LETTER: I have a client who sought my advice on reviewing his persons with disabilities (OKU) card application, which he had handed over to the state Welfare Department in June last year.
The application form has to be filled up by the applicant and medical personnel respectively. The guidelines to fill it up is available on the Welfare Department's website.
My client has filled up the form correctly as per the guidelines. He told me the officer in charge at the department's counter was an expert on OKU card applications. It led him and his mother to believe that his application would receive prompt approval.
A year later, his autistic peers told him that the results for the application were on display on the department's website. Previously, when he submitted the form, the officer informed him that he would receive a phone call on his application status.
My client had patiently waited for the call but to no avail. Upon checking his application status on the website, he discovered that the department had rejected it. It upset and affected him emotionally as he was diagnosed with autism.
A week later, he sought my advice. I agreed to be his pro bono lawyer because there is a need to highlight the matter to the public to ensure it does not recur.
His mother had contacted the department to check the reason behind the rejection, but she was told that the form's Part H was left empty by the doctor. It said the doctor's endorsement and signature on Part H were insufficient. The doctor, however, said there was no need to fill up Part H as he had endorsed many OKU applications and the department had approved them.
To get further clarification on the matter, I had attended a webinar by a private institution in which the speaker, an officer from the state Welfare Department, told me that it was not necessary for Part H to be filled up by the doctor of an applicant with learning disabilities.
The officer said the diagnosis report was not necessary to be enclosed, but my client did hand it over together with his application form to support his application. It is clear from the diagnosis report that he has learning disabilities, thus negating the need for filling up Part H.
Upon contacting the state Welfare Department, it suggested that my client apply again, but this time he needed to have Part H filled up. My client had filled up the form correctly. We see no point in submitting it again.
It is difficult for a person with autism to go through this process. We should not overlook this as it must be disabled-friendly.
There are inconsistencies in the guidelines for the card application. How many would have given up from applying for it because of these irregularities? Many do not fight for disability rights as some could not afford a lawyer to represent them and pursue the matter.
Due to rapid digitalisation, which provides convenience to the public, it is time to review the card application process with the goal of standardising it.
This will ensure that those who require the card can enjoy its benefits. A clear system that smoothens and hastens its application is what we are looking forward to, and we must achieve that.
ELAINE FOONG
KUALA LUMPUR
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect those of the New Straits Times