CRPD
Rights Tracker

• The main problem related to disability data collection in Indonesia currently is the lack of comprehensive and integrated data related to disabilities. This is reflected in the current disability data situation:

  • The unavailability of comprehensive data owned by the Government regarding disabilities, especially segregated data of persons with disabilities by name-by address. The only data available is general disability distribution data based on the National Socio-Economic Survey (2012) and the National Intercensal Population Survey (SUSENAS, 2015).

  • Segregated data by name-by address is only owned by the Ministry of Social Affairs through the Center for Data and Information (PUSDATIN), but data collection is carried out by volunteers and field officers who cannot yet reach all persons with disabilities. As of 2019, the data collected by PUSDATIN is no more than 100 thousand persons with disabilities. This number is very small compared to the SUSENAS 2015 estimate which stated the total number of persons with disabilities to be around 21,107,575 people.

  • Therefore, the Indonesian government does not yet have data uniformity regarding disabilities and this is an obstacle in the protection and fulfillment of disability rights based on the CRPD Convention.

  • The Government has not fully integrated disability indicators into the 2020 Population Census, but it will only be implemented in 2021 with a sample (survey, not a census).

    
    

• One of the reasons for the difficulty in obtaining this data is related to the authority of the Central Statistics Agency (BPS) as regulated in Article 12 of Law No. 16 of 1997 concerning Statistics. This Article states: “Sectoral statistics are carried out by government agencies according to the scope of their duties and functions, independently or jointly with the Agency.” This Article limits BPS's authority to only compiling non-sectoral data like disability, while disability data itself should be carried out by the Sectoral Ministry (in this case, the Ministry of Social Affairs as affirmed in Article 117 of Law No. 8/2016 concerning Persons with Disabilities).

• For this reason too, the Population Census, which should be the main foundation for the Government in collecting disability data (by name, by address), has never materialized, because BPS considers it not its authority, while the Ministry of Social Affairs has also not included this data collection as a priority that must be carried out. As long as there is no cooperation between the Ministry of Social Affairs and BPS regarding joint disability data collection efforts, the programs and initiatives made by the Government will not have a significant impact. BPS will only provide general data about the distribution of persons with disabilities in Indonesia, but incomplete (without by name-by address), while the Ministry of Social Affairs will only disclose by name by address data for a small portion of persons with disabilities in Indonesia.

• As of 2019, Indonesia does not have data related to and not limited to:

  • The total number of persons with disabilities in Indonesia by type of disability;

  • The level of access of persons with disabilities to social service policies, including ownership of population documents for all persons with disabilities.

  • The level of participation of persons with disabilities in formal and informal education;

  • The level of work participation (formal and informal) segregated by type of disability and type of job, including age.

  • DTKS (Integrated Social Welfare Data) is not yet segregated by disability.

Proposed LoI (List of Issues):

1. Request an explanation regarding the current lack of segregated and comprehensive data by name by address owned by the Indonesian Government.

2. Inquire how the Indonesian Government is currently addressing the different authorities between BPS and the Ministry of Social Affairs regarding disability data collection. Has the 2020 Census included disability (Washington group guideline) in it?

3. Inquire how the Ministry of Social Affairs, through SIMPD-PUSDATIN, is rapidly increasing the data coverage within the system which has not yet reached a certain percentage of the total persons with disabilities as stated in SUSENAS 2015.

• The Disability Committee established by the Government through Presidential Regulation No. 68 of 2020 is not in accordance with the mandate of Law No. 8 of 2016, especially Article 131 of the Law on Persons with Disabilities. Article (1) of Law 8/2016 on Persons with Disabilities asserts, "The National Disability Commission, hereinafter abbreviated as KND, is an independent non-structural institution." Furthermore, Article 131 reaffirms that: "In the framework of implementing the Respect, Protection, and Fulfillment of the rights of Persons with Disabilities, the KND is formed as an independent non-structural institution."

• Law No. 8 of 2016 above affirms the independence of the KND as a non-structural institution, whereas the inconsistency in the Presidential Regulation is the establishment of the KND under the Ministry of Social Affairs. It will be very difficult for the KND to be independent if its existence is under the Ministry of Social Affairs. The implication of the KND being under the Ministry of Social Affairs is related to the fact that the budget supporting the KND's performance will be issued by the Secretariat General of the Ministry of Social Affairs.

• The National Coalition of the Working Group for the Implementation of the Disability Law presented 5 reasons why the National Disability Commission based on Presidential Regulation Number 68 of 2020 is not in accordance with the principles of the CRPD:

  • The Government has not fully understood disability as part of a Human Rights (HAM) issue, because the KND is institutionally attached to the Ministry of Social Affairs which does not deal with HAM matters. Ideally, the KND should be independent/neutral or placed under an institution that handles HAM issues, such as the Ministry of Law and Human Rights or the National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM), or an institution with minimal conflicts of interest.

  • The KND is not independent and is prone to conflicts of interest. As an independent and non-structural institution, tasked with carrying out monitoring, evaluation, and advocacy for the implementation of the respect, protection, and fulfillment of the rights of persons with disabilities, by being attached to the Ministry of Social Affairs, the KND will be limited in carrying out its duties, especially when related to the performance of the Ministry of Social Affairs, and all budgetary and task planning will be subject to the institution above it. Thus, the independence of the KND will be doubted and it will be highly susceptible to conflicts of interest within the Ministry of Social Affairs' circle.

  • KND membership does not provide full opportunity for persons with disabilities because it limits opportunities by only allocating 4 out of 7 total KND members to persons with disabilities. This represents a restriction on the role of persons with disabilities in the KND and closes the possibility for all KND members to be from persons with disabilities.

  • The KND's working mechanism has minimal involvement of disabled persons' organizations. Because its institutional system is attached to the Ministry of Social Affairs, the process of filling KND membership and forming the selection committee will be highly susceptible to intervention by the relevant minister. Currently, the Ministry of Social Affairs will immediately revise/propose the budget for the KND program in 2021 and prepare a selection committee to choose 14 commissioner candidates to be submitted to the Minister of Social Affairs, and then the Minister of Social Affairs will submit them to the President for Presidential decree. The selection of the selection committee and the appointment of KND members for the first time did not involve disabled persons' organizations, which risks jeopardizing the independence and impartiality towards persons with disabilities of the selection committee and the KND Members.

  • The KND formation process was not transparent, participatory, and accountable. In the Petition, disabled persons' organizations stated that it was difficult to obtain the draft related to the discussion of the Presidential Regulation Draft (PerPres), minimal involvement in every discussion, and were surprised by the issuance of PerPres 68/2020. The ratification process was carried out secretly by the government, without any public testing of the final or latest draft of the PerPres. thus they did not know the considerations for formulating the articles in Perpres 68/2020. This violates the principle in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which requires the active and meaningful involvement of persons with disabilities and their representative organizations in the formulation of related policies and regulations.