, of course people should exercise some tact in using these washrooms. if you are going to be long, don’t use those washrooms, simple as that
I hope you’ve never used toilet for the opposite sex for that reason.
Tact…now you’re talking. Still, why don’t just leave those washrooms out of the options?
as for beef stew and that ambulance example, i can just say it’s really ridiculous. if you know you might kill someone with your inconsideration, you just don’t do it. i don’t see how going to the washroom here is a matter of life or death. same with you traffic example, speeding, drunk driving or any more irrelevant examples you’re going to bring up.
Are you telling me that I could steal because I won’t hurt other people. Now, let me smash up that windscreen of my stupid neighbour’s.
Many things are not a matter of life and death, but they matter enough. There has got to be more compassion (or sensibility) in that heart somewhere, Jess.
in short, i treat the handicapped like i would treat any stranger. if they need any help, i will offer my help, but i don’t especially think i have to do something special for them just because they have a handicap. these people are not needy, if they were, they would most probably be at home or at the hospital. there’s this chinese saying that goes, “chang er bu fei”. i don’t know if you know mandarin, but it means handicapped but not useless, so please don’t look at them with pitiful eyes. i think to them, that’s more of an insult than an abled bodied person using a handicapped washroom.
As an abled body person, I don’t hog toilets for the disabled because it’s just plain logic if I used them I might inconvenience the disabled. Certainly not because I pity them in anyway. Or I that I think they deserve special treatment.
I’m glad you’re aware of the fact that they don’t need special treatments (because they don’t), but it scares me to think that you believe it’s realistic for them to function in a world that only has staircases, teeny toilet cubicles, mirrors perched high up on the walls and the selfish people who paid for all those.
I was ranting to my other half about how stupid some people are. I was literally shooting words out of my mouth non-stop because if I talked slowly, I often lose my pronunciation and vocabulary. Anyway, he corrected me and said that these people aren’t stupid, they just have a different level of logic altogether.
Being politically correct does kill half the fun, doesn’t it?
spiller said:
on October 19, 2005 at 4:51 pm
OMG is that sambal petai? Damn!
Btw, I had actually seen an Aussie girl (very cun somemore) used the male washroom, just like that! Very slamber. Mind you, that toilet was not empty and I was in there too!
But of course, the female washroom was even jammed packed, and guess what, the guys just looked at her and smiled and continued their business.
She got balls.
kolokmee said:
on October 19, 2005 at 6:17 pm
I love your Mom…
Peter said:
on October 19, 2005 at 7:22 pm
Jess is nother misguided girl who does not know what she is talking about. Please allow me to rebut a few points here:
Going to toilets at designated times? Tell that to my bladder. When I have to go I have to go. If not I will,suffer a reflux that will further damage my kidneys which at the moment is at less than 50% function.
I am not sure what Jess’ wheelchair bound grandmother suffers from but please realise that one disability is different from another and even people with the same disabilities may suffer different kinds problems. Do not generalise the problems and lump them under one category.
We would prefer to be know as People with Disabilities (PWD) or Disabled Persons (DP). We may be disabled but we are not handicapped in many ways. It is the construction and society that handicaps us. A flight of stairs with no ramp access handicaps us. A toilet that suits our needs does not. Again, please do not say things you have very little understanding of.
Please go read why non-disabled persons are probihited from using accessible toilets in my latest entry. This is implemented in many European countries and in two major shopping complexes in Kuala Lumpur. Why is there such a need? Go ask the complex management.
For the ambulance analogy by Beef Stew, going to the toilet is a life and death situation for me. Again, please do your research before talking nonsense.
Why should you do anything special for us? What gave you the impression that we would want something like that? Obviously, you have not met many disabled persons. We have never asked to be looked upon with sympathy. All we want is that our rights to live a quality life are not infringed upon. Is that too much to ask for?
All said, I would not want Jess as a spokesperson for people with disabilities. Like Xia Xue, she has a shallow understanding of the problems faced by disabled people and yet she is trying to justify her misconception by providing examples that are invalid.
As a parting note, here is something to ponder over: “It is better to keep one’s mouth shut and let others think her a fool, than to open it and remove all doubts.”
Disillusioned said:
on October 20, 2005 at 12:02 am
We easily argue and flame online because we don’t see the person face to face.
Through this excessively transparent medium aka the internet, a person’s true colours are immediately revealed as most people would openly speak their mind.
It has come to a point where it becomes extremely disheartening to witness them still trying to argue their unjustified misconceptions, despite obvious facts.
It adds insult to injury when these unjust talks/arguments touch on pitch sensitive issues.
JoeC said:
on October 20, 2005 at 12:03 am
Well said Kim…well said Peter, …we should have a degree of compassion and a sense of civic duty, why?, cause we are blessed. We can be politically incorrect in some issues but for THIS here issue, we cannot and must not.
Unfortunately, there are those who are a few toilet roll short of a toilet flush might think that it is their right to use handicap toilets. Further, after commenting, don’t even have the guts to enter their site url, doubt they have given their e-mail either, what a bunch of spinless scum sucking sewer virus.
Why don’t cha get on a wheelchair and stay in there for a month? Feel and see just how difficult is to live as a disable person? BUT you can’t, cause you’r a sewer virus. Wanna qualify to use the handicap toilets? Why dun cha lose the use of those nice legs, while at it, lose half the brain, cause you don’t need them anyway!
Have A Nice Day. Cheers!
JoeC said:
on October 20, 2005 at 12:08 am
wow, geez kim, your blog travelled from food to crusade in less than three seconds. That was quick. Cheers!
jess said:
on October 20, 2005 at 2:00 am
first of all, girl, i think it doesn’t give you any right to say i am stupid. that’s just way off and rude. i don’t go calling you fat or stupid, so now, let’s not get personal yeah? otherwise, you just sound like that midget you apparently hate so much. be gracious girl, if you want people to hear your point.
and yes, they actually have designated times. believe it or not. it’s human nature to map out the toilets and have scheduled times when you know you are inconvenienced to go. and no, i’m not merely saying it based on my own grandma who is wheelchair bound. it’s actually in a health report. i would link it, but it’s in paper and not available on the website. i’m pretty sure you can go google it or something. the human body is amazing, so please don’t be so quick to scoff that as totally illogical.
miss k, i never ever said i think there should be no concessions for the handicapped, please go and read what i wrote properly instead of quoting blindly.
i said that there are some places in singapore that doesn’t even consider the needs of such people, and i am highlighting that to you so you will understand why we feel that using the handicapped cubicle is ok if the handicapped aren’t around.
i didn’t even want to bring up the fact that malaysia (and of course, most part of asia) didn’t have these facilities too for fear that will be another defensive childish outburst like this. sheesh.
like it or not, there really aren’t a lot of handicapped people going around in asia because of the lack of such awareness. if there are more handicapped people going around in asia (there is this stigma like i said before, that asian people like to stare at such people, and thus cause them embarassment and hurt. some of them get past that, and actually have the courage to go out, and that’s great, but what about the majority of them?), then i am all for not using such washrooms at all. otherwise, i’m thinking in economics term, it’s really quite a waste to see them not being utilised. yes, very typically sadist singapore, i know.
about being compassionate, i think you are not in a position to judge how kind i am. i don’t know you, and you don’t know me, i don’t see the need to tell you. but i won’t be so rude to tell you you’re evil or unkind.
if personal attacks is a way of getting your point across, it’s really quite a pity.
i mean seriously, don’t you use the slope meant for people with prams or wheelchairs too? think again before saying no. and that analogy about the seats isn’t out of place. you feel that strongly about something, you just don’t do it. simple as that. you don’t use the designated washrooms, you don’t take up their designated seats, you don’t use those slopes, then you have all my respect. until then, you don’t. it is very hypocritical to preach something and then you go undo all ‘that goodness” by doing it yourself, so please don’t put yourself on the moral high horse, it’s just plain disgusting. in fact, i’m thinking are you just going against xx or you are really feeling it for the handicapped.
peter, i have actually read reports about people with handicaps or the handicapped, and honestly, that’s what they preferred to be known as. *shrugs* little discrepancy here?
and please read about what i said properly. *sigh* i said you shouldn’t look at these people with pitiful eyes because these people aren’t waiting around for you to throw them a pity party. really, quite a shame to be accusing people here just because i’m going against someone you know/whose blog you read. seems like it anyway.
in fact, toilets aren’t the only places where people neglect the needs of the handicapped. didn’t you read the article about how an italian airline threw out a group of handicapped tourists touring together? what about buses without ramps to get on, or even places that ban guide dogs? see, you’re not the only one who knows or read about things.
Beef Stew said:
on October 20, 2005 at 2:08 am
No, no, Jess, you just misunderstood the whole thing here, the facilities are built for the disable so that they don’t need our help. This is not a special treatment.
I mean these facilities are important because not many out there is like you who advocate to use the disables’ toilet by the ables and at the same time hor willing to help them if they ask for your help. That’s like the mother of all contradictions.
Of course, you can help by leaving the disables’ toilet alone. I think this is help the disable/stranger/chang(it’s chan by the way)-er-bu-fei/Peter ask for..Can do? *Sin Chan starry eye*
Peter said:
on October 20, 2005 at 2:42 am
Jess,
I am not going to use up a lot of energy typing a long rebuttal because your ignorance does not justify it. YOU ARE STUPID. As I have mentioned, when I need to go, I need to go. The hell with research. Tell that to my urologist and my bladder and my damaged kidneys because people like you who pretend to have an understanding you never possess that will cause the kidneys of people like me to be further damaged.
Let me tell you this. I do not read Kim’s blog all the time. YOU ARE STUPID for alluding that. I mostly concern myself with disability issues. Where there is a misconception, I try to put it straight. You are not helping at all. So please take your STUPIDITY elsewhere and spare us the grief of trying to explain to you without success.
jess said:
on October 20, 2005 at 3:10 am
peter, i was coming back here to apologise because i checked, and realised it’s indeed people with disabilities or the disabled. i sincerely apologise for that mistake, but you know what? i think you are really appalling for saying that i am stupid. like i said, this is an open debate. do have an open mind, instead of being so closed minded and rude.
all these talk about you not wanting our sympathy, but now, you sing a different tune about we should let you have the cubicle because when you have to go, you have to go, and oh, short of the fact that you are disabled.
really, then what about abled bodied people with genuine urinary incontinence then? are they at fault for wanting to use the disabled washroom when there is no sight of disabled people around and there are no other available cubicles?
you are the ultimate contradiction here, not me.
what about nursing abled-bodied moms who need the privacy, but the washrooms might not have the nappy changing facility? can’t they use the disabled cubicle?
what about seemingly able bodied diabetics who need to inject insulin, and prefer to have the facilities of the disabled washroom when they need to do so?
what about transgenders who are shy of what the public might think if they use the wrong gender washroom, and opt to use unisex disabled washrooms?
bear in mind that while you have disablities, and i do fully empathise (even though i think you doubt my sincerity), you are literally part of the society, and that means sharing and living with the community. i’m against discrimination against anyone, and i treat everyone equally because discrimination is just wrong.
please don’t think you own exclusive rights to the disabled washrooms, because there are other abled bodied individuals who need it just as importantly as you do. please do not abuse this convenience given to you and brand us all stupid.
beef stew, i really don’t understand what you’re getting at. and oops, my mandarin isn’t really the most wonderful, and i’m not shy to admit it.
jess said:
on October 20, 2005 at 3:23 am
ahh another point to make and was wondering if peter can comment on this. i was in melbourne, and i was at the shell near the highway with tolls. they had one washroom for the female, and one washroom for male. both washrooms were single person washrooms, meaning there’s only one cubicle, and both were fitted with facilities for the disabled.
does that mean i, being an able bodied person shouldn’t be allowed to use that washroom because i am not disabled? please give insightful (and non-abusive) comments, because i’m really interested to know.
i’m pretty sure there are a lot of shopping complexes that have single person washrooms (fitted with the facilities for the disabled, of course) just to save cost, and really, does that imply us able-bodied people are not allowed to use these washrooms because they are according to your logic, “only meant for people with disabilities”?
btw, miss k, i owe you an apology for correcting you wrongly as well. also, i hope you don’t get all defensive here (to the extent of calling someone stupid, that’s just really uncourteous. ironic if ask me, because we’re debating about the courtesy to disabled people), i’m really just stating my opinions here.
jess said:
on October 20, 2005 at 3:57 am
one more thing peter, why is that i’m stupid, but miss k here isn’t? while i am a cubicle stealer (according to her), she’s a public transport seat stealer.
i never take the designated seats meant for the disabled because i know how much it would inconvenience them, and how it would be more comfortable for them if they have a seat, while i can jolly well stand for a good whole hour, because i don’t need the seat as much as they do. but miss k here, clearly knows this, and after all that talk about her being so awfully thoughtful to the disabled, she’s actually not practicing what she’s preaching. whether she actually keeps her eyes peeled for them or not, it’s still causing an inconvenience when her good legs could jolly well stand no? what if her eyes aren’t all that sharp? better still, according to miss k’s own argument, what if everyone had the same inconsiderate mentality as her? the “oh, i’ll take this seat meant for the disabled because i can so see them when they appear right before me….whoops those z monsters are attacking me now….zzz”
i don’t like to hold my bladder or bowels for perfectly reasonable health reasons, and i’m sure most experts would agree it’s not healthy to hold it for no good reason.
unless miss k here has a perpetual sickness that allows her to hog the seats (hell, when i am that sick, i take a cab or stay at home), shouldn’t she be damned a “stupid, misguided, ignorant” one too?
Beef Stew said:
on October 20, 2005 at 4:00 am
*cough* *cough*
suanie said:
on October 20, 2005 at 4:03 am
Jess, don’t be silly. You are digressing the point way to Timbuktu.
There are of course many toilets that are, for the sake of phrasing, multi purpose toilets. That is of course commendable in the establishment’s effort; there is facility for the disabled even though stuck somewhere along the highways near the tolls.
People do use the RAMPS even though they are there for those who can’t use the steps or stairs or any other methods deviced for the standing legs. You are of course free to use this analogy in reference to accessible toilets when you can provide examples that the able bodied person is depriving the disabled the opportunity to use it. Find me a sane logical person who would block the ramps for hours depriving access to others and I’ll find you… oh forget it, this is childish nitpicking at its best.
Your efforts to excuse the able bodied person for using accessible toilets are commendable. Doesn’t mean it’s right, but at least I learnt that one’s attempts at justification could be stretched so beyond imagination.
I concur that priority is given to disabled people when it comes to accessible toilets - they don’t lock them up these days for no reasons - and if you are looking to beef why diabetics, nursing mothers and transgenders are not afforded the same entitlement, I suggest you take it up with the various public establishments available. I am not saying that various people do not have various needs and I agree that each should be accorded as they are, but then you are switching to corporate and municipal terms.
But of course, if the simplest convenience such as the accessible toilets cannot be respected, then what hope do you have for the rest of those with different needs?
No one is judging your moral values or how you accord yourself in public. A chill pill is in order.
I am, of course merely stating my opinion.
Peter said:
on October 20, 2005 at 4:37 am
Jess,
I do not want your sympathy, ever. Neither have I ever asked for sympathies from my family or friends. Again, whatever gave you the perception that people with disabilities need any kind of sympathy from you or anybody else?Why should I need to get your sympathy to use a toilet that was adapted to my needs? This really baffles me.
When I need to use an accessible toilet, I need to use it because those toilets are there for a specific purpose which is to cater to people like me. And I need to use it to empty my bladder to prevent a reflux. It would be very inconsiderate on your part to insist that I allow you to use it at the expense of my health. If you fail to understand this, there is no other way for me to make you comprehend what it is like to live with chronic kidney failure.
If you think you have every right to use an accessible toilet, go read my entry, if you have not already done so, on why the public toilets in Europe and some in Malaysia are locked. If you still insist that you have the right to use such toilets, go tell the janitors and get them to allow you to use it and see what happens. It is people with attitude like yours that make it inconvenient for us to use such facilities because access has to be controlled due to misuse and vandalism.
If every Tom, Dick and Harry were allowed to use these toilets as they please, very soon, it will be dirty, damaged and unusable. What happens to the disabled person who really needs to use it then?
On one hand, you say that you do not discriminate but on the other, you ask people with disabilities to give up their rights just so you are able to enjoy the same even though you do not really need it. No, I do not think I own the exclusive right. These rights are in accordance with the United Nations Convention on Disabilities and is recognised by governments that are signatories to it. As I have often pointed out, these are rights, not privileges. Likewise you should not to abuse this convenience accorded to people with disabilities by trying to justify why you are also entitled to it unless you are one of those who disregards the rights of others to accomplish your own selfish means.
If you think your sacarsm will work on me, it wont but let share with you some common sense. Where there is space constraint and only one normal toilet is available that is large enough to accomodate a wheelchair and adapted to such use, it certainly is acceptable for others to use it. On the other hand, where the are ten other normal toilets and one accessible toilet in the same place, it is only sensible that people who do not need to use the odd toilet should not. This is plain common sense.
I have been to the Ikea toilet in KL where the accessible toilet is located inside the respective male and female toilets. There was a long queue of men patiently waiting for their turn but none of them had the mind to use the accessible toilet even though it was not occupied. They waited for their turns and when I entered, they made way for me to use the accessible toilet. This is good upbringing.
You just do not get it, do you? Toilets are different from bus seats. If they are not occupied by people with disablities, the pregnant or the elderly, it is perfectly all right to use those seats. When one of those that are entitled to those seats appear, it is imperative that it be given up to them. I often travel in the KLIA Express where they have seats for people with disabilities. I occupy one. Sometimes, others with no seeming disability occupy the other seats. I have no quarrel with that. If another person with disability needs to use that seat, it has to be given up. Simple as that.
Lainie said:
on October 20, 2005 at 10:44 am
oooh petai…Ooooh pasta..
jess said:
on October 20, 2005 at 11:23 am
suanie, if think i am going out of point, wait till you see miss k’s and beef stew’s analogies.
and i am not campaigning the rights of the able-bodied or making excuses! sigh. my bottomline is, these are shared facilities for the public, and while we should always give them up to people who need them more than us, it’s not the exclusive right given to the disabled. things like parking lot, no excuses because that is definitely a right (and the basis of judgement here isn’t fines).
when i talked about ramps, it’s meant to facilitate people with luggages, or people carrying a heavy load on a trolley as well, not especially for people who are disabled. that said, of course you should always exercise some courtesy, and let those who need it more than you use it. it’s only courteous and more than right to do it.
and i feel the same about such washrooms. those points i bought up are valid real scenarios and reasons, not mere excuses to prove my point. a lot of places do combine nappy changing facilities with the disabled facilities in one single cubicle, and of course this isn’t the authorities’ fault now for making things more convenient for those with special needs. (yes, that’s me being sacarstic, but towards the authorities, not you, just in case everyone gets uptight again. treading on very thin ice here with people who call you names and yet think it’s ok. and it’s easy for you to say take a chill pill, when no one here screamed at you in caps, and brand you stupid. i’m proud of the way i conducted myself, i apologise when i am in the wrong, but i don’t see any of them actually trying to make ammends here.) the thing we are debating now is, these are shared facilities, meant to be shared, but when you see someone who needs it more than you, you give it up to them.
i never said it’s ok to use the washrooms and be inconsiderate to those who need it, i said exercise more thought and tact when using such shared facilities.
____________________________________________
peter,
look if you are really offended, i apologise, but it was never my intention to hurt anyone, or even like someone suggested flame this blog. i don’t see a need to, but i just want to make my opinions known. if you thought i was sacrastic, which i didn’t think so when i was typing, but i can see your cause of concern here.
at the end of the day, you have your ideas you stick to, and i do too, but it doesn’t mean we can’t come together and talk about this in a civilised manner.
that said, like i told suanie, these washrooms are indeed fitted to make things easy for people like you (and i have absolute respect for you for venturing out of most people’s comfort zone. i know some people who are wheelchair bound, and they refused to head out to the public again no, i am not being sacarstic here), but there are other people with special needs who need these washrooms too.
about the good upbringing bit, i don’t know if you were trying to insult my parents, but i trust you are not that mean spirited. like i said, i would gladly let you use the washroom if i ever do see you in the queue, but when i see no one with disabilities around, and there is an urgent need to go, i do use that washroom because it’s a shared facility for the public. it’s there to make thing easier for people with special needs, but it’s also a shared facility.
as for your condition, i can fully see why you are so angry over this, but i don’t think it gives you the right to call anyone stupid still. like you said yourself, not everyone has the same condition, and other disabled people may not have the same condition as you. think of mothers who have young children to attend to, but don’t want to leave their children outside unattended while they need to use the washroom. to merely make a sweeping statement and tell us that others aren’t entitled to use it as well, because it is your right is just plain selfish to me.
to me, if you expect people to simply know and understand that you have a kidney problem just because you are on a wheelchair, and when they do have a valid reason to use the disabled washroom, you demanding that they not use the washroom is just plain brat-tish behaviour. have you even paused to think about why they need to use that washroom too?
thanks for answering that question (i wasn’t being sacarstic anyway, and i did state that i wasn’t. sigh, really hard to do this when you refuse to accept the reasoning of others who don’t agree with you.). you yourself said we should exercise common sense. while in an ideal world, we could have 10 cubicles and one cubicle for the disabled, this normally isn’t the case! the real life ratio of that is probably 3:1, and in peak hours, it really doesn’t make any sense not to use the disabled washroom when no one around really needs it, and you really have to go.
and really, why are seats on public transport different from washrooms? are you just speaking for yourself here, or for the larger disabled community? like you said, i should never assume all disabled people have the same condition, and maybe you shouldn’t assume they have similar needs to you then. on certains buses and trains, there are some extra seating (which you can pull down), reserved for passengers with special needs only, and it should stay that way.
regardless of how everyone thinks it’s that simple to give up seats to such people, it isn’t! and it’s a considerable longer journey for most, compared to a visit to the washroom. on trains, people might be crowding around such seats and block the disabled (who may have specifically counted the nearest place to such seats) from getting to it. i’m not saying this as a mere excuse, i have actually witness this in real life, and the disabled person had to suffer being pushed around just because the person occupying that designated seat didn’t see the disabled person (because he was blocked), and no one was gracious enough to let the person have their seats. i was standing behind this person, just in case, you start calling me names for not giving up my seat.
i have also seen designated lots for non-ambulant disabled passengers being taken up by abled bodied people who stand on such lots, and failing to give way to such people.
in this light, i wonder how can you say these seats aren’t as important as washrooms.
suanie said:
on October 20, 2005 at 11:44 am
we can agree to disagree then.
actually i’d been called a lot worse so it’s all fluff to me.
no one was gracious enough to give up their seats, that’s the problem with society these day isn’t it? that is the same problem a lot of disabled people face when it comes to toilets.
actually peter has a lot of stories one… actually he is not as tight-arsed as you think… actually I don’t see mentioning the upbringing part has anything to do with your parents… actually I think I should go do other things.
jess said:
on October 20, 2005 at 12:46 pm
suanie, of course you can disagree, but i am telling you (and anyone who isn’t quick to brand me as stupid just because i have a different opinion) there are other people (who aren’t disabled) who use the diabled toilets because they have special needs too. i think i have just about said everything i should say to justify my opinons, so i won’t go on.
and urmm, if you think having your own say and opinions that differ from others warrants being called stupid/misguided/unkind/inconsiderate, then i have nothing to say. it’s not as if i went along and called miss k or peter nasty names.
Kimberlycun said:
on October 20, 2005 at 1:00 pm
jess: you’re not stupid. you just have a different level of logic.
Peter said:
on October 20, 2005 at 1:57 pm
Jess,
I make no apologies for calling you stupid because you have a tendency to display just that. You called me rude. That is your opinion. Likewise, you were rude too for implying that I accused you simply because you have an issue with Kim. Your debate with Kim is between the both of you. It is none of my business if it did not involve issues that are close to my heart. It was presumptuous of you to accuse me of that. I do not jump into the fray just because I know her or read her blog. You must really think I am an idiot, don’t you? If you still cannot comprehend why I am wasting so much time putting my views across here then I am really wasting my time. That is besides the point of this debate anyway but if you want to discuss things in a civil manner as you have suggested, you can start by not alluding to things that are not.
Back to the main topic of contention. These toilets are called accessible toilets for wheelchair users for a reason because it was adapted for that purpose specifically. Other than people on wheelchair and those with mobility problems, the elderly, the pregnant and women with children and strollers are entitled to use such toilets. If you had taken the time to read my blog category on disability issues, you would have read that I gave up using an accessible toilet to a pregnant woman and had to go look for another all over the place. However, the main point of contention here was that one Singaporean girl though it was cool to use an accessible toilet because it is spacious, has a mirror and a washbasin is absolutely preposterous. Is that the correct attitude and what an accessible toilet was meant for?
If according to your argument, people who are entitled to use accessible toilets must be all inclusive, then we might as well remove the international symbol for accessibility and allow everyone to use it. Then the RADAR Key Scheme in UK, the Euro Key and the Australian Master Locksmith Access Key systems should be scrapped because people like you feel being discriminated for not being allowed to use these locked accessible toilets. Governments of developed countries have recognised the need to restrict access but you do not. Why is that so?
The RADAR National Key Scheme was implemented for the following reasons: “The NKS aims to provide disabled key holders with independent access to the toilets provided for them and increase the likelihood of the facilities being in a useable state.” and “The National Key Scheme offers independent access to disabled people to around 4,000 locked public toilets around the country. It ensures that people who need them can always find a suitable and accessible toilet in a good clean condition.”
If you read correctly, accessible toilets are meant only for the use of people on wheelchairs and those with mobility problems. It is not about you sticking to your idea and me to mine. It is a policy that has been implemented and sanctioned by governments of those countries who recognise the needs of people with disabilities. Tell me then, are you going to tell these governments or governing bodies of accessible toilets to open it up because in your skewed opinion, it is a shared facility and everyone should be allowed to use them?
On the same vein, if you come across a locked accessible toilet in those countries mentioned, as you seem to be a well travelled person, are you going to insist that you be allowed to purchase a key and be allowed to use those locked toilets because there is no disabled person around and because in your opinion those should be shared facilities and not for the exclusive use of people with disabilities only? If you have an issue with that, I suggest you go take it up with the government of those countries.
Irrespective of whether I am speaking for myself or a larger group of the physically disabled community this issue is still the same. I have worked with NGOs for people with disabilities for the past fifteen years and I am currently the pro-tem President of a rights-based association for people with disabilities. And yes, when I speak on these issues, I am speaking from a point of authority and a have clear understanding why things should and should not be.
If you have done your research well before shooting off with your self-righteous tirade against Kim on the priority seats for disabled and elderly passengers in public transport, you surely must have understood that non-disabled people can take those seats provided they give it up when any of those two category of people are present. It is the duty of the drivers or conductors to ensure that this is adhered to at all times. On your point that these seat were not given up, it is a case of abuse. Likewise, an accessible toilet that is opened up as a shared facility is open to abuse. Very often, I have come across unusable accessible toilets due to vandalism. People like you can use another toilet but to people like me accessible toilets are very limited anywhere. What options do I have then? That is why I laud the management and authorities who lock accessible toilets because those locked toilets are mostly clean and usable although it poses a little inconvenience to have to look for the janitor for the keys.
I do not expect you to know about my health condition. It was given as an analogy. There are many other conditions of the physically disabled people who need quick access to accessible toilets for various reasons. Again, the main point of contention here was that someone likes these toilets for vanity purposes. Perhaps vanity is higher up in your list of priorities than the rights and health conditions of people with disabilities when it comes to using accessible toilets. Who is being a brattish and inconsiderate here now?
say ong said:
on October 20, 2005 at 2:04 pm
Yum, yum food. Can U asked yr mum whether I can have the recipes for her yum yum food? Others recipes r welcome too.
Thanks
jess said:
on October 20, 2005 at 2:55 pm
peter, i never said vainity was one of the reasons. stop being so emotional in your arguments.
fyi, i am a working mother of 2 young children aged 2 and 5, and i am most certainly not campaigning the rights of able-bodied people who are inconsiderate or feel the need to have to look at the mirror while they are peeing. i am merely saying there are able-bodied individuals like me who will need to use the washrooms with facilities for the disabled because i have a valid (ok, maybe 2, since i have 2 young children to mind to) excuse to. so excuse me for this sheer vanity then. trying using the bathroom when you have 2 running/crying children to attend to, before you come and point fingers at me for being vain. try being 7 months pregnant with a heavy load on your bladders, and needing to rush into the washroom before you ever call me vain. that really irks me. you’re being really pig-headed here for assuming i’m like xx.
i don’t care if you ever give up your seats/washroom to pregnant women. it’s like how you don’t care i am a kind hearted individual, but i have young children to look after or nurse in public. it’s also like how you don’t care how the disabled have chided me for using their washrooms when i am nursing my young child in the disabled washrooms. it’s also how you don’t care whether i have helped disabled people in my entire life and gave up seats to them. not like you ever cared i was never about discriminating against the disabled if you ever bothered to read properly. till then, don’t pull out that trick on me, because i’m sure everyone out there has done sufficient good deeds in ther lives.
i have never once expected people to give up their seats to me while i was pregnant and even now, when i sometimes have to take the kids out on public transport. if they do, it’s out of goodwill, and that means i get to rest my tired back from all the weight lifting, and my young children will be able to sleep while on the long journey home.
while you do have a valid excuse for being so provoked, i still don’t think it gives you any right to call anyone stupid. if you think you have the authority to just because you are a president of some NGO or because this is an issue close to your heart, don’t mind me for calling you a unreasonable brat, because you sure as hell don’t have any consideration for able-bodied people like me with special needs too.
kim, right ok. and you just another young brat, with a different level of logic too. cheers.
ShaolinTiger said:
on October 20, 2005 at 3:02 pm
The special need you have Jess is the lack of anything of substance between your ears, your logic is so skewed it’s almost becoming a black whole of pointlessness.
JoeC said:
on October 20, 2005 at 3:10 pm
geez, some pppl just can’t say sorry and go…must justify this, justify that, meaning that those ppl is not backing down…can’t call a dog a bear. whatever it’s said, is BACK to square ONE….it’s a no no no no, to use toilets for disable cause ya NOT….oh, maybe in the brain….like the song says “insane in the membrane”. Cheers!
Kimberlycun said:
on October 20, 2005 at 3:11 pm
and that is why ladies and gentlemen, there are so many spoilt brats nowadays. parents like jess, omg!
anyway, jess you can stop stalking my blog plz, obviously many ppl don’t agree with you. even peter who is the most knowledgeble person in this issue disagrees with you. here’s an idea, you can’t beat them, you join them? will do you and your kids good.
PinPin said:
on October 20, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Jess,
You questioned that “why are seats on public transport different from washrooms?” and claimed that even when it’s vacant, you “never take the designated seats meant for the disabled because [you] know how much it would inconvenience them”. Yet, you insisted that using the accessible toilets when no one else is using is correct.
You logic confused me. So what you meant is that:
designated seats on public transport -> meant for the disabled -> cannot use even vacant
accessible toilets in public -> meant for the disabled -> ok to use when vacant
Well, i guess you would probably say that i’ve mis-read what you wrote becuase you’ve said that accesible toilets are NOT meant for the disabled ONLY but “a shared facility for the public”. And anything that is “shared” and “public” should be available to the public regardless of who you are. If it is indeed so, then you are not wrong. However, i think the part where you got it all wrong is exactly this “shared facility for the public” mindset.
You failed to grasp the point that Peter and many others trying in vain to get across: accesible toilets are NOT “a shared facility for the public” but built specifically for people with special needs. Perhaps you can try to put aside your opinion first and digest the reasons that had put forth for you to understand better?
Please don’t just say something like “at the end of the day, you have your ideas you stick to, and i do too” because if it’s indeed as such, then there isn’t any need to discuss about it anymore, In fact, then there isn’t a need to discuss anything in this world at all. Everyone can just say i have my own ideas / opinions and even when there are opposing reasonings, i’m not gonna even cosider them because i’m gonna stick to my ideas no matter what.
—
I’ve refreshed the page before posting the above and saw that you’ve replied. Well, perhaps your situation of being pregnant and having kids with you may have justified as having special needs too. I’m not sure on this part.
I think what you’ve written before the last post seemed to be suggesting that accessible toilets are “shared facility for the public” and thus ANYONE can use it. This was the part that irked people.
jess said:
on October 20, 2005 at 4:26 pm
kim, i actually enjoy reading your blog prior to this, but i am really dissapointed about the personal attacks. if you want to go ahead and jeer at my abilities for being an incompetent mother when you don’t even know me, go ahead. what comes around goes around. and i’m sure it does your image real good. fancy leaving all the logical argument to peter just because he’s an expert at this. shame on you and your childish little fits.
plus, this is a world of freedom of choice and speech. agreeing to everything you hear that seems to make sense just because you have no principles, doesn’t that make you a sheep?
girl, keeping quiet about something doesn’t make the problem go away. talking about things and coming to a compromising solution does. (that’s how marriage and relationships work too, btw) i really see why you are the one with different level of logic here now. *smiles*
pin pin, i didn’t want to bring in the fact that i have children because i didn’t want a pity party. having children and being a mother doesn’t mean i’m handicapped and neither do i need concessions. i tried to make my points across, but no one seemed to get it. maybe my reasoning was wrong, it’s hard to really piece it all out when i have so many things to write about.
so that’s it for now folk, i’m not going to visit this site, not because i think i’m wrong for wanting my humble opinions be heard, but because i don’t want to be called a blog stalker (or other ugly names), and neither do i have interest in trying to talk things out and making people understand when they act all high and mighty and think they are right all the time.
Peter said:
on October 20, 2005 at 4:43 pm
Jess,
Getting emotional here are we? There goes debating this with civility on your part.You fail to understand what lead to this exchange. It was about people who abuse accessible toilets for vanity purposes. If you had kept to that blog topic, we would not be here sparring on such a wide-ranging issue which is totally unrelated to the meaning of that particular entry.
I did not imply I was kind-hearted to allow the pregnant lady to use that toilet. It was the right thing to do. You read wrongly. That is not my fault. So what if you did all those good deeds? Does that make you a better person than anybody else?
For a person who chided me for calling you stupid, you sure have a lot of uncomplimentary names for me too. So this is like a case of the pot calling the kettle black eh! Appaling and rude, go ponder over it. But lets not get all worked up and emotional and take it personally and start hurling abuses. It is after all an open debate and should be done in a civil manner, like you have suggested. Now that we have established the kind of person we are respectively, lets get on with the debate.
There you said it, you a non-disabled, able bodied as you call yourself, fighting to use accessible toilets with people who need it more than you. Shame on you. You still refuse to accept the fact that developed nations lock the accessible toilets for a reason but chose to go on and on about able-bodied people with special needs. I think the message why those toilets were locked in lost on you. As I have suggested, if you have an issue with that go take it up with those governments if you are serious about what you are fighting for instead of choosing to engage us here which will not change anything. Tell them how idiotic you think their Key Systems are and why you feel you that are being discriminated against and get them to remove all those locks so you and anybody else can use them because those are shared facilities.
However, before that happens, please humour me for a moment and picture this. One mother with two kids uses the accessible toilet. Not much of a mess unless those kid are real brats. Add twenty mothers with two kids using the same accessible toilet, throw in a few transgenders, diabetics needing to take their insulin shots, mothers needing to breastfeed their babies, parents needing to change their babies’ nappies, a few vain women who think it is cool to use a spacious toilet with mirror and washbasin of its own, and the occasional bums who are not physically disabled in any way but refuse to walk those extra few steps to the normal toilets, and you will begin to see the traffic and the probability that such toilets will become wet and dirty and when allowed over a continuous period, damaged as well. So, where does that leave a disabled person who cannot but use only that particular toilet?
Who do I go to get a recourse when I dirty my hands and cannot wash them because the tap is not working but I need to catheterise myself anyway and gets a nasty kidney infection subsequent to that? Do you even know how life threatening a kidney infection can be and the medical costs involved? You Jess, on the other hand have the option to use the other 90% of normal toilets available is the accessible toilet is unusable. Is anybody going to tell me “Too bad dude, that is a shared facility, live with it.”?
As I have often pointed out, an accessible toilet is not a privilege but a right for people with disabilities. Governments recognise that need and implement laws to make it compulsory that these amenities be added into public buildings. And no, it is not a shared facility unless you are one of those that are entitled to use such amenities. This is also recognised by the United Nations and many other countries, including Malaysia. Can you not accept that as a fact?
If people do not give up their seats to you while you were pregnant and using public transport when there is a provision and you do not fight for that right, then you have failed to protect your own right. So? Am I supposed to applaud you or something because you were being tolerant?
When you asked me what platform I am speaking from and I told you it is personal and in my capacity as the President of a rights-based group and for a majority of people with physical disabilities, you came back and insulted me. Now this really really shows your upbringing. You asked and I replied and you took that opportunity to be abusive. If that is how you want to debate, then it is a free for all but contrary to what you have suggested where this debate be kept civil. Which do you prefer?
Woops, so I see you have given up trying to reason on why you should be entitled to use facilities for the disabled and stop reading this blog. As a parting word, I am telling you here I don’t think I am right. I KNOW I am right because all these rights are provided for in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons and the laws of Malaysia. You on the other hand ramble on and on without providing any documentation to prove your points.
Disillusioned said:
on October 20, 2005 at 6:58 pm
Over everything else, health is the largest priority.
But the sad truth is, there are people out there still using the disabled toilet at this very moment as we speak.
huihonchung said:
on October 20, 2005 at 9:08 pm
hey kim…i think we are off topic here. if this happened in exam…will surely get zero for the essay. maybe you should re-name this message space here.
maybe jess should just stop at this point….the more she rebuts, the more the analogies will come up….and the more the topic will digress….and the more we go out of context….finally, the more the contradictions are revealed. hence, it would sound as if she was just trying to win an argument. i’ve been following the little debate here since last nite…i thought all will stop after peter’s postings…..but she keeps coming back for more….running through the list of comments, one can see that the reason why the number of messages keep increasing (with each one getting longer than previous ones) is because she continually posts stuff that sound like “written defences” of her arguments, whilst others will hit back. it’s obviously a match of jess vs. the rest….it all started with an innocuous debate on xiaxue’s fancy on using disabled toilets for vanity purposes…then it morphed into talk about able bodied persons using special toilets for the disabled…now it’s something else…just a suggestion but maybe the verbal sparring should be done somewhere…
this is NOT to say that Jess is wrong to suggest what she has suggested. As a third party here, I feel that she is firing all cylinders partly (or mostly) because someone called her stupid and all that. Perhaps she won’t admit that her rebuttals have anything to do with her feeling upset at being called stupid. Maybe it isn’t fair to be called “rude” names…but in developed countries, the moment you take a stand on something…you are running the risk of being “assassinated” irregardless of how you defend your stand. Try speaking at Hyde Park in London for instance. And Maggie Tatcher was hurled rotten eggs and tomatoes in her visit to the Uni of East Anglia in Britain in the early 1980s….all because of her right wing policies. But you never hear her publicly complain about why people are being so unfairly rude to her….
Being christened with rude names is part of the game. One has to learn to live with it. It’s pointless to carry on with this debate which, as the others note, have gone out of context while escalating into a full blown verbal battle based on some personal vendetta. At some point, you should realise that you’d make more productive use of time to do something else rather than to debate on endlessly just for the sake of debating.
Kimberlycun said:
on October 20, 2005 at 11:44 pm
yes, sir hui. i promise i won’t digress too much in my essays.
i do see jess’s point although i certainly don’t agree with it (i had to engage my inner sadist to see through her eyes). she has taken offence to the “stupid”, which is understandable. but boy was it difficult for me to retract the statement, the most i could do was to change it to something less blunt. and anyway, i still haven’t retracted it for the record, for obvious reasons.
thanks jess, it’s been a less-than-exciting ride.
The Digital Awakening » Blog Archive » An Apology said:
on October 25, 2005 at 12:04 am
[…] Further to that, I would like to apologise to Jess whom I had an intense debate at Narcissism Is Necessary. I am sorry for using those unpleasant words. There was no necessity on my part to conduct myself in such a manner. However, I stand by the facts that I have presented. I would like to humbly appeal to you to try to understand the restricted use of accessible toilets from the point of view of disabled persons. There are rationales why they are so. […]
» Would you? by g e e k c h i c ® said:
on October 25, 2005 at 2:23 pm
[…] Very simply said, I’m appalled by PeterTan’s reaction to a string of conversation from intelligent and mature people. Oh, sure, from this, I’m most probably going to be branded as just a by-stander who should probably shut her yap in the first place if I have nothing good to say. And, sure, to give him credit, he did apologise. But, realise this, the damage has been done. […]
5xmom - Humour, Life, Lies, Sex and more blog » Stop this Xiaxue issue! said:
on October 25, 2005 at 11:32 pm
[…] I also think that calling that Jess ‘You are stupid’ is also wrong. And questioning her upbringing is also wrong. Plus, mocking it when she said she is a mother of two children, pregnant and need to use the disabled toilet, is also wrong. (I am not referring to any one particular person but several.) […]
cheryl said:
on October 26, 2005 at 12:38 pm
ew, please tone down on the ads. i can’t even differentiate the actual content fromt he ads. are you trying to exploit the traffic xx has given you?
anyway, ‘Contacting a company is our right as a consumer.’
Since when you FLEW all the way to Singapore to CONSUME Kimage or Voxy’s products?? Don’t be a retard.
den said:
on October 26, 2005 at 7:42 pm
Admirable stamina Jess!
Anyway, think there was a communication gap between the 2 sides right from the start. Hiaz
fen said:
on October 26, 2005 at 11:02 pm
kids…
w00ties said:
on October 27, 2005 at 2:02 am
this is a little late, but simply saying you are a parent of two kids doesnt mazke you a better person than another. as i see it, this jess person cant back off and admit most if not all her arguments have humungous holes in them, and yet still wants to get in the last word.
wtf.
i call it ego. pompous, moronic ego.
Matt said:
on October 27, 2005 at 7:03 am
Well, as an outside party… I can see how everyone was trying so hard to bring accross their points…
But I really think that Jess is the only one that is sincere in sharing her point of view… while the rest seems to sway to rude, impatient, name calling arguments…
By the way, I do see valid points from both parties. And can really feel the rigid beliefs that both parties have… I agree to both though. But I know that only the day that Peter make a mom lost her toddler forever just because he insisted that none can use the toilet, or Jess make a disabled person’s conditions deteriorate and almost died on the spot… that any of them will change their opinions…. so meanwhile, peace!
ChowFC said:
on October 29, 2005 at 5:32 pm
You know, it would be nice if everyone just sat down and share that plate of petai.
Because, at the end of the day, the World still spins and we can either all hang on together or drift off into space.
Eileen said:
on October 30, 2005 at 4:06 am
Freaks…YOU FREAKED ME OUT… VEngeful and Jealousy describes you.
Gosh.
I hope the world would be better withOUT you this kind of people around.
Back-stabbing freaks me out.
Hope you wil have better karma in next life.
kaikon said:
on October 31, 2005 at 4:59 pm
May I drive on the emergency lane when there are no wailing Ambulances around? May I May I ? I promised to drive into the drain during heavy traffic jam when the ambulance reach me.
Nikki said:
on November 1, 2005 at 8:13 pm
You guys are disgusting. I lend support to what Jess says, that disabled toilets can be accessed by the public, so long no disabled persons are inconvenienced.
I think the basis of this whole debate has gone haywired. When XX wrote this, she was pissed at the handicapped gentleman who barked at people for using ‘his’ toilet, or for opening the door that he failed to lock. True, she mentioned that public toilets should remain public regardless of the sign on them. That I still agree with.
The way I see it, the crux of the issue, as very well exemplified as by Peter, disability has become an advantage, no? It’s become the explanantion for the lack of manners. Fine. So the guy went into the disabled restroom, barging onto this guy who unfortunately happened to be doing his stuff. first: LOCK THE BLOODY DOOR NEXT TIME. second: There’s never a need to be rude is there?
Should the unwitting man be attempting to use a disabled bathroom in the first place? I don’t see why not. The day that I see a sign that says “FOR THE USE OF THE DISABLED ONLY” and stress - ONLY - Fine, I’ll oblige then, hell I’ll even hold the door open for you. The day they implement such fancy gadgets as mentioned by Peter for the disabled, fine, but seriously, I spent a year in Europe and the US each, toilets with such fancy gadgets are rare.
The argument has been gone over a million times in plenty of blogs, no conclusions going to be made except the long recognized fact that we will give way to the disabled when we see him/her. But hey, Peter, to go as far as to attempt to disgrace a girl, and to remove her income, is that necessary? How would you feel, if someone, based on what you wrote, a excerpt of say, 300 words or less, something that was not targetted at you in general, caused what you’ve achieved to show for your work to be revoked? Sweet feeling huh? As a grown man, I’d expect you to have a slight bit of graciousness in you. To police such opinions, you do appear to be like the government of a certain country we’ve all heard about.
Let the girl write what she will. First we preach about the lack of freedom of speech, then we attack people who attempt to have a stab at free speech anyway. Brilliant don’t you think?
Iman said:
on July 19, 2006 at 9:15 pm
omg can ur mom cook for me? is dat nasi lemak? whoa.