Accessibility Isn’t a Favor – It’s Essential Infrastructure
To me, the right to access is often misunderstood. Many people think accessibility exists because persons with disabilities (PwDs) need it.
I see it differently. Accessibility is not something that belongs exclusively to Deaf or disabled people — it is something that governments, organisations, businesses, and society need in order to effectively serve everyone. Accessibility enables duty-bearers to fulfil their responsibilities and ensures that all members of society can participate equally.
Take government websites as an example. It is not simply that blind people need accessible websites. Rather, the government needs blind people and other persons with disabilities to be able to access its websites so they can obtain information, submit applications, pay taxes, apply for licences, access healthcare services, and use public services independently.
If a website is incompatible with screen readers, lacks keyboard navigation, or contains inaccessible forms and documents, the government cannot effectively communicate with or serve all citizens. An accessible website enables the government to do its job properly.
The same principle applies to physical accessibility.
When a government agency asks a wheelchair user to visit its office but the building has stairs without ramps or lifts, the barrier prevents the agency from delivering its services.
The government is unlikely to visit every person’s home instead. Therefore, it has a responsibility to ensure that its buildings are accessible so everyone can enter, receive services, and participate equally. Accessibility allows the government to reach the people it is meant to serve.
The same is true in professional services.
If a lawyer is advising a Deaf client on a Sale and Purchase Agreement, the lawyer has a professional and legal responsibility to ensure that the client fully understands the advice and the contract.
If the lawyer chooses to communicate through spoken language rather than written communication, then a Malaysian Sign Language (BIM) interpreter is needed to facilitate effective communication between the lawyer and the Deaf client.
In this situation, the Malaysian Sign Language interpreter is not only benefiting the Deaf client. The lawyer also needs that interpreter to communicate effectively, fulfil professional obligations, obtain informed consent, and provide competent legal services.
The cost of providing accessibility should therefore be treated as part of delivering the legal service, rather than being passed on to the Deaf client.
These examples show that accessibility is not a special benefit for persons with disabilities.
It is essential infrastructure that enables governments, organisations, professionals, businesses, and the wider community to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. Accessibility belongs to society as a whole. As such, the responsibility and cost of providing reasonable accommodations should rest with the service provider or duty-bearer — not with the person who encounters the barrier.
When we understand accessibility in this way, we stop seeing it as a favour or an extra cost and recognise it as a fundamental requirement for an inclusive and equitable society.
By Anthony Chong
(Ph.D), Deaf activist, and Member, Bar Council Committee on PwD
