Across East and Southeast Asia, persons with disabilities experience lower labour force participation rates and more precarious employment outcomes than those without disabilities. To foster inclusive employment, this report advocates for an ecosystem perspective that integrates economic factors, social attitudes, cultural beliefs, and policy frameworks. The research provides a comparative analysis of quota systems in Indonesia alongside selected countries: China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore, and Thailand.

Context: employment and participation of persons with disabilities across the lifecycle

While the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) has been ratified by all eight countries studied, labour market outcomes remain constrained. Persons with disabilities are often concentrated in informal, own-account, or low-paid work. In Indonesia, the situation is particularly acute in education, where an estimated 74 per cent of children with disabilities do not attend school, significantly hindering their transition into the formal labour market. Structural barriers such as inaccessible transport, stigma, and lack of reasonable accommodation further exacerbate exclusion.

Comparative analysis of legal frameworks

The report identifies five distinct legal approaches to disability employment. China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea operate binding quota systems with levy-subsidy architectures, where non-compliance triggers financial contributions that fund employment promotion. Thailand utilises a binding system with alternative compliance pathways, such as service contracts or livelihood support. Conversely, Indonesia maintains a binding quota without a fully operationalised levy system. In Indonesia, Law No. 8 of 2016 mandates a 2 per cent quota for government institutions and state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and 1 per cent for private companies. However, implementation remains fragmented as numerical non-compliance does not currently trigger specific enforcement mechanisms.

Enforcement, compliance and the role of accompanying measures

Impactful quota systems require joined-up institutional arrangements. In Japan and Korea, central agencies like the Japan Organisation for Employment of the Elderly, Persons with Disabilities and Job Seekers (JEED) and the Korea Employment Agency for Persons with Disabilities (KEAD) manage both compliance and support services. China’s model is notably stringent; since 2016, non-compliance contributions have been collected monthly by tax bureaux, reflecting the average annual wage of employees rather than provincial averages. In contrast, Indonesia’s enforcement is less institutionalised, with companies self-reporting through the Mandatory Company Manpower Reporting (WLKP) system, which lacks a clear escalation pathway for quota shortfalls.

Gaps, challenges, and policy reform for Indonesia’s quota system

Key gaps in the Indonesian system include a lack of unified calculation methodology for total workforce headcounts and discrepancies in public sector targets. For instance, while Law No. 8 of 2016 sets a 2 per cent target for government agencies, some ministerial regulations specify lower vacancy allocations. Additionally, disability certification in Indonesia relies on medical certificates from local doctors rather than a standardised national identification system, which limits interoperability with tax and social security databases.

Conclusions and options for next steps

To enhance the effectiveness of Indonesia’s quota system, the report suggests several strategic actions:

• Adopt a consolidated implementing regulation to clarify calculation methods, reporting cycles, and employer thresholds.
• Finalise a structured incentive framework under Law No. 8 of 2016, incorporating financial supports like tax deductions and technical advisory services.
• Harmonise civil service regulations to ensure consistency with CRPD obligations, particularly regarding physical and mental health requirements that may currently be used to exclude applicants.
• Institutionalise a graduated compliance pathway, moving from notifications and proactive support to potential levy-based consequences in the longer term.
• Strengthen the role of Disability Service Units (ULDs) and coordinate more closely with BPJS Ketenagakerjaan to align return-to-work schemes with quota objectives.