MY client asked me to review his orang kurang upaya (OKU)  or person with disability (PWD) card application, which has handed over to his state (state X), welfare department last year in June.

The application form consists of parts A-H, which have to be filled up by the applicant and medical personnel respectively. The guidelines to fill up the form can also be downloaded from the welfare department’s website.

After checking through his form, which was submitted and cross-checked with the guidelines, it was more than perfect. He also told me the officer-in-charge at the counter was a person with expertise in dealing with the requirements of issuing the PWD card application. So, to him and his mother, all would be well and the application would most likely be approved.

A year later, he was informed by his autistic peers that the results of card applications were out on the welfare department’s website and could easily be accessed with his identification number. Earlier, when he submitted the form at the counter, he was told that the result would be released with a phone call.

So, he patiently waited for a call but to no avail. Coming back to the search result on the website, he came to know his application was rejected. He was really upset and this affected him emotionally, as he was diagnosed with autism.

After a week, he sought my advice and, after a discussion, I agreed to be his pro-bono lawyer because I felt there was a need to highlight this case to the public so the welfare department would put in place a more systematic application process.

His mother had called the department up to ask why the application was rejected and was told that part H was not ticked by the doctor. The doctor’s endorsement and signature on part H was insufficient, she was told.

The doctor was confident that there was no such need as he had endorsed many applications before which were approved.

To confirm this, I attended a webinar organised by a private institution in which the speaker, a state welfare officer (state Y) told me that part H does not need to be ticked by the doctor for applicants who have learning disabilities, which was the case with my client.

The officer also said the diagnosis report need not be enclosed, although my client did hand it over to support his application. It was clear from the diagnosis report that he has learning disabilities and so, part H didn’t need to be filled up.

In following up with the state welfare department, the staff suggested that the application be sent again, with part H ticked. However, the form was correctly filled the first time, so we do not see the point in having it submitted again. Also, it is tough for a person with autism to go through this tremendous process, and much cost would be incurred by the applicant. We should not overlook this as the application process should be PWD-friendly.

We can see there are irregular guidelines in the approval of PWD card applications. How many would have given up because of this irregularity? How many would have given up the fight because they couldn’t afford a lawyer to represent them in the matter?

We are in 2021, with almost everything digitalised and convenient to the members of the public. It is time to review the PWD card application, and have it standardised not only by mere record but in execution.

This is crucial if we are to ensure that members of the public who need the OKU card get it so they can enjoy the benefits given by the government.

A crystal-clear system that smoothens and hastens the application is what we are looking forward to. – June 13, 2021.

*Elaine Foong reads The Malaysian Insight.