Comparative Analysis of Civil Society and State Discourse on Disabled People’s Rights and Welfare in Southeast Asia 2010–16

Abstract

Over the next quarter century it is likely that Southeast Asian countries will experience high levels of growth in the number of disabled people. It is therefore significant that, over the past decade, the region’s governments have at last ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). At this critical juncture, and in the face of ongoing human rights issues in several territories, this study presents comparative analysis of state and civil society organisations’ (CSOs’) discourse on CRPD implementation. The findings show that while governments have espoused a participatory approach to fulfilling their CRPD obligations, contemporary practice falls short. Disabled people currently experience barriers to shaping policy and accessing social welfare. There is a “disconnect” between state and civil spheres that hampers effective implementation based on partnership working and knowledge exchange. In turn, this raises issues of legitimation, performativity and the endurance of the Medical Model of Disability across the region.

Keywords:

• Disabled people
• civil society
• rights
• welfare
• discourse
• Southeast Asia

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the helpful and constructive comments of two anonymous reviewers on an earlier draft of this paper.

Notes

1. From an international perspective the preferred term varies across and between territories. This paper uses the term “disabled people” because it is embraced by the disabled people’s movement (for a discussion, see Shakespeare & Watson, 2002). Alternatives include “persons with disabilities”.

2. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Countries/AsiaRegion/Pages/AsiaPacificProgramme11-12.aspx

3. The CRPD echoes the provisions of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (Art. 25, 1).

4. For a technical discussion of the reliability of disability statistics in the region, see UNESCAP (2015, p. 5).

5. Compared to 15.3 per cent of non-disabled people (Mont & Nguyen, 2011, p. 28).

6. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/countries/asia-and-the-pacific

7. Correlation coefficients of 0.85314, 0.72027, 0.63636 and 0.63636, respectively.

8. Correlation coefficients of 0.08391 and 0.14685, respectively.