I refer to the press statement by Malaysian Association for the Blind (MAB) published in a local newspaper on May 19 in relation to protests against MAB's disservice to visually impaired.
Our community is shocked to read such a press statement especially when the inquiry committee set up to probe into those issues is still in progress. We consider it very disrespectful to talk about the conduct of the protesters before the probe is over.
We are blind individuals who did not participate in any of the two demonstrations staged by the Blind Solidarity Movement.
However, we share the same spirit in expressing our dissatisfaction with the leadership of MAB. We have not heard of any, (as claimed by them) instigation or sponsorship "by some disgruntled MAB members in pursuit of their personal agenda against the association".
Otherwise, we would have participated in the demonstration too. In fact, we started voicing out our grouses against the top officer as early as 2011. As a result, his contract as the top officer was not extended.
Nevertheless it this current leadership which brought him back resulting in the present mess.
We would like to reiterate that we have no objection to the reconstruction and upgrading of the training centre in Taman Harapan. But, we totally reject any plan to trade valuable land merely for profit via a joint venture agreement to build a township to finance the project, especially when a large portion of the agricultural land was a special gift from the (then) Pahang sultan to the rural blind community to uplift their standard of living.
We are so distressed to hear of the depletion of MAB's cash reserve from RM11 million to RM6 million. Yet the leadership shamelessly claimed that "the funds have to be legitimately withdrawn and used".
This cash reserve has been accumulated through the hard work and efforts of past leadership.
Moreover, claiming that MAB's accounts are being audited does not confirm that there has been no malpractice. After all, there are so many corporate companies that have been audited yet, we see so much of fraud happening.
In fact, there is no need for us to provide examples as such incidents are frequently highlighted by the media.
No spending, legitimate or not, can lead to prosperity. Spending without income can only lead to bankruptcy. We need to have an effective and efficient management to balance between sources and applications of funds.
It is pointless for someone to boast around that he could easily bring in millions of ringgit to MAB. Where, then, is that money as claimed?
The plot (lot 193 In Jalan Abdul Samad, Kuala Lumpur) has not been developed as yet. What about the plot behind Wisma MAB (in Jalan Tun Sambanthan, Kuala Lumpur)? Has it been developed in the interest of the association or the blind? Will the ownership of the land be compromised through joint venture agreement for profits under the disguise of development?
When the late Hussein Onn first wanted to build an eye hospital for the prevention of blindness, MAB did not have funds for the purpose. Nevertheless he did not even trade an inch of MAB land to do it. Instead the whole council worked hard to raise funds through various fund-raising functions to achieve the ultimate goal.
The blind community went from shop-to-shop and from house-to-house to ask for public donations. Finally the association managed to raise RM10 million to build the eye hospital. Therefore, it would be absolutely disgraceful for anyone to talk or even think about wanting to sell the eye hospital just for monetary gain.
Heart-aching issue
The renting of Wisma Supayah for the purpose of the Rawang Training Centre is truly a heart-aching issue. This additional and unnecessary expenditure could be avoided through the judicious use of alternative premises already available to the association.
On the question of the top officer needing a driver, one would expect the currently employed three drivers to be providing services for the blind staff rather than for the top executive who has (we believe) perfect eye sight. Does this mean that he is more useless to the able-bodied than the visually impaired?
"All MAB’s staff are paid the same salary with the same benefits whether they are sighted, low vision or blind"
Really?
Just look at this glaring example: The principle of the Gurney Training Centre is only paid RM3,000 plus whereas the top officer of MAB is paid RM12,000 as monthly salary remuneration. Both are chief executive of two equally important institutions and that both possess tertiary qualification.
The only difference is the former is a visually impaired individual while the latter is perfectly sighted. In fact, the blind individual has been in service for a much longer period than the sighted counterpart. How would the president of MAB explain this?
Whether or not MAB was set up 65-years ago by "members of Civil Society and not by the welfare department", let us quote precisely what is written on the website of MAB for justification:
"... MAB was formed on No 21, 1951 on the initiative of Major DR Bridges who was then an officer in the Department of Welfare Services of Malaya. He was a soldier in the British army in Burma and was blinded in the war during the 1940's. After being rehabilitated in England, he was assigned to work as a welfare officer for the blind in Malaya. Subsequently, he became the first executive director of the MAB in the 1950's.
After about 10 years of service in Malaya, he had helped to bring about important developments in the work for the blind in this country. In 1952 he obtained the British Resident, Sir Henry Gurney, to lay the foundation stone for Gurney Training Centre (GTC) at Jalan Marsh, Kuala Lumpur. Unfortunately, because of his assassination while on the way to Fraser's Hill, the stone was laid instead by Sir Gerald Templer on December 18, 1952. In 1953, GTC was opened with an enrolment of five trainees.
Major Bridges went on to make applications for land from the state governments of Pahang and Perak. This led to the establishment of the Taman Harapan agricultural training centre for the rural blind in Temerloh, Pahang in 1958 with an enrolment of ten trainees. The establishment of the Kinta Valley Workshop in Ipoh, Perak was also brought in the same year of 1958 with enrolment of 20 to produce handicrafts for sale.
By the time he left Malaya in the early 1960s, a firm and solid foundation had been laid for the work for the blind to continue in this country
... "Therefore, we would like the public to see if these so call leaders really know what they actually know. If they are so ignorant of the history of MAB, then it is really meaningless to claim glamour for themselves as volunteers who are not paid anything to serve the blind community.
Let the blind be kind enough to go one step further to furnish the sighted leadership of MAB (who maybe blind to the blind) with the following information from their own website:
MISSION
To empower persons with visual impairment by providing them with services & opportunities for greater participation, involvement and integration into society as well as to promote prevention of blindness.
VISION
MAB aspires to create equal opportunities for blind persons so as to enable them to enjoy the same quality of life as the sighted.
We would expect the MAB president to be a president of rounded edges, upholding the "inclusive" policy, and being non-confrontational in style.
Instead, his statements and remarks, in the heat of crisis or controversy, have not made him appear to be a leader of considered opinion, with deliberative judgement and of a mollifying temperament.
Therefore, would you blame the blind for taking such strong action if you do not have a channel for them to express their views?
TERRY CH'NG HWA LIAN is a retired blind special education teacher
