In June 2026, Higher Education Minister Datuk Seri Diraja Dr Zambry Abd Kadir made an important point about disability inclusion in universities: policy should not remain merely a document. It must be translated into meaningful practice.
His message is especially relevant as Malaysia moves forward with the Rancangan Pendidikan Tinggi Malaysia 2026–2035, which places inclusive access and a more humanity-centred higher education system among the priorities for the coming decade.
But what does meaningful accessibility actually look like? When we think about disability access, many of us first picture what is visible: ramps, lifts, accessible toilets, tactile paving, or facilities for students with visual and hearing impairments. These are essential. Yet
disability is diverse, and not every disability is visible.
Some disabilities are visible, while others are invisible or not immediately apparent. Malaysia’s Department of Social Welfare distinguishes between OKU jelas and OKU tidak jelas in its registration procedures. This matters because our understanding of inclusion can
easily be shaped by what we can see. It is within this discussion of less visible needs that neurodivergence becomes important.
Neurodivergence is a broad umbrella term commonly used to describe neurological differences in how people process information, regulate attention, learn, communicate or experience their environment. It commonly includes autism, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and dyslexia, among other neurodevelopmental differences.
Neurodivergence is not a separate official disability category in Malaysia, and not all invisible disabilities are neurodivergent conditions. Not every neurodivergent person identifies as disabled. However, autism, ADHD and specific learning disabilities such as dyslexia are recognised within the learning-disability category used by the Department of Social Welfare.
For some neurodivergent students, their needs may not be immediately visible. A student may speak confidently, obtain good grades and appear independent, yet still struggle with sensory overload, attention regulation, planning, processing dense written information or coping with sudden changes.
This becomes especially important when we consider the number of neurodivergent learners already within Malaysia’s education system. In July 2026, Deputy Education Minister Wong Kah Woh reported that more than 161,000 students with special educational needs were
registered in educational institutions under the Ministry of Education. Among them were more than 53,000 autistic students, 24,000 students with specific learning disabilities and 13,000 students with ADHD.
These are school-system figures, not university enrolment data. Still, they show that many neurodivergent learners are already progressing through Malaysia’s education system. As some move into higher education, universities need to be prepared for the less visible needs
they may bring with them.
My own experience as a special-needs teacher continues to shape how I view this issue. Working directly with neurodivergent learners taught me that the behaviour we see is not always the whole story. A learner who appears inattentive may be struggling to regulate
attention. Someone distressed by an unexpected change may be experiencing sensory overload or difficulty adjusting to uncertainty. What appears to be unwillingness to participate may instead reflect difficulty accessing the way participation has been designed.
That experience taught me to look beyond behaviour and consider what in the environment may be making participation difficult. The same perspective matters in higher education.
For a neurodivergent university student, the challenge may not be physical access to a building. It may be unclear assignment expectations, a noisy learning environment, several major deadlines occurring together, sudden changes in instructions, or a teaching approach that assumes everyone processes information in the same way.
Responding to these needs does not mean lowering academic standards. Clear written instructions do not make an assignment intellectually easier. Explicit assessment expectations do not provide the answer. Advance notice of changes or an appropriate learning environment does not give students knowledge they have not acquired. Students must still demonstrate the required learning outcomes and competencies.
This is why the Minister’s call for meaningful implementation matters. Inclusion cannot be measured only by whether a student can enter a building. We must also consider whether that student can participate, learn and demonstrate what they know once inside it. Universities do not need every lecturer to become a clinician or special educator. But academic staff need sufficient awareness to recognise that students differ in how they process information, communicate, organise themselves and regulate attention. Greater clarity, predictability or flexibility can sometimes remove an unnecessary obstacle without changing the academic standard.
As Malaysia implements its higher education plans for the next decade, accessibility must extend beyond physical access. The real question is whether our universities are prepared not only for the disabilities we can see, but also for the needs and challenges that may remain invisible.
The author is a Senior Lecturer at the Department of Educational Psychology and Counselling, Faculty of Education, Universiti Malaya and can be reached at [email protected]
