Upload
others
View
2
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
EMPOWERING PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2008
MEMPERKASA AKTA ORANG KURANG UPAYA 2008
LOW HONG PING
FACULTY OF LAW
UNIVERSITY OF MALAYA
2014/2015
i
ABSTRACT
It seems that the absence of remedial provisions in Malaysia’s disability legislation –
the impossibility to remedy the wrongs suffered by disabled persons through discrimination –
mirrors the value that the society holds; that the society does not treat disabled persons as
fellow, equal human beings. Whether the law influences the society or vice versa,
empowering the local legislation on disability would not only encourage disabled persons to
step out and relish the purpose that God has ordained to us, but also remind the society to
peer through and look at “this ability,” which everyone uniquely possesses. To empower the
Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (the Act), this paper examines international obligations,
studies foreign legislation, investigates the passing of the Act and finally proposes the
empowering provisions. This paper is written with the hope that it will be a step, however
small, towards enabling disabled persons and the society at large to act.
ii
ABSTRAK
Ketiadaan peruntukan remedi dalam undang-undang orang kurang upaya –
kemustahilan untuk meremedi diskriminasi yang dialami oleh orang kurang upaya – seolah-
olah mencerminkan bahawa masyarakat tidak menganggap orang kurang upaya sebagai
manusia yang samarata. Sama ada undang-undang mempengaruhi masyarakat atau
sebaliknya, memperkasakan undang-undang orang kurang upaya bukan sahaja akan
menggalakkan mereka untuk melangkah keluar dan menikmati tujuan yang Allah telah
mengurniakan kepada kita, tetapi juga mengingatkan masyarakat bahawa semua ialah OKU
– orang kelainan upaya. Untuk memperkasa Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008 (Akta) , kertas
kerja ini mengkaji obligasi antarabangsa, mengkaji undang-undang asing, menyiasat
kelulusan Akta tersebut dan akhirnya mencadangkan peruntukan remedi.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
All glory to God. His strength has sustained me throughout the research and the
writing journey. Whatever that is good is from Him and whatever that is otherwise is from my
fallacy.
I am eternally indebted to my family – my parents and elder sister. If not for the love
that they have showered upon me, I would not have the positive mindset that an advocate
must surely have. My mother deserves a particular mention; for saying that even a disabled
person needs education.
Once my teachers, always my teachers. The confidence I have has been grown by
all the teachers who have taught me, particularly Dr Gan Ching Chuan – my supervisor for
this research – who has let me excel independently while making sure I improve in areas I
have overlooked.
My friends – one of my pillars of strength. For making fun of me as if I was normal,
giving me the little push I needed when writing was moving mountains. Through their
acceptance, I have never felt isolated. It is a privilege, a blessing I intend to make use of to
the share with the society the need for inclusion.
Last but not least, the people who have walked into my life and made a difference. I
am not able to name them all, but the list has been added with the names of the
interviewees who were willing to share their time and expertise. They have made this paper
more credible.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................ i
ABSTRAK ..............................................................................................................................ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ........................................................................................................ iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF STATUTES ............................................................................................................ vii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1
1.1 Background............................................................................................................. 1
1.2 Research Questions ............................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2: THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONVENTION ON THE RIGHTS OF
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ........................................................................................... 2
2.1 Why A Convention? ................................................................................................ 2
2.2 Conceiving the Convention ..................................................................................... 3
2.3 The Obligations of the Convention .......................................................................... 3
2.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 4
CHAPTER 3: THE REMEDIAL PROVISIONS OF FOREIGN LEGISLATION ........................ 5
3.1 Australia Disability Discrimination Act 1992 ............................................................ 5
3.2 The Remedial Mechanism ...................................................................................... 5
3.3 Critique of the DDA ................................................................................................. 6
3.4 Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 6
CHAPTER 4: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2008 .................................................... 7
4.1 Why A Special Legislation? ..................................................................................... 7
4.2 Drafting of the Act ................................................................................................... 7
4.3 Parliamentary Debate ............................................................................................. 8
4.4 The Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 ................................................................... 9
4.5 Absence of Enforcement Mechanism in the Act .................................................... 10
4.6 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 10
CHAPTER 5: ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM .................................................................... 11
5.1 Why Is There a Need for an Enforcement Mechanism? ........................................ 11
5.2 Enforcement Body ................................................................................................ 11
v
5.2.1 National Council for Persons with Disabilities................................................. 12
5.2.2 Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) .................................... 12
5.3 Persons with Disabilities Commission ................................................................... 13
5.4 Remedies ............................................................................................................. 13
5.5 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ 14
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 15
BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................................................. 16
APPENDIX A ...................................................................................................................... 20
APPENDIX B ...................................................................................................................... 33
APPENDIX C ...................................................................................................................... 37
APPENDIX D ...................................................................................................................... 40
vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
CRPD Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
DDA Australia Disability Discrimination Act 1992
PWD Act Malaysia Persons With Disabilities Act 2008
SUHAKAM Human Rights Commission of Malaysia
SUHAKAM Act Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999
vii
LIST OF STATUTES
Australian Constitution
Australian Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999
Malaysian Federal Constitution
Malaysian Persons with Disabilities Act 2008
1
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
One billion people and counting are disabled. That is approximately 15% of the
world’s population. Realising that disability rights had been sidelined to an extent that they
were not treated as rights but as charities, States came together and explicitly laid down the
rights in an international document called the Convention on the Rights of Persons with
Disabilities (CRPD).
Malaysia ratified the CRPD in 2010. In pursuant of the obligations of the CRPD,
Malaysia passed the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (PWD Act) in late 2007. However,
what is absent is more glaring than what is present. Various parties have commented that
the PWD Act is toothless because of the absence of remedial provisions. The problem,
therefore, is the non-enforcement of those rights. As such, this paper seeks to discuss the
empowerment of the PWD Act through remedial clauses.
1.2 Research Questions
a) To study the legal obligations of the CRPD with regards to national legislation on
disability rights.
b) To examine Australia Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
c) To scrutinise the PWD Act, from its drafting, to the parliamentary debate, and
until the passing.
d) To research on the available bodies that could enforce the disability rights and
make suggestions where necessary.
e) To recommend on the remedial provisions that should be included into the PWD
Act.
2
CHAPTER 2: THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONVENTION ON
THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
2.1 Why A Convention?
Persons with disabilities have not been explicitly recognised in the binding
instruments of international human rights law. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1948; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966; and the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966 do not
specifically protect persons with disabilities in their equality clauses.
As such, disability has been traditionally regarded as an aspect of social security,
welfare legislation, health law or guardianship. They were not treated as subjects with legal
rights but were depicted as objects of welfare, health and charity programmes.1
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is the first
United Nations human rights treaty of the 21st-century and is reported to be the most rapidly
negotiated ever.2 The CRPD was a response to an overlooked development challenge –
approximately 15% of the world’s population are persons with disabilities, out of which 80%
live in developing countries. Although pre-existing human rights conventions have the
potential to promote and protect the rights of persons with disabilities, disabled persons have
been kept at the margins of society and been continuously denied of their rights.
The CRPD responds by reaffirming that the rights of persons with disabilities are
human rights and by strengthening respect for these rights. 3 The CRPD does so by
changing the perception of the society, from one of regarding disabled persons as charitable
objects to one of respecting their rights.4 True to that, three out of eight General Principles of
1 Quinn G. and Degener T., Human Rights and Disability: The Current Use and Future Potential of United
Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability, p 1, UN DOC HR/PUB/02 (2002)
2 Secretary General Hails Adoption of Landmark Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities , Official
Statement of the UN Secretary-General, 13 December 2006, UN DOC SG/SM/10797, HR/4911, L/T/4400, 29
May 2014 <http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10797.doc.htm>
3 UN E a le, Frequently Asked Questions regarding the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ,
29 May 2014 <http://www.un.org/disabilities/default.asp?navid=24&pid=151#iq6>
4 Co e tio o the Rights of Perso s ith Disa ilities, Why the o e tio ? , 7 Fe ruary
<http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/questions.shtml>
3
the CRPD are based on respect.5 In short, the purpose of the CRPD is to promote, protect
and ensure full and equal enjoyment of all human rights by persons with disabilities.6
2.2 Conceiving the Convention
In 19 December 2001, the United Nations General Assembly established an ad hoc
committee to consider “proposals for a comprehensive and integral International Convention
to promote and protect the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities.”7
A few days short of five years later in 13 December 2006, the United Nations General
Assembly adopted a treaty on the rights of persons with disabilities and optional protocol.
Then in 30 March 2007, the CRPD opened for signatures. On that day, 82 countries
signed, with 44 also signing the Optional Protocol. It was the highest number of signatories
of a convention on an opening day. Malaysia signed on 8 April 2008 and ratified on 19 July
2010.8
2.3 The Obligations of the Convention
State parties are obliged to realise the rights provided by the CRPD by adopting
appropriate measures to ensure the enjoyment of the rights by all.9 In this vein, State parties
are obliged to adopt legislative and other measures to eradicate discrimination and stop any
practice that breaches the rights of persons with disabilities.10
It has been submitted that the monitors of national legislation should ensure that the
legislation:
a) Recognises that discrimination can occur in relation to mental, intellectual,
sensory or physical impairments;
5 Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities art 3
6 Why the o e tio ? , loc. cit.
7 Ka ter A. “., The Pro ise a d Challe ge of the U ited Natio s Co e tio o the Rights of Perso s ith
Disabilities , 7 Syracuse J. I t’l. L. & Co . 287, p 288
8 United Nations Treaty Collection, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, p 2, 29 May 2014
<https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-15.en.pdf>
9 Lavagnoli S., The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Key Legislative Measures for its
Effective Implementation (United Nations), para 10
10 Supra at 3, para 19; Supra at 14
4
b) Incorporates the social model by referring to disability as the result of the
interaction between the person with disabilities and external barriers; and
c) Focuses on the prohibition of discrimination and the promotion of equality rather
than on the categorisation of various disabilities.11
In addition, Article 11 of the CRPD states that persons with disabilities should have
effective access to justice on an equal basis with others. A crucial component of access to
justice is grievance redress.12 However, most legal systems fail to provide redresses that are
preventive, timely, non-discriminatory, adequate, just and deterrent.13
Besides, Articles 35 and 36 of the CRPD laid down the mechanism for State parties
to submit State Reports after two years of signing the Convention. The report should contain
the challenges, suggestions and recommendations on the promotion and protection of the
rights of persons with disabilities.14 However, Malaysia has not submitted its State Report,
the deadline of which was 19 August 2012.
2.4 Conclusion
As such, though it is not explicit and specific in the CRPD that a national legislation
must have a remedial mechanism, it is implicit that effective remedies must be available to
address violations if the general obligations were to be complied with. If administrative
remedies are inadequate to vindicate the rights, judicial protection of rights are indispensable
to satisfy the requirement of the CRPD.15 Hence, it is important to have a national legislation;
it is imperative to develop specific plans to enforce it.16
11
Supra at 1, para 16
12 Aditya Singh, Envisioning Grievance Redress in the Persons with Disabilities Act: The Disability Rights
Commission and the Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities , Ce tre for Disa ility “tudies, Nalsar
University of Law, 29 May 2014 <http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/aboutus.php>
13 United Nations Development Program, Access to Justice: Practical Note, (2004), p 6, 29 May 2014
<http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/Justice_PN_English.pdf>
14 Ikmal Hisham bin Md. Tah, A Need For Remedial Provision To Protect Persons With Disabilities In Malaysia,
Proceeding of the Kuala Lumpur International Business, Economics and Law Conference at Kuala Lumpur,
December 2-3, 2013, 9-15, p 11
15 United Nations Human Rights Council, Thematic Study by the Office of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights on enhancing awareness and understanding of the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities, 10th
sess, Agenda Item 1, UN DOC A/HRC/10/48 (2009), para 57
16 United Nations General Resolution, Outcome document of the high-level meeting of the General Assembly on
the realization of the Millennium Development Goals and other internationally agreed development goals for
persons with disabilities: the way forward, a disability-inclusive development agenda towards 2015 and beyond,
68th
sess, UN DOC A/68/L1 (2003), para 4c
5
CHAPTER 3: THE REMEDIAL PROVISIONS OF FOREIGN
LEGISLATION
3.1 Australia Disability Discrimination Act 1992
An American law professor who wrote the original draft of the Americans with
Disabilities Act has observed: "The Australian Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (DDA)
is extremely comprehensive, forceful, and specific. With some accuracy one can describe it
as having out-ADAed the ADA....17
The DDA has three objectives:
a) to eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the grounds of
disability
b) to ensure, as far as practicable, that people with disabilities have the same rights
to equality before the law as the rest of the community
c) to promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that
people with disabilities have the same fundamental rights as the rest of the
community.
3.2 The Remedial Mechanism
The provision allowing for court action is s 46PO(1) of the DDA:
If:
a) a complaint has been terminated by the President under section 46PE or
46PH; and
b) the President has given a notice to any person under subsection 46PH(2)
in relation to the termination;
any person who was an affected person in relation to the complaint may make
an application to the Federal Court or the Federal Circuit Court, alleging
unlawful discrimination by one or more of the respondents to the terminated
complaint.
The remedies that could be provided as stipulated under s 46PO(4):
17
Prince M. J., What about a Disability Rights Act for Canada? Practices and Lessons from America, Australia,
and the United Kingdom , (2010) Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques Vol. 36 No. 2, 199-214, p 209
6
If the court concerned is satisfied that there has been unlawful discrimination
by any respondent, the court may make such orders (including a declaration of
right) as it thinks fit, including any of the following orders or any order to a
similar effect:
a) an order declaring that the respondent has committed unlawful
discrimination and directing the respondent not to repeat or continue such
unlawful discrimination;
b) an order requiring a respondent to perform any reasonable act or course of
conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by an applicant;
c) an order requiring a respondent to employ or re employ an applicant;
d) an order requiring a respondent to pay to an applicant damages by way of
compensation for any loss or damage suffered because of the conduct of
the respondent;
e) an order requiring a respondent to vary the termination of a contract or
agreement to redress any loss or damage suffered by an applicant;
f) an order declaring that it would be inappropriate for any further action to be
taken in the matter.
3.3 Critique of the DDA
It has been reported that by mandating conciliation, the process attempts to balance
education and awareness raising (through conciliation) with coercion (through the courts).18
However, it was also found that 70% of people who thought that they had had their rights
abused did not file a complaint because of fear of victimisation, cost and exposure that the
complaint process may entail.19
3.4 Conclusion
The author is of the opinion that the remedies provided by the DDA are exhaustive
and thus, protective of the rights of persons with disabilities. Given such an embracing list of
remedies, whether conciliation is mandated before an action in court is allowed would not
weaken the protection of the rights. Should Malaysia requires conciliation, the outcome of the
conciliation should be made legally binding agreements.
18
Australian Government Productivity Commission, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report: Review of the
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, (2004), p 365
19 Id. 367
7
CHAPTER 4: PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 2008
4.1 Why A Special Legislation?20
The reason is simple: disabilities issues are comprehensive issues, dealing with a
group of substantial minority of the society. In the World Report on Disability published by
World Health Organisation and World Bank, 15% of the world’s population are disabled
people.21
Assuming that every disabled person has a family, issues concerning the disabled
would have a triple or even quadruple effect. In this vein, the Australian law protects persons
related to the disabled people by prohibiting discrimination against them too.22 Therefore,
since it is a comprehensive issue concerning the substantial minority of the society, it was
proposed to the government to enact a special legislation for disabled persons.
4.2 Drafting of the Act
A Technical Committee under the National Advisory and Consultative Council on the
Disabled (NACCD) was set up and headed by Dato Mah Hassan, who was given a free
hand to choose the members of the committee. The work started in 2000 and finished in
2002. In December 2002, the committee submitted a draft of the legislation to the Ministry in
charge, Menteri Perpaduan dan Pembangunan Masyarakat.23 From then on, the Technical
Working Group on Legislation under the National Advisory and Consultative Council on the
Disabled24 was responsible for further drafting the Bill.
Before the draft became a Bill, the Attorney General Chambers had several meetings
with disability organisations.25 Only in 2007 – five years after the first draft was completed –
was the draft brought to the Parliament. On 18 December 2007, the Bill, which had deviated
20
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Ad isory a d Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014. See Appendix A.
21 World Health Organisation and World Bank, World Report on Disability Summary, (2011), p 7
22 Australia Disability Discrimination Act 1992, ss 7-9
23 Supra at 44, p 54
24 Supra at 7
25 Interview with Bathmavathi Krishnan, YB Senator, on 7 May 2014. See Appendix B.
8
from the original draft,26 was passed unanimously by the Dewan Rakyat.27 The Persons
with Disabilities Act 2008 (PWD Act) came into force on 9 January 2008.
4.3 Parliamentary Debate
The Bill was read for the first time on 10 December 2007 by Dato’ Seri Hajah
Shahrizat binti Abdul Jalil, the then Menteri Pembangunan Wanita, Keluarga dan
Masyarakat. On 18 December 2007, the second and third reading of the Bill started at
4:58pm. The readings coincided with the appointment of Yang Berhormat Senator Prof.
Datuk Dr. Ismail bin Md. Salleh as the Senator. He was the first disabled Senator.
At 5pm, Shahrizat said that the Bill was to protect and elevate the rights of the
disabled persons so that they can live independently and with integrity and dignity.28 It is
worth noting that in describing the appointment of the aforementioned disabled Senator,
Dato’ Raja Ahmad Zainuddin bin Raja Haji Omar said “belum pernah berlaku dalam sejarah
negara kita seorang yang tidak berupaya tidak dapat lihat dilantik menjadi Senator.” He, as a
Member of Parliament, used the words “tidak berupaya,” 29 which reveals the pitiful
perception of even the representative of the society on the disabled.
Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah binti Wan Ismail pointed out that there is no penalty clause
in case anyone fails to abide by the provisions. She opined that penalty clause is necessary
to compel them to follow the provisions,30 similar to the views of all three interviewees of this
paper.
In the similar vein, Fong Po Kuan asked what the remedy is if the rights are violated.
She argued that remedies are important to vindicate the rights. She pointed out that although
there has been a bylaw, OKU have not been remedied.31 Whereas Fong Kui Lun pointed out
26
Pang Hin Yue, Falli g short , The Star, 28 January 2009, 29 May 2014
<http://www.clovetwo.com/articles/story.asp?file=/2009/1/28/parentthesis/3096554&sec=parentthesis>;
Interview with Bathmavathi Krishnan, Ibid.
27 Supra at 7
28 Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, Eleventh Parliament, Fourth Session, Third Meeting, 18
December 2007, p 68 (Dato’ “eri Hajah “hahrizat inti Abdul Jalil)
29 Id. at 53, p 70 (Dato’ Raja Ah ad )ai uddi i Raja Haji O ar)
30 Id. at 53, p 80 (Datin Seri Dr. Wan Azizah binti Wan Ismail)
31 Supra at 53, p 97 (Fong Po Kuan)
9
that the Bill is more of a guide than a mandatory document in which breach of the rights
would be an offence liable to a penalty.32
In a reply to the questions and comments, Shahrizat simply replied that the Bill was a
charter of rights but not a punitive legislation. If particular rights are violated, the offences are
provided under other Acts which are already in force.33 She said that the Bill was a realistic
Bill.34
4.4 The Persons with Disabilities Act 2008
The Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (PWD Act) consists of five parts and 46
sections. The parts are Preliminary, National Council for Persons with Disabilities,
Appointment of Registrar General, et cetera, and Registration of Persons with Disabilities,
Promotion and Development of the Quality of Life and Well-Being of Persons with
Disabilities, and General.
Particular mention should be made of Part IV of the PWD Act. Although the
provisions under this part lay down the rights of disabled persons, they fall short of being
offences if the rights are violated. This is in stark contrast with Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act 1992 in which the word “unlawful” is used to label prohibited
discriminations. Further, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia submitted that it is
important for the legislation to make discrimination of a person’s disability an offence.35
As aforementioned, the PWD Act has no remedial clauses. Further still, ss 41 and 42
of the PWD Act become the shield for any legal proceedings against the government. It is
opined that the sections must be abolished to ensure there is serious implementation of the
PWD Act in accordance with international standards and laws in developed countries.36
32
Supra at 53, pp 102-3 (Fong Kui Lun)
33 Supra at 53, p 106
34 Supra at 53, p 107
35 Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Report on Persons with Disabilities: Submission on the Proposed
Legislation on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Appendix F.
36 Supra at 32, p 12
10
4.5 Absence of Enforcement Mechanism in the Act
Indeed, the PWD Act does not provide for rights of redress against those who
discriminate against or fail to provide amenities for persons with disabilities.37 As such, it has
been said that the PWD Act is toothless because there is no sanction or penalty.38 However,
it has been submitted that the absence of penalty clauses, though makes the PWD Act
toothless, is not the main issue considering that the PWD Act is still at its infancy.39
However, the author is of the opinion that it is pertinent that the principal legislation
on disability rights has remedial provisions. Besides, the absence of an enforcement
mechanism reflects serious doubts as to whether the government is committed in pursuing
and advancing the rights of persons with disabilities. 40 Some quarters even questioned
whether the PWD Act is disabled friendly or an attempt to discriminate.41
4.6 Conclusion
There is a need for authorities to take a proactive stance in improving and enforcing
the existing laws to realise the goal of full inclusion and equal opportunity for all.42 There
must political will to resuscitate what Dato Ambiga remarked succinctly, “perhaps it is an
indication that our ambitions with respect to persons with disabilities is still very small, which
is such a pity.”43
37
The Coalition of Malaysia NGOs in the UPR Process, Universal Periodic Review On Malaysia For The 4th
Session Of UPR February 2009, para C6
38 Supra at 7
39 Email interview with Ikmal Hisham bin Md. Tah, lecturer from Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. See Appendix C.
40 Supra at 8
41 Supra at 10, p 4
42 Supra at 8
43 Supra at 9
11
CHAPTER 5: ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM
5.1 Why Is There a Need for an Enforcement Mechanism?
To implement and enforce the rights protected by any human rights legislation, there
is a need to adopt antidiscrimination measures, one of which is the existence of remedial
provisions to address breaches and infringements.44 The remedial provisions in turn should
contain punitive remedy such as fine and summons to strengthen the enforcement
mechanism through judicial process.45 This judicial grievance redress is a crucial component
of access to justice, which is the recognition of a fair and free adjudication and to ensure the
enforcement of the remedy.46
When the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (PWD Act) was drafted by the
committee headed by Dato Mah Hassan, a sizeable attention was given to the enforcement
because according to him, an “Act without enforcement mechanism would be a failure.” It is
critical for the ability of the PWD Act to be enforced because the enforcement mechanism
ensures that the PWD Act protects what is needed to be protected.47
According to Dato Mah Hassan, whether the enforcement is successful is not
material; what is important is that the enforcement power must be present. As
aforementioned, the basis for enforcement is not provided by the law, the failure of which,
according to him, lies with the drafters. Without the weapon, it cannot be enforced.48
5.2 Enforcement Body
A key step in ensuring legal empowerment of persons with disabilities is to create
institutions that respond quickly and effectively to disability rights claim. 49 One such
institution is the court. The judicial process would focus public attention on the problem,
unlike the informal methods, which at best package victories as compromises with no
publicity, that could be provided by a human rights commission, council or tribunal. 50
44
Supra at 32, p 12; Supra at 67, p 70
45 Supra at 32, at 13
46 Supra at 30
47 Supra at 44, p 55
48 Supra at 44, p 58
49 Supra at 30
50 Supra at 30
12
Nonetheless, as disputes are best settled out of court to avoid adversarial feelings, the
existence of the commission, council or tribunal is important as they provide the first stop for
discriminated disabled persons to voice their grievances.
5.2.1 National Council for Persons with Disabilities
s 9 of the PWD Act empowers the National Council for Persons with Disabilities
(National Council) with a wide range of functions. However, the National Council is not
empowered to investigate into complaints of discrimination. Consequently, the National
Council does not have the power to penalise or prosecute any persons, bodies or agencies
for failing to comply with the provisions of the PWD Act.51
5.2.1.1 Recommendations
The function of the National Council for Persons with Disabilities must be
strengthened to include the provision of legal and technical assistance to individuals who
desire to complaint against the government or any private entity. Depending on the
existence of the power to do the same in SUHAKAM, the National Council can be
empowered to be like a conciliatory body to remedy the discriminatory practices.52
5.2.2 Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM)
The SUHAKAM is a statutory body established by the Human Rights Commission
of Malaysia Act 1999 (SUHAKAM Act). Under s 4(1)(d) of the SUHAKAM Act, the
commission is empowered to inquire into complaints regarding infringements of human
rights. However, the SUHAKAM Act falls short of empowering the commission to resolve
any issue that would arise from the alleged infringement. As such, disabled persons in
Malaysia, unlike those in Australia, do not have a body to turn to seek redress when they
have been unlawfully discriminated.
5.2.2.1 Recommendations
The strengthening of SUHAKAM is crucial in ensuring legal empowerment of persons
with disabilities. This is important because if disabled persons feel that their grievances are
not taken seriously, they are unlikely to feel that the right bearing citizens.53
To strengthen the commission, it is recommended that SUHAKAM be empowered to
facilitate resolution of disputes through informal methods.54 This power can be taken up by
51
Supra at 10, p 9
52 Supra at 32, p 13
53 Supra at 30
13
either SUHAKAM or the National Council for Persons with Disabilities. Besides, in line with
the effectiveness factors of the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights, the
commission must be independent, competent and has a pluralistic membership. With
regards to the membership, SUHAKAM should include more disabled representatives into its
task force so that the commission is more attentive to the plight of disabled persons.
5.3 Persons with Disabilities Commission
When Dato Mah Hassan drafted the PWD Act, the committee proposed to set up a
special commission. Setting up of an independent commission was also proposed by the
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM). According to SUHAKAM, the
independent commission should have the following characteristics:55
a) tasked to ensure coherence, comprehensiveness and effectiveness of measures
set out in the legislation
b) have the power to conduct enquiries into the breaches of rights of persons with
disability
c) include persons with disabilities into the independent commission
Specific details of the commission can be gathered from Chapter 3 of the draft, within
which it is stated that the functions of the Persons with Disabilities Commission include
looking into complaints.56 More importantly, the commission is vested with the same power
as is vested in a court on the courts of judicature act in respect of summoning and enforcing
the attendance of witnesses, requiring the discovery and production of any document,
requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office and receiving
evidence on affidavit.57
5.4 Remedies
It is submitted that should the National Council for Persons with Disabilities, Human
Rights Commission of Malaysia (SUHAKAM) or the proposed Persons with Disabilities
Commission fail to conciliate a disability issue, our courts should be empowered to
adjudicate on civil claims of discrimination. This power must be accompanied by a list of
remedies that the courts could enforce:
54
Supra at 30
55 Supra at 62, para 11.3
56 Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002, s 6. See Appendix D.
57 Id. s 7
14
a) make a declaration that the respondent has engaged in conduct, or committed an
act, that is unlawful, and order that the respondent shall not repeat or continue
such unlawful conduct or act;
b) order that the respondent shall perform any reasonable act or course of conduct
to redress any loss or damage suffered by the claimant;
c) order that the respondent shall employ or re-employ the claimant;
d) order that the respondent shall promote the claimant;
e) order that the respondent shall pay to the claimant damages by way of
compensation for any loss or damage suffered by reason of the respondent's
conduct or act;
f) order that the respondent shall pay to the claimant punitive or exemplary
damages; or
g) make an order declaring void in whole or in part either ab initio or from such date
as may be specified in the order, any contract or agreement made in
contravention of this Ordinance.
5.5 Conclusion
Therefore, the author is of the opinion that a body must be empowered to enforce the
rights enshrined in the PWD Act. In this regard, the powers of the National Council for
Persons with Disabilities or the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia may be enlarged.
Alternatively, the Persons with Disabilities Commission, as it was proposed in the first draft
of the PWD Act, may be set up to carry out the function. With the enforcement body in place,
the remedies the courts could enforce should conciliation by the body fails must be listed
down in the PWD Act.
15
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSION
With the ratification of the Convention on the Rights of persons with Disabilities,
Malaysia has a responsibility to give effect to disability rights through national legislation.
Although Malaysia has passed the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 (PWD Act), the
PWD Act does not contain remedial provisions.
In Australian Disability Discrimination Act 1992, there is a compulsion to
conciliate disability issues by appointed enforcement bodies. Should conciliation fails, there
are provisions allowing actions in courts, reinforced by a list of exhaustive remedies that the
courts can provide.
Therefore, the author is of the opinion that the PWD Act should be amended to
include power conferring provisions of the court. Besides allowing the court to adjudicate on
disability issues, the amendments must include a list of orders that the court can provide.
The most comprehensive laws include specific injunctive, declaratory and judicial remedies,
including money damages for victims of disability discrimination.
In addition to this method of access to justice, the powers of the National Council for
Persons with Disabilities or the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia should be enlarged
to encompass the power to investigate and conciliate on disability matters. Should either
body be unsuitable, the proposed Persons with Disabilities Commission must be looked into.
This is pivotal as although court actions can garner public attention, they may not be suitable
for discriminated disabled persons who merely intend the responsible parties to apologise or
pay compensation in return.
All in all, there is much scope for improvement if political support can be leveraged to
strengthen the national institutional machinery devoted to disability.58 “Disabilities are not
what we do or do not have. They are what people create to satisfy their own ideals of living
in the society.”59 It is up to us then to decide whether we want a facade society or a society
that appreciates everyone’s unique abilities. Let us have the ideals of having enabled,
encouraged and empowered persons with disabilities.
58
United Nations General Resolution, The way forward: a disability-inclusive development agenda towards
2015 and beyond, UNGR, 68th
sess, UN DOC A/68/95 (2003), para 32
59 Wong K. F. and Syamsuriatina Ishak, Forum on Persons with Disabilities Act 2008 , The Malaysian Bar, 21
December 2010
16
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Conference Papers
Ikmal Hisham bin Md. Tah, “A Need For Remedial Provision To Protect Persons With
Disabilities In Malaysia,” Proceeding of the Kuala Lumpur International Business, Economics
and Law Conference at Kuala Lumpur, 2-3 December 2-3
Jacobus tenBroek, “International Impact of the United Nations Convention the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities – A New Engine of Reform”, Disability Law Symposium at Baltimore,
Maryland, USA, 17 April 2009
Forum
Dato’ Ambiga Sreenevasan, “President's welcome address at public forum persons with
Disabilities Act 2008 – what next?”, The Malaysian Bar, 22 January 2009
Wong K. F. and Syamsuriatina Ishak, “Forum on Persons with Disabilities Act 2008”, The
Malaysian Bar, 21 December 2010
Hansard
Parliamentary Debates, House of Representatives, Eleventh Parliament, Fourth Session,
Third Meeting, 18 December 2007
Internet Articles
Aditya Singh, “Envisioning Grievance Redress in the Persons with Disabilities Act: The
Disability Rights Commission and the Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities”, Centre
for Disability Studies, Nalsar University of Law, 29 May 2014
<http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/aboutus.php>
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, “Why the convention?”, 7 February
2014 <http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/questions.shtml>
“Steps After Ratification”, 6 December 2013
<http://www.internationaldisabilityalliance.org/en/crpd-implementation-guidelines-project>
Journal Articles
Ainul Jaria Maidin, “Legal Framework Regulating for Improving Accessibility to Built
Environment for Disabled Persons in Malaysia”, 29 May 2014
<http://ssrn.com/abstract=1992205>
17
Hill C. A., “Enabling The Ada: Why Monetary Damages Should Be A Remedy Under Title III
Of The Americans With Disabilities Act”, (2008-2009) Syracuse Law Review Vol 59, 101-121
Kanter A. S., “The Promise and Challenge of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities”, (2007) 34 Syracuse J. Int’l. L. & Com. 287
Petersen C. J., “A Progressive Law with Weak Enforcement? An Empirical Study of Hong
Kong's Disability Law”, (2005) Disability Studies Quarterly Fall Volume 25, No. 4, 29 May
2014 <http://dsq-sds.org/article/view/625/802>
Petersen C. J., “The Failure Of The Hong Kong Court Of Appeal To Recognise And Remedy
Disability Discrimination”, (2000) 30 Hong Kong Law Journal, 6-21
Prince M. J., “What about a Disability Rights Act for Canada? Practices and Lessons from
America, Australia, and the United Kingdom”, (2010) Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de
Politiques Vol. 36 No. 2, 199-214
Magazine and Newspaper Articles
Bathmavathi Krishnan, “A step forward”, The Star, 24 January 2008, 29 May 2014
<www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?file=%2f2008%2f1%2f24%2flifeparenting%2f20063266&s
ec=lifeparenting>
Khaizan Sharizad, “The disabled have rights, too”, The Star, 4 March 2010, 29 May 2014
<http://www.thestar.com.my/story.aspx?file=%2f2010%2f3%2f4%2ffocus%2f5779213&sec=f
ocus>
Mohd. Faizal Che. Yusof, “Akta Orang Kurang Upaya 2008, Harapan dan Realiti: Satu
Pendekatan Praktikal”, (2011) Praxis, Chronicle of the Malaysian Bar
Nurul Ain Mohd Hussain, “Francis Catat Sejarah Dilantik Pesuruhjaya OKU Pertama
Suhakam”, mStar, 2 May 2014, 29 May 2014 <http://www.mstar.com.my/lain-
lain/rencana/2014/05/02/pesuruhjaya-oku-suhakam/>
Pang Hin Yue, “Falling short”, The Star, 28 January 2009, 29 May 2014
<http://www.clovetwo.com/articles/story.asp?file=/2009/1/28/parentthesis/3096554&sec=par
entthesis>
Memorandum
Working Group of the Disabled, Human Rights Committee, Malaysian Bar Council,
Memorandum Bangkit 2012, 17 Mac 2012, 29 May 2014
18
<http://www.malaysianbar.org.my/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_view&gid=365
5>
Press Releases
Equal Opportunities Commission, “Court Rules there is Power to Order Apology”, Press
Release 5 October 2001, 29 May 2014
<http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/graphicsfolder/ShowContent.aspx?ItemID=3790>
Equal Opportunities Commission, “EOC Welcomes Judgment on Disability Discrimination
Cases”, Press Release 28 September 2000, 29 May 2014
<http://www.eoc.org.hk/eoc/graphicsfolder/ShowContent.aspx?ItemID=5347>
Lim Chee Wee, “Press Release: Time to remove all reservations and sign the Optional
Protocols”, The Malaysian Bar, 8 July 2010
“Press Conference by High Commissioner for Human Rights on Signing of Convention,” UN
Press Release, 30 March 2007, 29 May
2014:<http://www.un.org/News/briefings/docs//2007/070330_Disabilities.doc.htm>
“Secretary General Hails Adoption of Landmark Convention on Rights of People with
Disabilities”, Official Statement of the UN Secretary-General, 13 December 2006, UN DOC
SG/SM/10797, HR/4911, L/T/4400, 29 May 2014
<http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sgsm10797.doc.htm>
Reports
Australian Government Productivity Commission, Productivity Commission Inquiry Report:
Review of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, (2004)
Australian Human Rights Commission, Transport Accessibility, 29 May 2014
<http://www.humanrights.gov.au/disability_rights/transport/transport.html>
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia, Report on Persons with Disabilities: Submission on
the Proposed Legislation on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, Appendix F
The Coalition of Malaysia NGOs in the UPR Process, Universal Periodic Review On
Malaysia For The 4th Session Of UPR February 2009
World Health Organisation and World Bank, World Report on Disability Summary, (2011)
United Nations Documents
19
Lavagnoli S., The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities: Key Legislative
Measures for its Effective Implementation (United Nations)
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Handbook for Parliamentarians on the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, UN DOC HR
/PUB/07/6 (2007)
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, Monitoring the Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities, UN DOC HR/P/PT/17 (2010)
Quinn G. and Degener T., Human Rights and Disability: The Current Use and Future
Potential of United Nations Human Rights Instruments in the Context of Disability, UN DOC
HR/PUB/02 (2002)
United Nations Development Program, Access to Justice: Practical Note, (2004), 29 May
2014 <http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/Justice_PN_English.pdf>
United Nations General Resolution, Outcome document of the high-level meeting of the
General Assembly on the realization of the Millennium Development Goals and other
internationally agreed development goals for persons with disabilities: the way forward, a
disability-inclusive development agenda towards 2015 and beyond, 68th sess, UN DOC
A/68/L1 (2003)
United Nations General Resolution, The way forward: a disability-inclusive development
agenda towards 2015 and beyond, UNGR, 68th sess, UN DOC A/68/95 (2003), para 32
United Nations Human Rights Council, Thematic Study by the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Human Rights on enhancing awareness and understanding of the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 10th sess, Agenda Item 1, UN DOC
A/HRC/10/48 (2009)
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
20
APPENDIX A
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
21
During the course of my research, I realised that you were the one who drafted the Act.
What was your role in drafting the Act back then?
By the year 2000, the world has overseen many developments with regards to disabled people
affairs – disabled people welfare issues. And one of the areas is about legislation. Many of
our neighbouring countries has adopted a special legislation with respect to disability affairs.
In fact, the most famous one in the world is, at that time, the ADA – American Disabilities
Act, which took place in 1991, if I’m not mistaken. But before that, we have also other
countries like the British and also the Australian who took up the initiative to establish a
special legislation to deal with disability.
Why do we need a special legislation? That is an important question for you to answer in
your paper. Why do we need a special legislation where these disabilities issues can also be
addressed in a normal legislation. For instance like fundamental liberties. You can speak in
the Constitution, Article 5, Article 8. About the owning of land, you can mention in the
National Land Code. About the education, you can mention in the Education Act. About the
housing, you can deal with the Housing Act. So why do we need a special Act? So that is the
challenge, the question, which I have to explain to the Administration, to the government,
especially the Ministry, and also to the public. To the public is not so much problem, but the
government, because eventually when you have a special Act, the government is the one that
is going to enforce it. The government on behalf of the rakyat will pass it in the Parliament
and then to enforce it. And any contravention of the Act will be penalised. That is the
straightforward, normal scenario for any infringement of what has been stated in the Akta
Parlimen.
So the answer to this is simple: the disabilities issues is an over the board issue, is a
comprehensive issue. It’s not like you deal with a particular issue in life, but you are dealing
with a group of substantial minority of the society. Underline the word substantial; we might
be the minority, but as a matter of fact, we are a substantial minority of the society. In terms
of numbers, I think we are some of the minority groups. In terms of implications, we have a
long way where any actions taken with respect to disability matters will go to impact the
society. For example, now from the statistics point of view, we have the WHO and the World
Bank in the last disability report last year, in August last year, mentioned 10 to 15% of the
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
22
population of each nation are disabled people. So we are talking about 28 to 30,000,000 of
Malaysian population. We are talking about 2.8 million of the population are disabled people.
And I think it has some truth in it because, kalau you tengok, each time we have a festival –
Hari Raya ke Chinese New Year – berapa ramai orang yang accident. Daily pun berapa ramai
yang accident. Kita tengok dalam working environment, in factories, how many people get
involved in accidents. And in hospitals, dalam lab, experiment, ramai orang yang kena mata,
become blind. Even nowadays the way of life, diabetic for instance, take large toll with
regards to blind people; many blind people nowadays became blind because of diabetic. So
these, all these figures, can easily come up to 3,000,000. It’s not a false figure. 3 million
disabled people, I think, is easily proven.
Okay, 3 million, we are talking about the disabled people. What about people around them.
One blind person might have a parent. They have father, mother, some have wife, some have
children. So taking a general statistics suggestion that one blind person has three other people
around him, his father, his mother or even his wife or even his friends, so we can safely
conclude that any issues dealing with disability will have a triple effect; a quadruple effect in
fact, four times. So if you are dealing with 2.8 million, actually you are dealing with 2.8 times
4, which is 9.2 million. So anything to do with the disabled people will have an impact on 9
million rakyat in the country.
So that is my proposal. Because of that, from the statistical point of view, from the nature of
the disability, and from the wider scope of disability issues, that’s why I proposed to the
government to have a special Akta for the disabled people. Good enough, that time, the
Minister agreed to set up a committee headed by me. So I were given a free hand to choose
who to sit on my committee to start the ball rolling, to draft a legislation and to propose to the
Minister. So we worked in 2000 and we finished in 2002, December. In 2002, December, I
handed over to the Minister – Menteri in charge of disability issues, Menteri Pembangunan,
masa tu, Menteri Perpaduan dan Pembangunan Masyarakat – handed to her. And then, the
matter was up to the Minister to bring it to the cabinet. I don’t know what has been going on
inside there. Only by year 2007, it came to the Parliament. It went to the cabinet, Cabinet
approved, it went to the Parliament in 2007, and it received the approval from the Parliament
in July. July 8, 2008, it received the assent from the Agong and was enforced in 2008.
Parliament, 2007. 2008 got the royalty assent. You know kan yang processs, the process for
any Bill to become Akta. I tak payah clarify on that.
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
23
So that is my answer. First is why should we have an Act and how we struggled to convince
the government that the Act is important. We are not only the first country; we are not the
only country, there are other countries. In fact in the process of my drafting, I made reference
to the American Disabilities Act, UK, Indian, Japanase and also Australia. These are the five
countries I made reference and I built up the Bill and I called the committee and we have
studied the draft and then finally we submitted to the Minister in 2002.
Generally, do you think the provision of the remedies is necessary to enforce any rights-
based legislation?
When we drafted the Act, we gave a sizeable attention to the enforcement because we do
realise that having an Act without the enforcement mechanism would be a failure, any Act
without a proper mechanism for enforcement is not welcoming Act. Because the Act must be
able to be enforced to make sure that the provisions in the Act has the ability to protect what
is needed to be protected by the Act. So the idea of the Act, at least, has five objectives.
One is to define the meaning of disability. Because at that time, in the year 2000, many
approaches by many sectors with regards to the definition of disability. In fact, at the
international level even, they have differences in approaching the word disability. We were
quite fortunate in a way because at the international scene at that time, there is an ongoing
movement of drafting the Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities. So in the
process of drafting the Convention, they adopt a definition which I think is quite satisfactory
and do away with all the differences about the definition. So we adopt the definition taken by
the CRPD and put it into our Bill. So the definition is there.
Second, we have an engine to make sure that the Act moves smoothly. In our original
proposal, we proposed a commission. We proposed a commission which supposed to be an
independent board to run the Act and then to make the report to the Parliament. So that was
our original idea. But, I’m sorry to say, I don’t know, the Cabinet or the Attorney General, is
not happy with our proposal. So they decided to have the council – Council for Persons with
Disabilities, which is reported to the Minister but represented by head of various related
departments. Which is better than the other is not me to decide, but the way we can see it, the
council that they have decided as at present prove not much difference to the earlier initiative.
So I think, still, we need to have an independent council, if you like, if you want to insist to
have the word council, you are not happy with the work commission, then okay, take it as
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
24
council but with more freedom, more energetic power for them to go on, not so much being
bound by bureaucratic decisions. So these are the comment I want to make with regards to
the second point.
The third point is, I need a legal declaration about the rights of people with disabilities.
People with disabilities need the rights to be spelt out legally in a legal document so that
eventually, when people question about the rights of people with disabilities, these are the
papers to back us up. So to tell them look, the Parliament, is supposed to represent the rakyat,
has already declared that these are our rights. So the law must follow suit to recognise, to
give a due legal recognition to our rights. And these I think is a success. Now at least I can
tell the world with our small effort that we have made way back in the year 2000, now the
whole nation can declare that disabled people have a legal right. Kalau dulu, all based on
charity, kesian. Right of education, for instance, kalau ada disabled people, oh kesian sama
dia, kasi dia sekolah; kesian sama dia, kasi dia makan; kesian sama dia, kasi dia wang; kesian
sama dia, kasi dia kerja. But now is no more kesian. It’s a must. The blind people are the
rightful citizens of the country. They are born here, they are the rightful citizens here, why do
they be discriminated, why do they be sidelined to have the same rights. If normal people can
go to work, they also want to go to work. If normal people go to school, they also want to go
to school. They must be given the right to go to school and so on. So these are the areas
which I think something that we should all be proud of with the Akta.
And fourth, number four, is about, when we are talking about disabled people, we do
recognise that there are more fortunate disabled people and the lesser fortunate disabled
people. The blind can speak. You on wheelchair, you can see, you can go to school. The only
thing is that because you are on wheelchair, perhaps certain areas you cannot handle
independently but still, you can write, you can read, you can use computer. But what about
our other groups – like people who are bedridden, people who are mentally retarded, mentally
disabled, they are helpless! And who are going to see them? Who are going to look after them?
We cannot say that oh, we have the mentally retarded, we push them away, no, that is not the
way the society supposed to be. The society should be equally responsible for the disabled
children. They never ask to be born mentally retarded. Nobody asks to be disabled. I never
ask to be blind. But fate has defined me to be blind and I accept it. It’s good enough a
disabled person is courageous enough to accept the fact that he is blind or otherwise. Now it
is the duty of the country, duty of the society to step in to help them. So I need the social
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
25
support to be spelt clearly in the Act with regards to these groups. And I think, with the
drafting of section, section 40 ah, something to do with, people with, orang dengan
ketidakupayaan teruk, section 38. So section 38 meletakkan kewajipan ke atas sektor swasta
dan pertubuhan bukan kerajaan jagaan institusi bagi orang kurang upaya untuk mengambil…
untuk… for these people with serious disability. So I think this is a success also.
And finally, number five, is about enforcement. Enforcement has been one of the area where
we give a sizeable emphasis. We set up a special commission. We define who, at least people
with, five years experience with disability issues should chair the commission and the
commission should investigate into any complaints or discrimination et cetera. But
unfortunately when they drafted, when they set up this Bill to the Parliament, this provision
with regard to enforcement was taken out, which I regret very much. Well what can I say,
you know. So much as we did, but they decided to take half and throw the other half. So
that’s the end. So I regret about it.
Do you know why was the chapter on penalties and the remedies omitted from the Bill
that was tabled in the Parliament?
I don’t know. I have no idea. They did not even consult me. They did not give me even an
opportunity to explain why there is a need for such an enforcement. In fact I made a thorough
study about the Independent commission based on my experience in the stock market. I could
see the success of Suruhanjaya Sekuriti, a body set up under a special Act, under the
Parliament, and the Security has been a very successful in terms of controlling the stock
market. So based on their experience and on my experience with them, I took up the idea and
tried to put it under the Akta – Akta OKU. But when it went to the Attorney General office,
the AG Chambers, eventually they decided to omit it, to leave out. Now we are left with no
enforcement provision in the Act.
When the Bill was debated, the Minister in charge said that the Act is not supposed to
be punitive. Rather, it is an act on human rights. And the Minister also said that other
laws such as the Uniform Building Bylaws already have penalties in the Act themselves.
So with that explanation, do you think it is still necessary for the Persons with
Disabilities Act to have remedies and penalty clauses?
Yes, I think penalty clauses is still necessary. Very much necessary. I give one example. The
Education Act. The Education Act says that every children must be given a basic education,
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
26
must go to school, a basic formal education. So what if parents decided not to send their boys
or girls to school? It’s a matter of rights. It is also a human rights-based provision. So the
parents fail to send the children go to school, what can you do? I think it’s the same thing to
compare with basic rights of people with disabilities. If any specific right spelt out in the Act
is not, is violated by anybody, then it’s question of enforcement. Whether the enforcement is
successful or not is not for us to debate. It is a question of the enforcement power must be
there. So you must provide enforcement power. If you don’t have the enforcement power,
how can the enforcement authorities enforce it? Even now, in many areas of life, there are a
sizeable degree of enforcement power given, still are the failure to enforce it. For instance
like parking. We have the enforcement provision. But still, a lot of enforcement world not
there. So what do you expect when you don’t have the enforcement provision at all? So the
basis is not provided by the law. So where is the failure? The failure is for us drafters. When
we draft the Act, we must give the authority the enforcement provision. For them to enforce
is not our question anymore, it is their responsibility. But if you don’t give them the weapon,
how can they enforce it? So this is the failure, to say that because it is a human rights based
provision, I don’t think it holds water. The argument is to me not correct.
Compare about the UBL. UBL fails not because of the enforcement provision, but because of
the nature of the terms of reference of each level of ministry. The UBL is given to the
Ministry Perumahan, Kementerian Perumahan. Kementerian Perumahan cannot enforce it
until get the cooperation from the local authority. But the local authority is also acting under
a special Act for the Local Authority Act. So the local authority prefers to work on their own.
And they are the worst animal because they have the authority, they want to work on their
own, and they will not respect the UBL at all. So UBL must be revised. In order for the UBL
to be fully enforced, in my opinion, there must be a revise to make sure that the local
authority is bound by the decision of the of the Act, of the Kementerian Perumahan under the
UBL. But as at present, local authority are not bound, are not, does not fall within, does not
bound by the decision of the UBL. So that is the problem. Even if they show the UBL, they
say it is the Kementerian Perumahan punya business, it is none of our business. Correct, we
under the Perumahan but on other issues, not on the enforcement. For instance like bus
terminal, I give you a good example. Bus terminal, the law says, UBL says, when you build a
public building for reuse, you have two abide by specified measurements – the height of the
railing is so much, how many feet; and then the drop zone; how many millimetres; and then
every toilet, you have to meet with the uniform measurements. So these are the UBL. But the
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
27
local authority says, look we have already provided what is necessary, we have already got
our contractor, contractor has already done the job, we have got the building approved, we
have got the, what is necessary. So why should we follow exactly the UBL. Who is going to
punish us? UBL also has no power against the local authority. Local authority must give
cooperation in order to enforce the UBL. UBL supposed to enforce against the contractor.
But the contractor is hiding behind the local authority. So there is no end to the story, I tell
you. It is a matter of practice, a matter of practical points, until and unless the UBL being
revised, or the local authority has given their commitments, then only the UBL can give a
proper enforcement value. Otherwise, it will become useless Act, I’m sorry to say.
Let’s move away from Malaysia and look at other countries. In Hong Kong, they based
their Act on Australia, and the court is empowered to order that the respondent shall
perform any reasonable act to redress any loss or damage. And besides that, the court is
also empowered to order the respondent to pay compensation to the claimant. So should
Malaysian courts be empowered to order the same kind of remedies?
As you are equally aware, the court has two source of power. Whether the power derives
from a legally, parliamentary issued statute, or from the inherent power of the court. So
whether the court wants to use the statutory approach on equity approach is up to the court.
But of course, if there is a clear statutory provision, then that would be the first choice of the
court, to use this statutory provision as a source for them to give direction with regards to any
penalty, failing which they also may use the equity approach for equitable purposes; even if
the statutory provisions are not there, they still can use the inherent power of the court to
make decisions. But we have to depend on the attitude of the court. So that is where, that is
also risky, because some courts may have a better understanding than the others; judges are
also human beings, some are more passion about the disability issues than other judges. So
here, this is another choice, the next choice, available for our propounders that when we fail
with our statutory provisions, then perhaps the next choice is to seek redress from the judge.
Hopefully, matters will be better.
You mentioned that the powers can be derived from the statute. So let’s say if we amend
our current Act, are the said powers, that is the power to order the respondent to pay
damages, is this suitable in our legal and social context?
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
28
From a legal practice, I can see that many disputes are better settled out of court. Pre-trial
settlement has less adverse effects on parties. When matters go to court, the adverse effects
will have a longer repercussion on the parties. But if you can settle out of court, before any
open trial, that would be best in the interests of both parties. So in that, taking that as a
positive suggestion, I would suggest that we should have a tribunal, macam tribunal
perumahan. An independent tribunal to deal with disability issues and this, I think, will help
not only to speed up any case to be heard but also to reduce cost and also to reduce adverse
effects on the parties so that matters can be decided in house rather than the open to the
public.
In this respect about tribunal, I came to know that other international level, they have already
an initiative about setting up a tribunal on disability rights. In Europe, it’s already established
– disability rights Tribunal, but in Asia-Pacific, we yet to have. So I would suggest that a
special tribunal should be established in our country first, at the national level, a tribunal on
disability rights. And then this tribunal will focus on disability issues more than anything else
and will have people with experience, knowledge to deal with these issues, with disability
issues. We don’t want people who have no experience, no knowledge about disability issues
and sit there on the bench decide on disability issues. We want people who have certain
amount of knowledge so that the decision is practicable to be carried out. So that the decision
can be a long-term solution to any dispute with regards to disability matters.
And once this tribunal has been enforced in our country and we perhaps also can introduce
education so that the upcoming graduates from the University should be taught about the
disability rights. And with regards to this disability Tribunal, we can join our counterparts in
other countries and perhaps also can, we can establish one in ASEAN countries. So we can
have the ASEAN disability Tribunal. So that would be, I think, a more practical and ideal
approach with regards to the enforcement of disability issues.
If the Tribunal finds that the person has been discriminated, what are the appropriate
remedies that the tribunal should enforce?
My suggestion is good as yours. It depends very much on the circumstances of the case.
Because when dealing with disability issues, first and foremost we have to understand the
requirements needed by, or the, to satisfy the issues. For instance, if you are dealing with
blind person who does not attend at their work because of transportation difficulties and he
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
29
being dismissed of employment because of that. If you take it from the Workmen’s
Compensation Act, or even if you go under the Employment Act, a straightforward case will
say that you have failed in your duty to be at your workplace as such time that as been agreed
in the employment document. But if you take from the disability rights, the person can argue
that I’ve failed to attend, I fail to be at my workplace, because I were not given equal access
to transport to my place of employment. So the best address is, to address the issue of
transportation. So if the office of the company can provide, for instance, a transport to shuttle
from a particular point to the office, that will solve all the problems. And the problems solved
is not only for that particular claimant but also for other employees as well. If the company,
the office of the company, stay way out of the main road, then any employees who wants to
come to the office can make a point to wait for the shuttle somewhere and come to the office
and everything resolved. So that’s what I mean tribunal is the best. Because a tribunal will
look into the issues not only from the legal point but how to address the issues. It’s not the
question of compensation; it’s not a question of assertion of rights, more than that. It is more
meant to resolve the issues for both parties. Naturally in this case, the employer would like to
have the staff as long as he can work efficiently and effectively. The employees also would
love to work if he be given the equal access of transportation. But if you look only from the
legal rights, then the case will be dismissed and the case will be decided but both parties will
have a long-term adverse effect. They will say that the company is not concerned about the
rights of persons with disabilities. And the company may have a mind that disabled people
are not sufficient people. So that would be a loss to our country, you see what I mean. So I
think a tribunal would be a better solution, a better mechanism to resolve the disability issues
more than anything else.
That is the reason why in our original proposal, we decided to set up a special commission,
because a special commission headed by someone who have ample experience with regards
to disability issues would be in a better position to resolve such issues, and they can resolve
more issues, faster than ordinary courts, because ordinary courts, they base purely on legal
rights and nothing else. This will have long adverse effect on everybody.
My last question is that you mentioned that we should set up a tribunal, but at the same
time we already have the Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) and also the
National Council of Persons with Disabilities. Do you think these two bodies are able to
carry out the task that the tribunal you mentioned should be enforcing?
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
30
I’m afraid not. I have little belief in SUHAKAM. I have little confidence in National Council
for the Disabled simply because of three reasons.
One, SUHAKAM has too many things on their plate. They have so many things and they do
nothing. They do this a bit, here a bit and a bit there. And no satisfactory results that can see.
No concrete results we can see. Because there were not given the enforcement power. They
were given the investigation power and come up with suggestions and up to the government
or any other relevant authorities to carry out the suggestions. But whether the suggestions are
carried out or not is beyond them.
And secondly, the Human Rights does not have, until at present, a representative from the
disabled group. If you see from the many documents with regards to promoting disability
issues, for example, if you see from the CRPD, if you see from the Biwako Millennium
Framework For Action, or even if you see from the international document, IYDP –
International Year of the Disabled Persons, all of these documents suggesting that in order to
have a concrete result with regards to disability issues, you must have disabled people in the
decision making process. You must give the disabled people opportunity to speak for
themselves. You must give the disabled people opportunity to decide for themselves. Any
decision-making with respect to disability issues must be involved to disabled people. And
SUHAKAM, they never invite any disabled people into their board.
And thirdly, SUHAKAM is more on a rights-based approach. But here we’re not talking
about when you rights. We want the rights to be given, implemented and decision be made
with respect to the enforcement of the rights. You can speak so much about the rights but
when the rights to be implemented is not within your purview, then that would be the start of
failure, where the failure starts. So until and unless the SUHAKAM given more concrete
power with respect to the enforcement, then only I think SUHAKAM can help us better than
what they are doing now.
When come to National Council, yes National Council, if you read from the Act, has a very
wide power, a very wide range of power to make sure that disability issues be dealt with
effectively. And why they fail? They fail simply also of three main reasons.
One, they don’t meet as often as we would like it to be. I remember when I was on the
council, the Akta says they have to meet three times a year, at least three times a year. You
know, the first meeting was called in August. The first eight months tak ada meeting. The
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
31
first meeting in August. The second meeting in November. And the third meeting is end of
December. What does it mean? Simply means that the three meeting is only to meet the
calendar, it’s only to meet the requirement of the Act, but it does not meant. So that’s where
council is failing.
Secondly, the council is headed by the Minister responsible for disability issues, and the
members of two types: one, a group heads of ministries, of the Parliament and another group
is individuals as appointed by the Minister. We thank very much for the Minister. At least for
the past years, they have appointed disabled people into the council. That we congratulate the
Minister. But when come to the first group, there are certain ministries which is very relevant,
very important but were left out. One good example is the Ministry of Housing and Local
Government, which also involve the local authority. More often than not, the accessible
issues are within the local authority powers. People want to travel to work, to school, we need
transportation. We need good infrastructure, bus stops, taxis and so on. We want to go for
shopping, we need accessible shops, accessible markets. We need office with accessible
facilities for disabled people. Like my office here, we don’t have lifts. I want to employ
people with wheelchair, tak boleh, because cannot go up. You know I have, in my office,
altogether I have 12 staff, seven of them are disabled people. Seven of them, basically many
of them are blind. I have one on crutches. Happen that she can climb up the staircase. I want
to engage people on wheelchair, tak boleh, because no lift. What can I do? I can’t afford to
build my own lift. So that’s the problem. The problem are within the local authority, my local
authority are not within the National Council punya listing. That’s also a failing factor.
And the last failing factor is, the council have so wide power, so wide opportunity, but has
not been fully utilised. By right, if they want the success activities, they should get the public
involvement. The parents, for instance, the parents are mostly, they love their children, they
want, even though they have disabled children, they love their children. If they were given
the opportunity to contribute, to come along to help, they would be very happy to do so. But
until now, the council never approach the public. The council keep the things to themselves.
It is only for them to decide, for them to meet, for them to use the money. They never get the
public involvement. Even the NGO, the NGO only get involved when you have the Hari
OKU. And then they invite the NGO to come in. But besides that, the NGO takda. Takda apa.
So if they decide to work only inside, in-house, within themselves, the want to get involved
I ter ie ith Dato’ Mah Hassa , Chair a of the Worki g Group o Legislatio , Natio al Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled, on 25 February 2014
32
the rakyat, then that’s where they fail. So these are the three failures which I think contribute
to the failure of National Council.
Thank you so much. It’s my honour to listen to the person who drafted the Act.
Interview with Bathmavathi Krishnan, YB Senator, on 7 May 2014 33
APPENDIX B
Interview with Bathmavathi Krishnan, YB Senator, on 7 May 2014 34
What was your role when the Act was drafted?
I was involved in many disability organisations – the Malaysian Confederation of the
Disabled, Malaysian Spinal Injuries Association, Persatuan Orang Cacat Anggota Malaysia.
I started off in 1978 when I was a committee member in Persatuan Pemulihan Orang Cacat
Selangor. That was my first involvement in disability organisation. Over the years, in 1998, I
was a member of the National Advisory and Consultative Council on the Disabled (NACCD).
So in that organisation, there were mainly people from government department and able-
bodied, and only three individual disabled people were in that committee. So in that
committee we could only voice out; couldn’t make very much changes.
Then the International Convention was going on; the International Convention on the Rights
of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). CRPD was being drafted and I think around 2007, it
was completed and countries were asked to ratify. And Malaysia, we have signed and ratified.
So one of the provisions is you have to have the legislation and all that. So in preparation, in
a way, it enhanced the formulation of the Act, and because of that the government also felt a
need to have the Act. But over in the past, in all our disability organisations meetings with the
government and seminars, we have always asked for legislation. I think way back in 1993,
there was a regional conference on legislation measures in ASEAN or SEA, and I
participated in that also.
As an individual and as a member of an organisation representing the disabled, are brought
up on several occasions the need to have legislation. So it was drafted. The first draft was
done by, there was a technical committee under NACCD; there was a technical committee
formed where Mah Hassan Omar was the chairman of the committee, Tuah Tan, also a
disabled person, who is a lawyer, and Helen Chin. These are the three that I know of. There
may one or two other people inside. So they drafted and in that draft, it was quite different
from what we have now. That draft, they left the penalty and offences section free because
they wanted the AG office to come up with the offences and penalties. After that, the draft
went in and the AG Chambers had several meetings with disability organisations; they had
consultations with us, I think at least about three, four, five consultations. And then the
Malaysian Confederation of the Disabled also organised seminar on the PWD Act, and we
also gathered input, and we submitted to the government. I think one or two organisations did
the same as well. Once the draft was out, we were consulted and given input and all that. And
all of the meetings, we also brought up why there was no offences and penalties.
Interview with Bathmavathi Krishnan, YB Senator, on 7 May 2014 35
So I don’t know what is the reason why they didn’t include; don’t know whether they will
include later, but in my recent session, in our Dewan session from 21 April to 6 May, I
brought up the issue with Kementerian Wanita to ask them to include offences and penalties,
and also went to see Nancy Shukry and also mentioned to her. Nancy Shukry is in charge of
legal aspect. She’s a minister in the Prime Minister Department.
When asked on the absence of penalty clauses, the Minister at the point of time said that
the Act was on rights. It was not supposed to be punitive…
Not to say it was not supposed to be punitive. They acknowledged that it was not punitive.
But then again, the answer to my question, I’ve got a written answer, the answer was there
are other laws to look after. For example, the Building Bylaws; there is penalty. Here, at least
our rights are enshrined. A lot of people think this is the only Act that is going to look after us.
Since other Acts provide penalty clauses, then do you think this particular Persons with
Disabilities Act still needs the…
I don’t know. Let us see how will that work. Based on the answer from the Kementerian
Wanita, and also there is a section in the Akta which says that other laws must be amended to
be in line with this Act.
The bylaws has been existence for quite some time, and I don’t think it is enforced. So
even if the penalty clauses are in other Acts…
No one has ever taken any building to court. Let me tell you about the Bar Council – Edmund
Bon and group. Prior to elections, yes they were very interested in disabled people. Where are
they now? So they come to us with an agenda. Don’t you think so? There are so many people
who want to make use of disabled people for their own ends. Now they’re not interested in us
anymore. So they wanted to know anyone who had got an issue. We met and we gave some
issues. They didn’t take it up. So I don’t know who will. So now, individually, if people are
aware of the law, they can, they can lodge a report and say your building is inaccessible, we
have to take action against the building. Let there be a start somewhere. I would definitely
encourage that.
So you think it is unnecessary for enforcement clauses to be included in our PWD Act.
The UBBL has got its own penalties. So therefore, if once people start suing and people start
taking whoever authorities and the private buildings to court, we can do it. But then again,
Interview with Bathmavathi Krishnan, YB Senator, on 7 May 2014 36
there is one section 63 of one particular Act which exempts government buildings. We have
to get around it once the other things are in place. We have to take action and the government
also has a responsibility to make the building accessible. In fact, they have made some
schools, they said they have accessibility. We were told in the council meeting, but we were
given a list of schools which have got facilities, but we don’t have enough personnel to go
and check, which are the schools which actually claim to have and whether they have
according to specifications or not.
In your opinion, we must make use of…
Yes, what we have in the UBBL, the penalty. There are so far no test case. I think people are
afraid. You don’t have to be; you are not going against the law, you are preserving, you are
making use of the law.
In Hong Kong and Australia, they have a commission to conciliate or mediate
complaints. Do you think our National Council or even SUHAKAM should have this
kind of conciliatory power to mediate disability complaints?
Yes, definitely a need, definitely a need for mediation.
Do you think the National Council and SUHAKAM are capable to…
They are capable, but they are not that willing.
Email interview with Ikmal Hisham bin Md. Tah, lecturer from Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia
37
APPENDIX C
Email interview with Ikmal Hisham bin Md. Tah, lecturer from Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia
38
Is the provision of remedy a necessary form of enforcement method for a rights-based
legislation?
It’s necessary for any right-based legislation to have remedial clause in order to ensure the
right being enforced. If not, the act will only like ‘toothless tiger’. However time must be
given to ensure what kind of enforcement we should have. Maybe at this moment penalty
clause is not main issues since the act itself is at infant stage. Even in Malaysian context, we
are bit slowly and the law is not comprehensive yet, still loopholes and needed to be reviewed.
In response to the absence of penalty clauses, Dato Shahrizat said that the Act is not
supposed to be punitive. Rather, it is an Act on rights. Further, there are already other
legislations with penalty clauses such as the Uniform Building Bylaws. Nonetheless, do
you think penalty clauses and the subsequent remedies in the Act itself are necessary to
give effect to the rights?
In my opinion, the Act itself is at early stage and even Dato Shahrizat said it should not be
punitive, the act still need to address the concern in future. It has been argued by Bar Council
President and other disability advocates, the act itself is toothless tiger without remedial
clause. Majlis OKU Kebangsaan must address this matter. Maybe we need to give an ample
time to study the possibility of including penalty clause. But at the end, there must be
political will and strong pressure from NGOs.
In Hong Kong, the court is empowered to order that the “respondent shall perform any
reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage…” Besides, the court
can also order that the “respondent shall pay to the claimant damages by way of
compensation…” Should Malaysian courts be empowered to order the same remedies?
(If yes, what are the implications of such remedies in our legal and social context? If no,
what are the appropriate remedies and the subsequent implications?)
Even if we given the power to the court to reward compensation, how to attract PWD file
their complaints to the court? In most cases I observed, they want to bring their
discrimination to the court. Many factors involved here including afraid to come forward and
seek lawyer’s advice, financial problems etc. PWD may file their cases to the court under
various law or tortious matters, but it’s important how to raise awareness or attention of
society?
Email interview with Ikmal Hisham bin Md. Tah, lecturer from Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia
39
Australia provides that disabled persons shall file their complaints to its human rights
commission. The commission will then try to conciliate the complaint. If the conciliation
fails, the commission will provide legal assistance to the complainant to file an action in
the court. Should our Human Rights Commission or even the National Council of
Persons with Disabilities have a similar function?
In my opinion, National Council of PWD should have similar function as they are required
under the act. However, it’s not under Section 9 of PWD Act 2008 except if Minister allowed.
That’s why in my article I’m suggesting that National Council should have power like
tribunal (e.g consumer, house tribunal) to address on discrimination issues regarding PWD.
With regards to complaints, Hong Kong is different from Australia in that Hong Kong
has the option to allow the complainant to directly file an action in the court, whereas in
Australia, the complainant has to first go through the conciliation conducted by its
human rights commission. Which approach should we adopt?
In my opinion, Australia approach is much preferable compared with Hong Kong. Even we
can file complaint to the court, unfortunately not many PWD are able to bring their matters to
the court especially on discrimination issue. They might be afraid or felt being isolated.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 40
APPENDIX D
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 41
Proposed Amendments (as at 28 January 2003) to Persons with disabilities ACT, 2002 By Coalition of Societies for Persons with Disabilities and NGOs in
Penang (Society of Disabled Persons, Penang Eden Handicap Service
Centre, Old Nicolites Association , St. Nicholas Association for the
Blind, Society of the Blind, Malaysia (SBM), Penang Branch, Penang
Deaf Association, The Cerebral Palsy (Spastic) Children's Association
Of Penang, Asia Community Service, Autism Support Association
Penang, Penang Down Syndrome Association, and Socio-economic &
Environmental Research Institute.) PREAMBLE. Comments An act to provide the basis for the equalization of opportunities for persons with disabilities and to avoid eliminate discrimination and harrassment of the same.
The objects of this Act are:
i) To ensure that persons with disabilities in Malaysia have the same rights to equality before the law as the rest of the community in the country.
ii) To eliminate, as far as possible, discrimination against persons on the grounds of disability and persons who have a relationship or association with them in various all areas of life.
iii) To promote recognition and acceptance within the community of the principle that persons with disabilities as equal members with the right to be afforded equal opportunities and full
participation to enable them to live as a rightful citizen of the country. CHAPTER i PRELIMINARY 1. Short title and commencement. This act may be cited as the Persons with disabilities Act, 2002.
Not to use the word
2. Definition.
"Disability" means any restriction or lack of ability, resulting from “normal” as it
an impairment, to perform an activity in the manner or within the implies that
range considered normal for a human being. a physical or mental disability is
impairment that substantially limits one or more major life abnormal. For
activities. further definitions,
see WHO’s
"Equalization of opportunities" means the process through which “International
the various systems of society and the environment, such as Classification of
services, activities, information and documentation, are made Functioning,
equally available to all, particularly to persons with disabilities. Disability and
Health”.
"Impairment" means any loss, or abnormality total or partial of a
person’s psychological, physiological or anatomical structure or function.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 42
"Handicap" means a disadvantage for a given individual, resulting
from an impairment or disability, that substantially limits or
prevents the fulfillment of a role that is normal, depending on age,
gender, and social and cultural factors for that individual. one or
more major life activities. "Minister" means the Minister of National Unity and Social
Development. in the Prime Minister’s Department with the
special task of promoting the rights of disabled persons. "Rehabilitation" is a process aimed at enabling persons with
disabilities to reach and maintain their optimal physical, sensory,
intellectual, psychiatric and/or social functional levels, thus
providing them with the tools to change their lives towards a
higher level of independence. Rehabilitation may include
measures to provide and/or restore functions, or compensate for
the loss or absence of a function or for a functional limitation. "relevant authorities" includes any ministry or department of the
Federal Government of Malaysia, an authority of the state
government or local government for the time being in-charge of
the subject matter. CHAPTER ii EQUALIZATION OF OPPORTUNITIES AND FULL PARTICIPATION PART 1. PREVENTION OF CAUSES OF DISABILITIES AND EARLY DETECTION OF DISABILITIES. 1. Within the limit of its economic capacity and development, relevant authorities, with a view to preventing the occurrence of disabilities, shall:- The Minister of Health shall:- (a) undertake or cause to be undertaken surveys,
investigations and research concerning the causes and of occurrence of disabilities;
(b) promote various implement appropriate methods of preventing disabilities;
(c) ensure that all relevant medical and paramedical personnel at the primary health centres care level are adequately trained and equipped to give medical care and rehabilitation to persons with disabilities and that they
have access to relevant treatment methods and technology and
this shall include early intervention; (c a) Ensure trained mid-level personnel and doctors are made
available for tertiary care and that the necessary
infrastructure for rehab. is provided; (d) take adequate measures to provide for pre-natal, peri-
natal and post-natal care of mother and child; (e) create awareness amongst the masses through television,
radio and other mass media on the causes of disabilities
and the preventive measures to be adopted;
Since many parts of
this Act involve
other Ministries, it
is suggested that
this Act not be
sponsored by the
National Unity
Ministry. Each Minister and
Department in
charge of the
respective
responsibility be
named to ensure
implementation and
prevent passing of
the buck.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 43
(f) Carry out compulsory registration of all disabled
persons. 2. Within the limit of its economic capacity and development, relevant authorities The Minister of Health shall ensure that
persons with disabilities are provided with any accessible and
affordable regular treatment and medicines they may need to
preserve or improve their level of functioning. PART 2. EDUCATION. 1. Every child person with any kind and any level of
disability shall have access to early intervention programmes
and free education in an appropriate environment till he or she attains the age of eighteen years. 2. Education for persons with disabilities should form an
integral part of national educational planning, curriculum
development and school organization. 3. Relevant authorities The Minister of Education shall
endeavour to promote the integration inclusion of students with
disabilities in the normal mainstream schools so long as it is in
the best interest of the disabled students. To accomodate educational provisions for persons with disabilities in the mainstream, relevant authorities The Minister of
Education shall:- (a) have a clearly stated child-centered approach and policy,
understood and accepted at the school level and by the community at large;
(b) allow for curriculum flexibility, addition and adaptation;
(c) provide for quality and accessible materials, appropriate
assistive devices, ongoing teacher training and support
teachers. 4. Special education may be considered in situations where
the general school system does not yet adequately meet the needs
of all persons with disabilities or where special education is
deemed to be the most appropriate form of education for some
students with disabilities. It should be aimed at preparing students
for education in the general school system. The quality of special
education should reflect the same standards and ambitions as
general education and should be closely linked to it. At a
minimum, students with disabilities should be afforded the same
portion of educational resources as students without disabilities. 5. In order to ensure that quality education is accessible to
all, special attention shall be focussed on the following areas
namely, curriculum educational programmes, teaching methods
and support services.
The Minister should
spell out guidelines
which will make
registration simple
and accessible
unlike the current
system which is
cumbersome. It is unrealistic to
stop at eighteen as
the disabled person
requires more time.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 44
(1) For persons with visual impairment, in the preparatory and
primary levels, a modified curriculum shall include but shall
not be limited to sensory training, daily living skills, special
instruction in braille reading and writing, enhancement of
low-vision efficiency if applicable, orientation and mobility,
basic knowledge in computers with screen-reading software,
mathematics, music and games. Preparation for mainstreaming
must be worked out in the early years of schooling at the pre-
school and primary level to ensure that visually impaired
children just like other children with disabilities, except those
possibly with mental retardation are educated with their non-
disabled peers to the fullest extent possible. In secondary and
tertiary levels, they shall be integrated and mainstreamed and
undergo the regular curriculum. Students with visual
impairment in these levels shall be supported with the
necessary services such as reading materials in braille or audio
form, braille equipments, reading machine, computer with
special applications, low-vision equipments, orientation &
mobility, counseling and resource teachers (in secondary
schools). (2) For persons with hearing impairment, modified curriculum
shall emphasize communication and language development
which is tailored to meet the students' educational needs. The curriculum shall include special instruction in speech,
speech reading, auditory training and rhythm using total
communication, multi-sensory and other approaches. They
shall be referred to support personnel such as sign language
interpreters, audiologists, otologists, speech therapists, auditory trainers and others as needed. Owing to the
particular communication needs of deaf and deaf-blind
persons, their education may be more suitably provided in
schools for such persons or special classes and units in
mainstream schools. (3) For persons with orthopedic handicaps mobility
difficulties, quality education shall be given in the same
manner as those in the regular education and they shall be
allowed to attend classes in the ground floors of the school
buildings whenever possible. Class schedule and other
pertinent considerations shall be made to suit their learning
requirements Efforts shall be made for the removal of
architectural barriers from schools and colleges. (4) For persons with mental retardation, intellectual impairment,
the modified curriculum shall emphasize on training in self-
care, socialization, motor mobility, pre-vocational, vocational
and other daily living skills. For those
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 45
with severe retardation, disability emphasis shall be on the
development of self-care skills.
(5) For persons with behavior problems such as those with
autism, for persons with learning disabilities and for
persons with multiple handicaps, modified curriculum shall
include special activities and instructional techniques for
the normalization of behavior, functional and technical
academic skills to rehabilitate them in society. 6. Relevant authorities The Minister of Education and the
Minister of Science and Technology shall initiate or cause to be
initiated research for the purpose of designing and developing new
assistive devices, teaching aids, special teaching materials or such
other items as are necessary to give a child with disability equal
opportunities in education. 7. Relevant authorities The Minister of Education shall set
up adequate number of teacher's training institutions and support
non-governmental organizations to develop teacher's training
programmes specialisation in disabilities so that requisite trained
manpower is available for special schools and integrated inclusive
schools for children with disabilities. 8. Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions, relevant
authorities The Minister of Education shall prepare a
comprehensive education scheme which shall make provision for:- • the implementation of individualized education plan in respect of every children with disabilityies at school; • Transport facilities to the children with disabilities or alternatively financial incentives to parents or guardians to enable their children with disabilities to attend schools; • the supply of free of cost special books and equipments needed for the education of children with disabilities;
• the grant of scholarship to students with disabilities;
• a means to attend to grievances of parents regarding the
placement of their children with disabilities. 9. The Minister of Education shall provide adult
education programmes for disabled persons to enable them to
communicate and to read and write. PART 3. EMPLOYMENT. 1. Relevant authorities The Minister of Human Resource shall organize projects for promotion of promote the employment of persons with disability namely by:- • Job development and diffusion of suitable jobs for persons
with disability;
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 46
• measures to design and adapt workplaces and work
premises in such a way that they become accessible for
persons with different disabilities;
• support for the use of new technologies and the development and production of assistive devices, tools and equipments and measures to facilitate access to such devices and equipments for persons with disability to enable them to gain and maintain employment;
• provision of appropriate training and placement and ongoing
support such as personal assistance and interpreter services;
• public awareness-raising campaigns designed to overcome negative attitudes and prejudices concerning workers persons with disabilities;
• measures to improve the work environment in order to
prevent injuries and impairments and measures for the
rehabilitation of employees who have sustained
employment-related injuries. 2. Relevant authorities shall formulate the following policies for
ensuring employment of persons with disability: All employers
with a minimum of ten employees are required to hire a
minimum of 1% disabled employees for any one year.
Employers who fail to meet this quota shall pay a penalty
which shall be utilized as incentives for employers who exceed
the quota. • one percent jobs in the public sector in one year being
reserved for persons with disability; • one percent jobs in the private sector in one year being
reserved for persons with disability;
• The Minister of Human Resource shall give incentives and recognition to any employer maintaining no less than 5 percent employment of persons with disability for a continuous period of no less than 12 calendar months, and a special incentives to any employer maintaining more than 10 percent employment of persons with disability for a continuous period of no less than 12 calendar months;
• The Minister of Finance shall grant tax incentives to
employers acquiring equipments for the benefit of their
employees with disabilities or making adjustments to
accomodate employees with disabilities. 3. Relevant authorities The Minister of Human Resource shall
formulate the following schemes for promoting entrepreneurship
and self-employment of persons with disability: • grants for small business wholly owned by persons with
disability; • loans for capital resources;
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 47
• business csites which are accessible for persons with
different disabilities;
• exclusive contracts or priority production rights;
• special agency for marketing of goods produced by
persons with disability. 4. The Minister of Human Resource shall ensure skills
training to be carried out for disabled persons in all
states. PART 4. REHABILITATION. Rehabilitation is not
1. Relevant authorities The Minister of Health, the Minister just medical. of National Unity and Social Development and the Minister of Human Resource shall develop or support the development of national rehabilitation programmes for all groups of persons with
disabilities. Such programmes should be based on the actual individual needs of persons with disabilities and on the principles of full participation and equality. 2. Rehabilitation programmes shall include but shall not be
limited to basic skills training to improve or compensate for an
affected function, counselling of persons with disabilities and their
families, developing self-reliance, and occasional services such as
assessment and guidance. 3. All persons with disabilities, including persons with severe
and/or multiple disabilities, who require rehabilitation shall have
access to it. PART 5. ACCESSIBILITY. 1. Relevant authorities The Minister of Housing and local
government, the Minister of Information and the Minister of Telecommunication and Multimedia shall formulate policies to make the physical environment
accessible and to provide access to information and communication for persons with disabilities.
2. The All Local Governments shall ensure the attainment of
a barrier-free environment that will enable persons with
disability to have access in public and private buildings
through effective implementation of Uniform
Building Byelaws. 3. Relevant authorities The Minister of Housing and local
government shall allocate funds for the provision of
architectural facilities and structural features for persons
with disability in government buildings and related
facilities.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 48
4. Relevant authorities The Minister of Housing and local
government and Minister of Transport shall develop a
comprehensive programme to assist persons with disability
to gain more access to public transport facilities. 5. Relevant authorities The Minister of Information and
the Minister of Telecommunication and Multimedia shall develop programmes to make information services
and documentation accessible for different groups of
persons with disability. Braille, tape services, large print
and other appropriate technologies should be used to
provide access to written information and documentation
for persons with visual impairments. Similarly, appropriate
technologies should be used to provide access to spoken
information for persons with hearing impairments or
comprehension difficulties.
6. In order to facilitate the communication between deaf
persons and others, sign language interpretation services
shall be provided in key places such as educational
institutions and health centres while latest
telecommunication services should be made available such
as web camera, video conferencing and telecommunication
relay services. 7. Relevant authorities The Minister of Information and
the Minister of Telecommunication and Multimedia
shall formulate guidelines for media especially television,
radio and newspapers, and telecommunication operators to
make their services accessible for persons with disability
and to eliminate negative and demeaning images of
disabled persons. 8. Organizations of persons with disabilities shall be
consulted when, (a) developing standards and norms for accessibility to
physical environment;
(b) developing measures to make information services
accessible. PART 6. SUPPORT SERVICES. 1. Relevant authorities shall establish ongoing communication with organizations of persons with disability and ensure their
participation in the development of government policies. All local
governments shall be required to appoint at least one disabled
Councillor representing the interest of disabled persons in
every local council.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 49
The organizations of persons with disability may have the role of
identifying needs and priorities, participating in the planning,
implementation and evaluation of services and measures
concerning the lives of persons with disability, and contributing to
public awareness and to advocate change. 2. Relevant All authorities should involve organizations of
persons with disability in all decision-making relating to plans and
programmes concerning persons with disability or affecting their
economic and social status and make the necessary financial
allocations and resources to carry out such programmes. 3. Relevant authorities The Department of Statistics shall,
at regular intervals, collect gender-specific statistics and other
information concerning the living conditions of persons with
disability. Such data collection may be conducted in conjunction
with national census and household surveys and could be
undertaken in close collaboration, inter alia, with universities,
research institutes and organizations of persons with disability. 4. Relevant authorities should The Minister of Science and Technology shall support, financially or otherwise, the
development, production, distribution and servicing of assistive devices and equipment and the dissemination of knowledge about them. 5. Relevant authorities should The Minister of Science and
Technology, the Minister of National Unity and Social Development and the Minister of Health shall support,
financially or otherwise, the development and provision of
personal assistance programmes and interpretation services, especially for persons with severe and/or multiple disabilities. PART 7. SOCIAL SECURITY. 1. Relevant authorities The Minister of National Unity and
Social Development shall ensure the provision of adequate income support to persons with disability who, owing to disability
or disability-related factors, have temporarily lost or received a substantial reduction in their income or have been denied employment opportunities. 2. Social security programmes should also shall provide
incentives assistance and training for persons with disability to
seek employment or self-employment in order to establish or re-
establish their income-earning capacity. 3. Persons with disabilities and their families need to be fully
informed about taking precautions against sexual and other forms
of abuse, steps to be taken to prevent such abuse and what to
do if it occurs. Persons with disability are particularly vulnerable
to abuse in the family, community or institutions. and need to be
The practice of
giving RM200.00
allowance only to
those who earn
RM400.00 or less
should be changed
as it discourages
people form
working harder
and penalizes those
who cannot work
or find work.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 50
educated on how to avoid the occurrence of Education
programmes must be conducted to empower disabled persons
and their carers on how to stop abuse, recognize when abuse has
occurred and report on such acts. CHAPTER iii PROVISIONS RELATING TO DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION PART 1. INTERPRETATION OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION. 1. For the purposes of this act, a person ("discriminator") discriminates against another person ("aggrieved person") on the
ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if, because of the aggrieved person's disability, the discriminator treats or proposes
to treat the aggrieved person less favourably than, in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different, the discriminator treats or would treat a person without the disability. 2. Indirect Disability Discrimination. For the purposes of this act, a person ("discriminator") discriminates against another person ("aggrieved person") on the ground of a disability of the aggrieved person if the discriminator requires the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition: (a) with which a substantially higher proportion of persons
without the disability comply or are able to comply; (b) which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances
of the case or, (c) with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to
comply. 3. Discrimination against persons with palliative or
therapeutic devices or auxiliary aids. For the purposes of this act, a person ("discriminator") discriminates against another person with a disability ("aggrieved person") if the discriminator treats or proposes to treat the aggrieved person less favourably because of the fact that the aggrieved person is accompanied by, or possesses: (a) a palliative or therapeutic device or,
(b) an auxiliary aid; that is used by the aggrieved person, or
because of any matter related to that fact. 4. Persons accompanied by interpreters, assistants etc. For the purposes of this act, a person ("discriminator") discriminates against another person with a disability ("aggrieved person") if the discriminator treats or proposes to treat the aggrieved person less favourably because of the fact that the aggrieved person is accompanied by: (a) an interpreter,
(b) a reader,
Discrimination
against persons
associated or
related to the
disabled should also
be prohibited. It will be easier to
understand if
examples are given.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 51
(c) a carer or (d) an assistant; who provides interpretive, reading or other
services to the aggrieved person because of the disability,
or because of any matter related to that fact. PART 2. PROHIBITION OF DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION 1. Discrimination in employment. (1) An employer or a person acting or purporting to act on
behalf of an employer shall not discriminate against a
person on the ground of the other person's disability: (a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining
who should be offered employment;
(b) in determining who should be offered employment or, (c) in the terms or conditions on which employment is offered. (2) An employer or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf of an employer shall not discriminate against an employee on the ground of the employee's disability: (a) in the terms or conditions of employment that the employer
affords the employee; (b) by denying or limiting the employee's access to
opportunities for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits associated with employment;
(c) by dismissing the employee or,
(d) by subjecting the employee to any other detriment. 2. Discrimination against agents by commission. (1) A principal or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf
of a principal shall not discriminate against a person on the
ground of the other person's disability: (a) in the arrangements made for the purpose of determining
who should be engaged as an agent by commission; (b) in determining who should be engaged as an agent by
commission or,
(c) in the terms or conditions on which the person is engaged
as an agent by commission. (2) A principal or a person acting or purporting to act on behalf
of a principal shall not discriminate against an agent by
commission on the ground of the agent's disability: (a) in the terms or conditions that the principal affords the
agent as an agent by commission; (b) by denying or limiting the agent's access to opportunities
for promotion, transfer or training, or to any other benefits associated with the position as an agent by commission;
(c) by terminating the engagement or,
(d) by subjecting the agent to any other detriment.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 52
3. Discrimination in Partnerships. (1) Persons who are proposing to form themselves in to a
partnership shall not discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's disability:
(a) in determining who should be invited to become a partner in the partnership or,
(b) in the terms or conditions on which the other person is invited to become a partner in the partnership. (2) One or more of the partners in a partnership shall not
discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's disability:
(a) in determining who should be invited to become a partner in the partnership or,
(b) in the terms or conditions on which the other person is invited to become a partner in the partnership. (3) One or more of the partners in a partnership shall not
discriminate against another partner in the partnership on the ground of the other partner's disability: (a) by denying or limiting the partner's access to any benefit
arising from being a partner in the partnership; (b) by expelling the other partner from the partnership or,
(c) by subjecting the partner to any other detriment. 4. Discrimination by Qualifying bodies. (1) No authority or body that is empowered to confer, renew,
extend, revoke or withdraw an authorisation or qualification that is needed for or facilitates the practice of a profession, the carrying on of a trade or the engaging in of an occupation shall discriminate against a person on the
ground of the person's disability: (a) by refusing or failing to confer, renew or extend the
authorisation or qualification; (b) in the terms or conditions on which it is prepared to confer
the authorisation or qualification or to renew or extend the authorisation or qualification or,
(c) by revoking or withdrawing the authorisation or
qualification or varying the terms or the conditions upon
which it is held. 5. Discrimination in Registered organisations. (1) No registered organisation, the committee of management
of a registered organisation or a member of the committee of management of a registered organisation shall discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's
disability: (a) by refusing or failing to accept the person's application for
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 53
membership or, (b) in the terms or conditions on which the organisation is prepared to admit the person to membership. (2) No registered organisation, the committee of management of a registered organisation or a member of the committee of management of a registered organisation shall discriminate against a person who is a member of the registered organisation on the ground of the member's disability: (a) by denying or limiting the partner's access to any benefit
provided by the organisation; (b) by depriving the member of membership or varying the
terms of membership or,
(c) by subjecting the member to any other detriment. 6. Discrimination in Education. (1) No educational authority shall discriminate against a person on the ground of the person's disability: (a) by refusing or failing to accept the person's application for
admission as a student or, (b) in the terms or conditions on which it is prepared to admit
the person as a student. (2) No educational authority shall discriminate against a student on the ground of the student's disability: (a) by denying or limiting the partner's access to any benefit
provided by the educational authority;
(b) by expelling the student or, (c) by subjecting the student to any other detriment. (3) This section does not render it unlawful to discriminate against
a person on the ground of the person's disability in respect of
admission to an educational institution established wholly or
primarily for students who have a particular disability where the
person does not have that particular disability. 7. Discrimination in Access to public buildings. (1) No person shall discriminate against another person on the
ground of the other person's disability: (a) by refusing to allow the other person access to, or the use
of, any buildings or part of a building, that the public or a section of the public is entitled or allowed to enter or use (whether for payment or not);
(b) in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person is prepared to allow the other person access to, or the use of, any such buildings;
(c) in relation to the provision of means of access to such buildings;
(d) by refusing to allow the other person the use of any facilities in
such buildings that the public or a section of the public is
entitled or allowed to use (whether for payment or not);
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 54
(e) in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned
person is prepared to allow the other person the use of any
such facilities or,
(f) by requiring the other person to leave such buildings or
cease to use such facilities. 8. Discrimination in the provision of Goods, services and facilities. (1) No person who, whether for payment or not, provides
goods or services, or makes facilities available shall discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's disability: (a) by refusing to provide the other person with those goods or
services or to make those facilities available to the other person;
(b) in the terms or conditions on which the first-mentioned person provides the other person with those goods or services or makes those facilities available to the other person or,
(c) in the manner in which the first-mentioned person provides
the other person with those goods or services or makes
those facilities available to the other person. 9. Discrimination in the provision of Accomodation. (1) No person shall discriminate against another person on the
ground of the other person's disability: (a) by refusing the other person's application for accomodation; (b) in the terms or conditions on which the accomodation is
offered to the other person or, (c) by deferring the other person's application for accomodation
or according to the other person a lower order of precedence
in any list of applicants for that accomodation. (2) No person shall discriminate against another person on the
ground of the other person's disability: (a) by denying or limiting the other person's access to any
benefit associated with accomodation occupied by the other person;
(b) by evicting the other person from accomodation occupied by the other person or,
(c) by subjecting the other person to any other detriment in
relation to accomodation occupied by the other person. 10. Discrimination in Land and properties. (1) No person shall discriminate against another person on the
ground of the other person's disability: (a) by refusing or failing to dispose of a land or property or
interest in land or property to the other person or, (b) in the terms or conditions on which a land or property or
interest in land or property is offered to the other person.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 55
11. Discrimination in Sports and recreational activities. (1) No person shall discriminate against another person on the
ground of the other person's disability by excluding that other person from a sport or recreational activity.
(2) This section does not render unlawful discrimination against a person if:
(a) the person is not reasonably capable of performing the actions reasonably required in relation to the sports or recreational activity or,
(b) a sport activity is conducted only for persons who have a
particular disability and the first-mentioned person does
not have that disability. PART 3. DISCRIMINATION INVOLVING HARASSMENT 1. Harassment in employment. (1) No person shall, in relation to the disability, harass another
person who: (a) is an employee of that person and,
(b) has a disability. (2) No person shall, in relation to the disability,.harass another person who: (a) is an employee of a person by whom the.first-mentioned
person is employed and,
(b) has a disability. (3) No person shall, in relation to the disability, harass another
person who: (a) is seeking employment by the first-mentioned person or by
an employer of the first-mentioned person and,
(b) has a disability. 2. Harassment in education. No person who is a member of the staff of an educational institution shall, in relation to the disability, harass another person who: (a) is a student at that educational institution or is seeking
admission to that educational institution as a student and, (b) has a disability. PART 4. EXEMPTIONS. 1. Acts done under statutory authority. This Part does not render unlawful anything done by a person in direct compliance with: (a) a statutory authority; (b) an order of a court or a tribunal or,
(c) any law or regulation. (2) Infectious diseases. This Part does not render unlawful for a person to discriminate
against another person on the ground of the other person's disability if:
There is fear that
these exemptions
will nullify the
purpose of this Act.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 56
(a) the person's disability is an infectious disease and, (b) the discrimination is reasonably necessary to protect public health. 3. Commission may grant exemptions. The Commission may, on application by an affected person, by
notification in writing grant an exemption from the operation of a
provision of Chapter iii Part 2 subject to such terms and conditions
as are specified in the notice. CHAPTER iii PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES COMMISSION. 1. Establishment of the Commission.
An independent body to be known as Commission For Persons
With Disabilities (elsewhere to be referred to as "the
Commission") shall be established for the purpose of this act. 2. Membership. The Commission shall comprise of the following members to be appointed by the Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department who is granted the sole task of promoting the rights and well-being of disabled persons: (a) a Chairman, who shall also be the Executive Chairman of
the Commission; (b) four persons to represent from the various relevant the
government departments and, (c) four persons of individuals with disabilities or representing
the organizations of persons with disabilities and the
composition of the Commission shall be such that the
interest of a cross-section of the disabled groups are
represented. A person shall not be qualified for the appointment as members of
the Commission unless he or she has substantial knowledge or
practical experience in respect of matters relating to rehabilitation or other aspects of disabilities. 3. Terms of office. Subject to the terms and conditions as stipulated in the letter of
appointment, a member of the Commission shall hold office for a
term not exceeding three years and shall be eligible for
reappointment. 4. Remuneration and other expenses. The Parliament shall allocate sufficient fund for remuneration of the members of the Commission and other expenses of the Commission. The Commission may develop its own procedures relating to its
general management and procedures in investigating complaints. 4A. Powers to delegate to committees at state and district levels.
They should not
“represent” the government but
instead act for
the benefit of the
disabled persons.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 57
5. Functions of the Commission. • To exercise all the powers conferred on it by this Act. • To advise the Minister with respect to disability It is necessary to discrimination. and make recommendations to any ensure that the Minister to ensure compliance with this Act and Commission is promotion of the rights of disabled persons. accessible to all • Submit reports to the to the Parliament on the disabled persons implementation of the act. especially those in • Takes steps to safeguard the rights and facilities made rural areas and available to persons with disability. outside Kuala • To promote an understanding and acceptance of, and Lumpur.
compliance with, this Act. • To undertake research and educational programmes for the
purpose of promoting the objects of this Act. • To prepare, and to publish in such manner as the
Commission considers appropriate, guidelines for the avoidance of discrimination on the ground of disability.
The Executive Chairman of the Commission shall co-ordinate the work of the Commission and shall be responsible to the day to day running of the Commission. The other members shall discharge of their functions under the general superintendence of the Executive Chairman. 6. Commission to look in to complaints. Without prejudice to the foregoing, the Commission may, of its own motion or on the application of any aggrieved person or of
any person acting on behalf of any aggrieved person, look in to
complaints with respect to matters relating to: • deprivation of rights of persons with disability; • non-implementation of laws, rules, bye-laws, regulations,
executive orders, guidelines, or instructions made or issued by relevant authorities, institutions, corporate bodies and non-governmental organizations for the welfare well-being and protection of rights for persons with disability;
• and take up the matter with the appropriate authorities or
bodies. 7. Commission to investigate. For the purpose of discharging their functions of enquiries and investigations under this act, the Commission shall have the same powers as are vested in a court under the Courts of Judicature act in respect of the following matters: • Summoning and enforcing the attendance of witnesses;
• Requiring the discovery and production of any document; • Requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any
court or office; • Receiving evidence on affidavit.
Draft of the Persons with Disabilities Act 2002 58
8. Prosecution. It is important to
After due investigation, if in the opinion of the Commission there is ensure that the
a violation of any provision of this act, the Commission may take Com. has enough
up shall refer the matter to the relevant prosecuting authority A- powers to carry out
G’s Office for prosecution purposes. its functions and to
make this Act
meaningful and
effective.
CHAPTER iv
OFFENCES. Besides penalties
(to be formulated in consultation with the Attorney-General office).
and punishments
PREPARED BY, including those
against government
departments that
infringe this Act,
(Mah Hassan Haji Omar) provisions should be
Chairman made for the
TWG On Legislation, NACCD. payment of
President, Society of the Blind Malaysia. compensation and
damages to the
Date: 16 September 2002 aggrieved persons.