In the national election on 11th January 2002 in Taiwan, the People's Democratic Party （人民民主黨） promoted Lai, Tsung-Yu （賴宗育） as its local legislator candidate in the Taipei City Constituency I region. When I first read about him on the news, it was on the news from the Taiwan Public Television Service on 3rd of January [1], titled "Lai, Tsung-Yu with severe cerebral palsy wishing to extend the time and bring along a translator in the political platform presentation." In the report, Lai was described as having severe cerebral palsy, having extreme difficulties in expressing, and in need of his friends or relatives to translate his words for others to understand. In the political presentation on the coming Saturday, he asked the Taipei Election commission to let him bring in his oral translator and extend the time of his presentation, but the Commission only agreed to extend 5 minutes of his presentation. Lai's campaign team thought the Commission's decision violated the spirit of CRPD, which was ratified in Taiwan in 2014. After coordination and negotiation, on the news of the next day (4th January), it was reported that the Taipei Election Commission agreed on Lai also bringing his own oral translator with the extension of 5 minutes in his presentation, but Lai's campaign team deemed it as a charity [2].
[1]: https://news.pts.org.tw/article/461504?fbclid=IwAR1gjZrmtljNikJyZhK9BWOyqDu5HKKkiZUWw6-eHvgeX2XlmgtdYx3_Bzw
[2]: https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/politics/paper/1343527?fbclid=IwAR0O0cNDyxyuPOzkxORSicQhu8uOfnk54cqCqMQMRDgZmWdxWAcaPwu-FZU
At the first stage, my reaction to the incident was that the Taipei Election Commission was definitely made a huge mistake for only make an exception of letting Lai bring a translator and extend for 5 minutes in doing him a favour. This obviously violated the spirit of CRPD and the article on reasonable accommodation. On the other hand, I watched Lai's presentation on the internet and felt perplexed [3]. At the time, I had done quite a few research on AAC and had some contacts with some experts in the relevant fields. What came to my mind is that what Lai actually needed was an AAC device to help him communicate. If it is difficult to get a dedicated device, at least he can try to download an AAC app on a mobile device.
[3]: https://www.facebook.com/bill.lai.14/videos/vb.100000150017206/3080257375322566/?type=2&theater
Another thing also impressed me was that a Facebook friend of mine, who belonged to the same party as Lai, reposted video clips of Lai's presentation and made a comment saying, "test how long you can tolerate listening." I understood the intention of this comment was to provoke the audience's feelings of unease and challenge their perception of "normal" political candidates. However, I also found this comment an awful way to communicate with the public without giving information, educate the public or making any adjustments in the first place as advocators and political workers. Supposed I come across another person using a completely foreign language, and isn't that both of us are required to make some adjustments to communicate, such slower the speed or communicate via texts. If we insist revelling what we are, it is of no help to communicate; it is forcing other people to be accustomed to what we are and accept our opinion. It might work in daily life, but it is definitely not a good way to advocate and express political demands. (Although, I also understand that in reality, is it usually the one using the language with less hegemony has to make adjustments.)
And then I read Annmarie Mol's The Logic of Care later the year, and I also knew a bit more about AAC apps and devices from a more critical point of view. For example, there have been issues of high abandon rate in AAC devices, partly because the process of implementation has often been overlooked, and people around direct users of AAC, such as speech and language therapists, teachers and parents have widely lacked the knowledge of AAC. And it really takes huge efforts for people to learn how to use AAC devices and the speed for AAC devices to generate words and phrases is still unimaginably slow; as a result, some people might prefer using combinations of oral and facial expression sand sign languages to communicate, for instance. Therefore, I had some reflections on my original reactions to Lai's incident.
I realised that my original reactions to Lai's incident fell into the logic of choice, which means I deemed his issue as something could be solved by choosing a suitable assistive technology; after all, there were so many, and there must be something that fitted him. Maybe AAC devices or apps really could help Lai to communicate; however, he also had the rights to choose what he felt most comfortable to communicate. But one issue remained, that is, who or what is responsible for mitigating the barriers of communications from both sides.
My original thought was that it is the one who advocates needs to educate the public, just like what Lost Voice Guy has been working on [4]. He not only performs comedy but also takes a lot of effort to educate the public [5], which is in line with the goal of the movement of AAC awareness. One of my interviewee, who is a parent of an AAC user, said that it was good that Lost Voice Guy promoted the public awareness of AAC; however, the interviewee also thought that the Lost Voice Guy also made the public thought that AAC users speak as fast, fluent and humorous as him for all his performances are using pre-stored sentences and phrases. As performances, Lost Voice Guy does not present the efforts and difficulties of using AAC. Still, the message from the performances is more like modern technology can help him make great achievements. Similarly, from the movement of AAC awareness to the Health (Scotland) Act 2016 - the former promotes the public awareness of AAC, and the latter entitles people in needs to have the suitable AAC devices - from my opinion, both fall into the logic of choice and deliver the message that problems of people with communication difficulties can be solved by providing them with suitable assistive technology, rather than disclosing the real issues about dis/ability, accessibility and technology. I would argue that it would be extremely limited for the public to know about issues of dis/ability, accessibility and AAC via the movement of AAC awareness and Lost Voice Guy. To a certain degree, AAC apps, loaded on iPads or other tablets and being mobile and multifunctional, bring conveniences and cover crucial issues of disability and accessibility.
Go back to the question about who is responsible for educating whom? The simple answer is no one is responsible for educating others. In the recent anti-racist movement across the US and western Europe and some other places triggered by the death of George Floyd, one of the slogans was "black people are not required to educate you" [6] I do understand the logic of this statement and many minority groups are not equipped with mainstream-acknowledged speech skills to join debates or express appeals due to their injustice status. Moreover, arguing in a public debate takes lots of efforts and resources of all kinds which might possessed by minority groups. However, I agree with Jean M. Twenge's observation in her book iGen that there is a trend in recent years that people are trying to be hypocritically political correct instead of proposing and disclosing their own thoughts. My feeling is that sometimes conflicts and even fierce and painful arguments might be a better way to communicate and have deeper understandings of each other.
[6]: example, https://www.instagram.com/p/CA9icq2pUtU/?fbclid=IwAR2ovNha4ylHjZCK2N7lMSO9oXL7GapdQeynXRXdR8EkCP4PYM1K3GVSbTY
留言
張貼留言