RIGHTS-THAILAND: Disabled Face Handicapped Laws

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Chayanit Poonyarat

BANGKOK, Aug 8 2002 (IPS) - A recent court verdict barring a physically challenged lawyer from becoming a public prosecutor has put Thai laws and the judiciary completely at odds with public opinion.

Rights activists are up in arms over last week’s decision by the Constitution Court, which ruled 12-3 to say that the State Attorney Commission had not violated the Constitution in denying lawyer Sirimit Boonmul’s application to be a public prosecutor on the grounds of physical disability.

It ruled so despite the fact that Article 30 of the 1997 Constitution – the progressive ‘People’s Constitution’ — stipulates that every person is equal under the law regardless of their physical capabilities and health.

However, the Constitution does not cover qualifications for job applicants, the court said, adding that the State Attorney Commission had the mandate to decide the professional qualifications for aspiring prosecutors.

In this case, the professional qualifications include being mobile, judicial officials say.

Sirimit, who has difficulty walking because he contracted polio at the age of nine, said he accepted the court’s decision. “But I don’t concede defeat in my fight for the advancement of employment opportunities for the disabled,” said the lawyer from Kamphaeng Phet province, 360 km north of Bangkok.

“I plan to explore all avenues for continuing my fight,” said Sirimit, who in May had applied to become an associate judge – and was also turned down because of his disability.

Sirirmit, who has worked as a lawyer for more than six years, has some difficulty walking but says he manages to go by bus to meet clients.

But the Constitution Court found his disqualification last week perflectly legal. “In rejecting Sirimit’s job application, the State Attorney has not violated any charter provisions and this court has no judgement on whether or not the commission’s hiring policy is discriminatory,” its verdict read.

The verdict highlights a perception common in quarters of the judiciary — that a person’s physical appearance is more important than his or her intellectual capabilities.

But many believe that these outdated attitudes are changing and that it is the legal establishment that is behind the times – given the spirit of the Constitution itself, which turns five years old this year.

“The court was made up of conservative judges with outdated views on people with physical handicaps,” said the chairman of the Council of Disabled People of Thailand Wiriya Namsiripongpan in an interview.

Wiriya, blind since birth, is an associate professor in the faculty of law at Thammasat University.

But bigger than these judicial problems, said Wiriya, is the wrong attitude of society towards disabled people than can be seen in the verdict in the Sirimit case. “Most people strongly believe that the disabled can barely do anything and therefore giving them the opportunity to work would make them suffer even more,” he said.

As a result, people with disabilities are not encouraged to study, work, or develop their potential.

The other worrying trend is that, despite the non-discriminatory clauses in the Constitution, old laws and regulations remain on the books that allow senior bureaucrats to ban disabled people from taking jobs for which they are qualified.

These laws — put in place with old, discriminatory attitudes toward the disabled continue to be implemented today.

According to a study by Wiriya, more than 40 laws today are considered to be discriminatory against the disabled. The Council of Disabled People, along with other groups, has long been campaigning to get rid of these laws.

Sirimit knows only too well what these laws and attitudes mean. In May, his application to become an associate judge was turned down by the Judicial Commission, which reasoned that he would be too weak to cope with the expected workload.

On that occasion, Sirimit and another disabled lawyer, Boonjuti Klabprasit, were asked to appear before the commission so that its members could examine the applicants’ physical appearance.

They later rejected the lawyers’ applications and at the same session recruited 14 other handicapped applicants who appeared “stronger”.

The two lawyers later filed appeal petitions with the Constitution Court, which ruled that the Judicial Commission has discretionary powers to disqualify disabled applicants.

Also in May, the Constitution Court ruled that the crippled could not become judges because their physical disability could become an impediment to their duties in situations where they were required to travel to hear witnesses’ accounts or observe crime scenes.

“The Judicial Officials Act didn’t blindly discriminate against the disabled, because the act required a committee of doctors to review the disabilities of the applicants to determine if (their disability) would impede their work as judges,” Preecha Chalermwanit, a Constitution Court judge, said at the time.

Judges need to be mobile to study crime scenes or to hear trials outside of the court, so people with walking difficulties are not appropriate for the job, Preecha reasoned.

“The courts do not dislike the disabled, but society does not fully accept their status yet,” said Sri-amporn Salikupti, a judge from the Region 3 Appeals Court. “Imagine when a judge is hearing a trial and the disputing sides are gossiping about him and laughing. How could he proceed with the trial?”

“I always wanted to become a judge,” said Sirimit. “If they say I can’t be a judge because of my ‘disgraceful’ appearance, at least I hoped I would have the right to apply to be an attorney.”

“We have to understand that the Constitution Court’s verdict – saying the State Attorney Commission and Judicial Officials Act had not violated Constitution – is based on the text of the law,” said Human Rights Commissioner Jaran Ditapichai.

He said that unfortunately, most of the rules are written in general, so discrimination still depends much on it’s the law’s implementation.

But Wiriya says the law also reflects society’s attitudes. “The perception has to be shifted to a new paradigm, where people believe the abilities of the handicapped and that they also share common human dignity and rights,” he explained.

Meanwhile, Sirimit says he may file an appeal about last week’s verdict before the Administrative Court.