Connect with us

Current Affairs

Audism

Published

on

By Gary Malkowski, MA

Special Advisor to President, Public Affairs

The Canadian Hearing Society

Source: CASHRA 2008

About the Author

Gary Malkowski, MA, was the world’s first Deaf MPP, who served in the Ontario provincial legislature during the 1990s. He is currently the Special Advisor to the President- Public Affairs at the Canadian Hearing Society. He can be reached at: [email protected]

One of my earliest memories was from my days in a pre-school program for deaf and hard of hearing children. My teacher, a woman who later went on to win a number of awards for excellence in teaching, was focused on oral instruction and sign language was banned in the classroom. On one occasion I asked to go to the bathroom and was denied permission because I wasn’t able to ask clearly in spoken English. When I peed on the floor out of desperation, I was forced to clean up my urine, wash my clothes, and was sent to my dormitory without an evening meal. What is at the heart of a teacher’s insistence that a child use a language that is neither natural nor accessible?

With my lack of speech intelligibility and residual hearing skills coupled with poor lip reading skills, I experienced low expectations and noticeably different treatment from teachers, counsellors, and even peers compared to deaf children who had mastered these skills. In my classrooms, I noticed that these classmates were given more attention, encouragements, supports, privileges, positive reinforcements and obtained more formal education while children like me did not. Discouraging me from using sign language in my early years, the lack of support and encouragement, and the deferential treatment of my more “accomplished” classmates are all examples of audism.

Audism

Unlike racism, sexism, and ageism, “audism” is an unfamiliar concept to many. Tom Humphries, an associate professor at the University of California, San Diego, originated the term in 1975 while working on his dissertation on a bilingual approach to Deaf education.

Humphries defined audism as “the notion that one is superior based on one’s ability to hear or behave in the manner of one who hears.” Although there is currently no unanimously accepted definition of audism, the Canadian Hearing Society (CHS) has adopted a definition in our official position paper on discrimination and audism using Humphries definition and expanding it to include two additional definitions: “A system of advantage based on hearing ability” and “A metaphysical orientation that links human identity with speech.” Discrimination rooted in audism is systemic, subtly woven into every facet of our society – housing, education, employment, government services, and health care. The attitudinal barriers it engenders, the direct and indirect discrimination it fosters, and the impact on those who are Deaf or have a hearing loss can be devastating.

During my childhood, adolescence, and some of my adult years, I grew accustomed to the attitudes of those in authority who surrounded me. Among just some of the attitudes I encountered were:

•          “Sign language is bad for deaf children to learn”

•          “Sign language ruins a person’s chances at careers, friends, family, and being a responsible citizen.”

•          “You can’t play sports at regular house leagues because you are deaf.”

•          “You can’t get a summer job because you are deaf.”

•          “You will not have a successful career because you are deaf and cannot speak.”

•          “You can’t drive because you can’t hear.”

•          “You can’t be served in the restaurant because you are deaf.”

Sadly, these types of attitudes persist today in one variation or another. It is still common practice, for example, for audiologists, speech-language pathologists, early intervention and early childhood education providers, educators of deaf children, boards and government ministries to discourage deaf children from learning and using their natural and accessible language – sign language. In fact, many parents of deaf children who are making decisions around their child’s education are still not given balanced information about the benefits of sign language.

This restriction of the use of sign language coupled with a fundamental belief that a deaf child should learn to use residual hearing or the hearing that is a result of a cochlear implant and learn to speak is the most blatant form of audism.  Sadly, when spoken language, both expressive and receptive, is not accessible, precious time is wasted. The child is labelled a spoken language “failure” and the window of opportunity to acquire language quickly closes.

Unfortunately, these spoken language deficiencies can be identified as a learning disability. In some cases there is no cognitive disability; in others, learning disabilities are compounded by language deficiencies. In both instances, it is too late for the language deficit to be repaired and this can have enormous associated costs in terms of special education requirements, and long-term mental health issues, among others.

A great number of professionals – audiologists, interpreters, educators, speech-language pathologists, and medical practitioners – have enormous amounts of power and influence. How that influence is exercised over the lives of people who are Deaf, and Deaf children and their parents is important and the information they disseminate needs to comprise the facts fully and be in the best interests of the individual.

You may read the rest of the article here.

Continue Reading
1 Comment
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Ng Eng Hen: Dust clouds likely caused armoured vehicle collision during Exercise Wallaby

Dust clouds limiting visibility likely contributed to the collision between two Hunter vehicles during Exercise Wallaby, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen explained in his parliamentary reply. 12 servicemen sustained mild injuries, but safety measures prevented more serious outcomes. A formal investigation is ongoing to ensure further safety improvements.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Low visibility caused by dust clouds was identified as the likely cause of the collision between two Hunter armoured fighting vehicles (AFVs) during Exercise Wallaby last month, Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen said in a written parliamentary response on Tuesday (15 October).

The incident, which occurred in Queensland, Australia, on 24 September 2024, resulted in mild injuries to 12 servicemen.

Dr Ng’s statement was in response to a parliamentary question from Mr Dennis Tan, Workers’ Party Member of Parliament for Hougang SMC.

Mr Tan asked for details on the accident, specifically its cause and whether any lessons could be applied to enhance training and operational safety within the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF).

The collision took place during a night-time movement of Hunter AFVs at the Shoalwater Bay Training Area.

The vehicles were returning to base when one rear-ended another. Dr Ng explained that the dust clouds generated by the AFVs’ movement significantly impaired visibility, might likely contributing to the accident.

The 12 affected servicemen sustained mild injuries and were promptly taken to the nearest medical facility.

None of the injuries required hospitalisation, and all 12 servicemen were able to rejoin their units for training the next day.

According to the minister, adherence to safety protocols—such as wearing seat belts and protective gear—played a crucial role in limiting the injuries to mild ones.

Following the incident, a safety pause was immediately implemented, with all drivers being reminded to maintain proper safety distances, especially when visibility was compromised.

Troops were also reminded to adhere strictly to safety protocols, including the proper use of safety equipment, Dr Ng added.

The safety lessons from the incident were shared not only with the affected units but also with other participating groups in the exercise, as well as units back in Singapore, through dedicated safety briefings.

Mr Tan also asked about the broader implications of the incident. In his response, Dr Ng said that a formal investigation had been launched in accordance with SAF’s safety incident protocol.

The investigation aims to assess the circumstances more thoroughly and identify any further measures that could be taken to enhance safety.

Dr Ng shared that recommendations arising from the investigation will be implemented where necessary.

Exercise Wallaby is SAF’s largest unilateral overseas exercise, and the 2024 edition began on 8 September, running until 3 November.

The exercise involves approximately 6,200 personnel, including 500 operationally ready national servicemen.

The exercise has been conducted at Shoalwater Bay Training Area in Queensland since 1990, and it is a key part of SAF’s overseas training program.

The Hunter AFV, one of the vehicles involved in the collision, is a state-of-the-art platform jointly developed by the Defence Science and Technology Agency, the Singapore Army, and ST Engineering.

It replaced the SAF’s aging fleet of Ultra M113 AFVs in 2019, which had been in service since the 1970s. The Hunter is equipped with advanced features, including a 30mm cannon, a 76mm smoke grenade launcher, and an automatic target detection and

tracking system designed to enhance operational effectiveness. It is also capable of traveling at increased speeds and covering longer distances, making it a versatile asset for the SAF.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Government to “carefully consider” Lee Hsien Yang’s demolition application for 38 Oxley Road

The Singapore Government will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY)’s application to demolish the house at 38 Oxley Road. LHY announced his intent on Tuesday morning following the recent death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, reaffirming his commitment to honour his parents’ wish for the house’s demolition.

Published

on

The Singapore Government has indicated that it will “carefully consider” Mr Lee Hsien Yang’s (LHY) application to demolish the family home at 38 Oxley Road.

LHY, the youngest son of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, the late Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), announced his intention to apply for the demolition in a Facebook post on 15 October 2024, following the death of his sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October.

The announcement marks a significant development in the ongoing saga over the fate of the historically significant property, which has been at the heart of a family dispute since LKY’s passing in 2015.

In his will, executed in December 2013, LKY expressed his desire for the house to be demolished “immediately after” Dr Lee moved out of the property. Dr Lee, a prominent neurologist, had been the last remaining resident of the house.

LHY reaffirmed his commitment to carrying out his father’s wishes, stating, “After my sister’s passing, I am the only living executor of my father’s estate. It is my duty to carry out his wishes to the fullest extent of the law.”

He added that he would seek to build a small private dwelling on the site, which would be “held within the family in perpetuity”.

LHY also referenced his brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (LHL) remarks in Parliament in 2015, when he was Prime Minister, stating that upon Dr Lee’s passing, the decision to demolish the house would rest with the “Government of the day.”

In response to media queries regarding LHY’s announcement, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Development (MND) acknowledged the intended application and emphasised that the Government would “carefully consider issues related to the property in due course”.

The spokesperson also highlighted that any decision would need to balance LKY’s wishes, public interest, and the historical value of the house.

The house at 38 Oxley Road, where key decisions about Singapore’s path to independence were made, has been a focal point of public and political discussion.

The future of the house became contentious in 2017 when LHY and Dr Lee publicly accused their elder brother, LHL, of trying to preserve the house against their father’s wishes for political reasons.

LHL denied the accusations, issuing a Ministerial Statement in Parliament, where he also raised concerns over the preparation of their father’s final will. He clarified that he had recused himself from all decisions regarding the property and affirmed that any government action would be impartial.

In 2018, a “secret” ministerial committee, which was formed in 2016 to study the future of 38 Oxley Road, proposed three options: preserving the property and designating it as a national monument, partially demolishing the house while retaining the historically significant basement dining room, or allowing complete demolition for redevelopment. LHL accepted the committee’s conclusions but stated that no immediate decision was necessary, as Dr Lee was still living in the house.

In a statement conveyed by LHY on behalf of Dr Lee after her passing, she reiterated her strong support for her father’s wish to demolish the house. “My father, Lee Kuan Yew, and my mother, Kwa Geok Choo, had an unwavering and deeply felt wish for their house at 38 Oxley Road to be demolished upon the last parent’s death,” the statement read.

She added, “He had also appealed directly to the people of Singapore. Please honour my father by honouring his wish for his home to be demolished.”

Despite selling the house to LHY at market value in 2015, LHL’s stance regarding the house’s preservation became a public issue, especially after the family disclosed that the Government had raised concerns about reinstating the demolition clause in the 2013 will. The ministerial committee had reviewed the matter, but a final decision was deferred until now.

The fate of 38 Oxley Road remains to be seen, but the Government’s decision will likely have lasting implications for the legacy of the Lee family and the conservation of Singapore’s historical landmarks.

Continue Reading

Trending