The radicalisation of disabled people in Malaysia


AMID the Covid-19 outbreak, and even now during this recovery movement control order, the vast majority among us are aware that the status quo is no longer enough.

We can see a lot of disruption and the need for radical changes in many aspects of our lives.

Furthermore, the political rollercoaster and dramas exacerbate the uncertainty among the citizens about their livelihood and future.

Most become more and more frustrated with the frozen progressive agendas or the slow progress, if there is any at all, particularly in human rights-related issues.

Given current social, economic, and political realities in Malaysia, there are building blocks for the radicalisation of disabled people in this country.

This does not refer to religious extremism, racial supremacy or racialised nationalism.

Radicalism here refers to collective critical consciousness among a group of people about their situation and actions they must take to challenge and change it.

There are always misconceptions about the word ‘radicalism’, which has always been framed or used negatively.

In truth, we live through so many radicalisations in our modern world.

One example is rapidly changing technology, from the invention of smartphones to social media. Though the tech community uses the word ‘disruption’ instead of ‘radicalisation’.

Radicalism is not about tearing down existing systems and institutions, though many people posing as radicals may give such an impression.

It is about recognising and addressing systemic and structural failures that cause inequalities in society, which are often in institutions and systems, as well as the people charged or serving such institutions/systems, and the tools they use such as laws, regulations, procedures, requirements, performance indicators, money, and so forth.

There are building blocks for the radicalisation of disabled people in Malaysia. All of these are very serious.

First, the substantive changes in disabled people’s lives with the change of government in recent years.

Of course, there are many types of aid, programmes and policies to cater to the needs of the disabled community, but most of these are short-term, and so many policies require revision and amendment.

In the 13th and 14th general elections, politicians did pay some attention and make some pledges concerning disabled people’s issues, but the substance was superficial at best and usually not a priority.

Second, more and more disabled people feel frustrated with current programmes and policies, which they perceive as more of a burden than assistance.

Many who in need of such assistance cannot access the aids because of its rigid requirements and application process.

Some policies concerning disabled people are considered to be old jokes among the community because of their persisting ineffectiveness, which then leads to the disabled community’s distrust of politicians, political parties, and the agencies that are supposed to serve them.

Third, there is growing distrust and disappointment among the disabled community towards the law, particularly the Persons with Disabilities Act 2008.

Though there is serious justification to amend the act, the law in its current form has its strengths.

Unfortunately, the government, the minister in charge, the National Council for Persons with Disabilities, and the general disabled community fail to utilise the strengths.

Nevertheless, the feeling of disappointment and distrust toward the act is real.

Fourth, noble and positive social contract concepts, such as social mobility, no longer bring certainty and hope in current life struggles, especially among disabled youngsters.

Instead they have to overachieve and be overly sufficient just to make a very basic living.

Finally, there is no meaningful participation and engagement among disabled people, especially young people, in making substantive changes in society, including in policy decisions.

In one way, all of these factors seem negative, but these can be used as a reason to cultivate critical consciousness among the disabled community.

However, failing to positively shift the frustration and disappointment to actionable wisdom and advocacy can result in larger problems in the community, both socially and psychologically.

Although there are building blocks, there are also some barriers.

First, the failure of the disabled community to recognise and come together as one big block for policy change.

Instead, we still walk loyally on the lines of political party, religious, and/or racial affiliation.

Second, the relationships of differently impaired groups within the hierarchy of impairment mindset, where a person perceives having a certain impairment is worse or better than other types of impairment in getting jobs or other opportunities, where someone still compares and contrasts impairments as high or low functioning, not realising the common barriers and struggles.

Third, the acceptance and embrace of the ableist conception and labels disguised as progressive ‘woke-ness’, including engaging and celebrating inspirational sentimentality in various forms, in various mediums.

These building blocks pose both threats and opportunities to the disabled community in Malaysia.

It is hoped the leaders of organisations representing this community and activists of disabled people’s affairs alike can critically engage and strategically transform the current circumstances into the latter. – September 6, 2020.

* Muhamad Nadhir Abdul Nasir is a doctoral candidate at Universiti Malaya.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.


Sign up or sign in here to comment.


Comments