OCTOBER 22 — Datuk Seri Nancy Shukri’s encouragement for parents to register eligible children as Orang Kurang Upaya (OKU) early raises an important conversation about how Malaysia recognises neurodivergent children. In an interview published by The Star on August 7, 2026, the Women, Family and Community Development Minister explained that registration helps families access assistance and services. Her earlier remarks on autism diagnosis and early intervention highlighted the importance of timely support.

The intention is clear. But for some parents, accepting the OKU label is more complicated than completing a registration form. They may recognise that their child needs assistance while wondering whether the label will change how teachers, relatives and others view the child.

A 2021 Malaysian qualitative study involving 21 parents of autistic children reported this concern. Some parents recognised the benefits of the OKU card but feared that it would become a source of stigma. The study also described distress and experiences of exclusion. These findings cannot establish how widespread such concerns are, but they help explain why encouraging registration should include listening to families’ apprehensions.

A parent who hesitates is not necessarily rejecting support. They may be asking whether others will continue to recognise their child’s abilities after learning that the child is registered as OKU. If the label is understood as a sign of general incapability, a measure intended to help can become a reason for lowered expectations.

This leads to the question at the centre of the debate: why are neurodivergent children, including autistic children, categorised as persons with disabilities when they also possess strengths and, in some cases, exceptional talents?

Malaysia includes autism, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia within the “Kurang Upaya Pembelajaran” category for OKU registration. However, these conditions do not produce identical learning profiles. The category cannot explain what a particular child understands, how they communicate or what support they require.

An autistic child may remember detailed information about a favourite topic yet struggle to follow spoken instructions in a busy classroom. Both the strength and the difficulty need recognition. Having an ability in one area does not remove support needs in another. Equally, needing support does not mean that the child is less capable in every area. Disability recognition should help identify assistance, without becoming a judgement about the child’s entire potential.

Perhaps Malaysia should therefore review whether the terminology used to categorise neurodivergent children communicates this distinction clearly enough. The concern is not simply whether parents like a particular word. It is whether that word helps people understand the child or encourages assumptions that restrict opportunities.

Overseas education systems offer examples worth examining. Scotland uses “additional support needs”, with educational support based on individual needs rather than dependent on a formal diagnosis. New Zealand uses “learning support” terminology and individual plans developed around children’s needs and aspirations with families and educators. These approaches put the assistance required for learning at the centre of the discussion.

These are educational terms, rather than direct replacements for Malaysia’s disability registration system. Their relevance lies in showing how support can be described without using one category as a complete description of the learner. Malaysia could consider a similar distinction between language used in education and the formal recognition required to access disability assistance.

A review could explore terminology such as “neurodivergent learners with additional support needs” in educational settings. Neurodivergent people and their families should help shape that discussion. Any change should preserve access to assistance for eligible individuals. Replacing a term would serve little purpose if families lost support or if the same prejudices continued under a different name.

Nancy’s call for early registration and support provides an opportunity to address both access and acceptance. The OKU label helps when it connects families with assistance. It can hurt when others mistake it for evidence that a child cannot learn or contribute. Reviewing the terminology should aim to make support needs clearer while ensuring that a child’s abilities remain visible. Families should be able to accept help without fearing that recognition of their child’s needs will become a limit on their future.

* The author is Dr. Faizanah Abdul Alim Sidique, a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Educational Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya, and can be reached at faizanah1974@um.edu.my

** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.