International Journal of Disability, Development and

Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Critical Review of Special Needs Education

Provision in Malaysia: Discussing Significant Issues
and Challenges Faced

Hamza Alshoura

To cite this article: Hamza Alshoura (2021): Critical Review of Special Needs Education Provision
in Malaysia: Discussing Significant Issues and Challenges Faced, International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, DOI: 10.1080/1034912X.2021.1913718

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1913718

Published online: 19 Apr 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 8

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cijd20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION
https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2021.1913718

Critical Review of Special Needs Education Provision in

Malaysia: Discussing Significant Issues and Challenges Faced
Hamza Alshoura
School of Educational Studies, Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) Penang, Malaysia

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS
This article provides a critical review and analysis of literature on the Disabilities; inclusion;
development of Malaysians’ special needs education provision malaysia; special needs
(SNEP) for adults and young children with disabilities (AYCWD). education programmes
Specifically, it highlights the emergence and development of spe­
cial education practices and services as well as the providers of
these programs within the context of Malaysia. The significant
issues relevant to education services, vocational training and
employment, early identification and intervention programs, pre­
parations of special education teachers, early intervention, inclusive
education practices, training of teachers and challenges faced by
AYCWD were also discussed. The findings show that there are many
challenges, including infrastructural obstacles and inadequate
learning resources, shortage of relevant training, limited coopera­
tion, limited funding, and shortage of comprehensive and standar­
dised data on all aspects of SNEP in Malaysia. The implications of
these challenges and suggestions for improvement of the current
SNEP were also outlined in this review.

Introduction
Malaysia is a multi-racial country in south-east Asia with a population of 32.9 million
(Department of Statistics Malaysia, 2017). Malaysia lies within the equatorial zone, with an
average daily temperature varying between 21°C and 32°C (Economic Planning Unit,
2018). The main ethnic groups in Malaysia consist of Malays, Chinese and Indians. One
of the unique features about Malaysia is its multi-religious society, where various religions
such as Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism and Taoism are practiced uninhibitedly.
However, Islam is the official religion of the country. The national or official language is
Malay (Bahasa Malaysia) which is also the mother tongue of majority of the Malay ethnic
group. Nonetheless, the people are free to use their mother language and other lan­
guages in all social spheres (Economic Planning Unit, 2018). Under the Federal
Constitution, education falls under the responsibility of the Malaysian government
(UNICEF, 2017). With a diverse population to serve, the Malaysian education system has
had many stages of development (Tajuddin & Nordin, 2017), and the most recent phase is
the movement towards inclusive education.

CONTACT Hamza Alshoura hamza.alshoura@yahoo.com

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 H. ALSHOURA

The goal of this study is to review and analyse the development of Special Needs
Education Provision (SNEP) within the parallel system of Malaysia’s special education and
general education. This study outlines the developmental process and how the education
system caters for AYCWD, in order to present a background for future deliberations on the
subject matter. This study also discusses the challenges currently facing the development
of educational programmes for AYCWD, and offers suggestions to improve the current
SNEP programmes in the context of Malaysian pedagogy and sociocultural perspective.

Methods Used
This article is qualitative in nature. It covers an exhaustive review of relevant documents as
well as content analysis. In this regard, the analytical method was utilised to determine
and analyse the presence, meanings, concepts or themes and relationships in a document
or a set of documents for further understanding. The documents range from published
and unpublished articles, book chapters, research reports and conference proceedings, to
governmental reports from Malaysian ministries and other institutions (E.g. Ministry of
Education, 2005; 2013, 2017; Special Education, 2013). Six primary databases, namely:
Academic Source Premier, Google Scholar databases, SocINDEX, AIER, EBSCOhost and
ERIC (Education Resource Information Centre) were selected for this research. Searches
using the keywords: special education, inclusive education/inclusion and Malaysia, were
carried out to obtain relevant literature. Finally, a range of different organisations (e.g.
UNESCO) and individuals working in the field of research and policy were contacted to
enquire about their respective ongoing operations as they relate to this work and to
confirm the validity of the conclusions in the relevant domains as well as to corroborate
the understanding and experience of the authors.

The Education System in Malaysia – An Overview

Nearly 80 years ago, Malaysia made a constitutional commitment to provide quality
education for the people of Malaysia. The local education system was implemented
after the Education Act of 1961 was ratified by parliament. The Education Act stipulated
that all Malaysian children from age 6 and above have a right to a free and public schooling
education. However, the act did not include AYCWD. The aim of the education system is to
foster national unity and nation-building using a standardised language of instruction,
a common syllabus and curriculum, and trained teachers. National curriculum reforms in
1983, 1995, and 1999 and the increasing use of technology in schools have enhanced the
quality of teaching and learning in Malaysia (Tajuddin & Nordin, 2017). In 1988, the
National Education Philosophy (NEP) was formulated and became part of Malaysia’s
Vision 2020 that was aimed at achieving the ‘developed nation’ status by2020. In order
to enhance Vision 2020 and better prepare the younger-generation for the complex
needs of the twenty–first century, the ministry of education developed a National
Education Blueprint (2013–2025) that was launched by the former Deputy Prime
Minister, Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin.
Today, there are a total of 35,578 schools providing preschool, primary and secondary
education in Malaysia (MoE, 2017). About 45.7% of these schools are run by the Ministry of
Education (MoE), 21.4% by private institutions, and 32.8%, by other non-governmental
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 3

government Sector

Privet Institutions
33% 46% Other Government
Agencies
21%

Figure 1. Distribution of schools by the controlling authorities since 2017.

Organisations (NGOs) (See Figure 1). According to the educational statistics of the MoE,
4,974,244 public education students are being serviced by an estimated16,279 public
schools with at least 431,588 teachers (Ministry of Education, 2017).

Distribution of Schools by the Controlling Authorities since 2017

Realising the importance of education for AYCWD, the Malaysian education system began
providing a wider spectrum of related facilities and expertise for the development and
refinement of quality in the delivery of education services for this disadvantaged group.
Between 1990 and 2004, the education system introduced and revised the Malaysian
standard codes of practice on accessibility and mobility for AYCWD. Many disabilities have
been recognised and there are now legislations and laws for SNEP of the AYCWD in all
disability categories that the school handles; most notably the Persons with Disabilities
Act (PWDA_2008).

Special Needs Education Provision in Malaysia

Prevalence of AYCWD in Malaysia
The increasing prevalence of disability and the challenges associated with accessing care
are a global phenomenon (Schur, Kruse, Blasi, & Blanck, 2009). Recent prevalence figures
for disability in Asian countries indicate that the overall percentage of AYCWD in 2015
range from 0.2% to 8.1% (Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific
[ESCAP], 2015). These figures have been lower than the global disability prevalence
rates such as those of United States of America (USA) and Australia, estimated at 12.8%
and 18.5% respectively (ESCAP, 2015; U.S. Census Bureau, 2016). In Malaysia, an accurate
census does not exist for AYCWD. However, the record of the registered students at the
Department of Social Welfare (DoSW) reveals 494,074 persons with disability in Malaysia
with a prevalence rate of 1.5% of the total population in 2013 (Department of Welfare
Malaysia official website on Registration of Persons with Disabilities, 2015). It is undeniable
that there is an increase in cases of people with disabilities in all parts of the world.
However, Malaysian figures are incomplete and open to questions. Registration of
children and adults with disability is not compulsory, and is done only voluntarily (UNICEF,
2017). A significant number of young children referred to the DoSW are not formally
registered while an even bigger number goes undisclosed. This is probably due to an
underestimation resulting from lack of awareness of the socio–cultural values of
Malaysians. Parents might hide their child with disability because of the fear of
4 H. ALSHOURA

stigmatisation and to avoid the feeling of discrimination or dishonour (Nasir & Efendi,
2016; UNICEF, 2017) that they might experience if others knew of their child’s disability.
Furthermore, the national statistics on disability may omit references to certain categories
of disability, often identified in students such as learning disabilities, behavioural pro­
blems, and language and speech difficulties. Moreover, it could possibly be because the
local statistics have been essentially focused on the incidence of visible disabilities (Schur
et al., 2009; Singh, 2008).

Emergence and Development of SNEP

The historical development of SNEP in Malaysia is parallel with the growth and progress of
the ‘developing nation’ status (UNICEF, 2014). In general, the developmental process of
SNEP has undergone three sequential stages: The Emergence and Formative Stage (EFS)
(before 1960), the Consolidation and Awareness Stage (CAS) (1961–1989), and the
Constructing and Rationalisation Stage (CRS) (1990- until the present).

Emergence and Formative Stage (EFS) (before 1960)

Before and during the early colonial period (before 1900), not every Malaysian had the
same right to education. Prior to 1900, AYCWD were considered burdensome, shameful,
worthless, and useless. They were kept hidden at their homes or placed in orphanages
without receiving special education services (Nasir & Efendi, 2016). Preceding the 1920s,
education for students with disabilities was mostly provided by religious missionaries,
with several philanthropic and private bodies offering daily care services and medication
(Jelas & Ali, 2014; Lee & Low, 2014). Afterwards, awareness of educating AYCWD gradually
emerged. In 1929, the first blind school was established by the British Strait Government
in Johor Bahru, named Princess Elizabeth Special Education School, followed by a school
for the deaf in Penang later in 1954, called the Federal School for Deaf Children (Lee &
Low, 2014). These special education schools were initiated under the special program by
the Ministry of Social Welfare (MoSW) with the support and help of missionaries (Jelas &
Ali, 2014). It is believed that the provision of special education in Malaysia officially started
from 1929. However, no special laws and polices existed for disability and special needs
education at that time. The MoSW tried to adopt a spectrum of segregation settings for
AYCWD but was hindered by lack of support and funds.

Consolidation and Awareness Stage (CAS) (1961–1989)

Since the dawn of independence in 1957, developments in the public education system in
Malaysia have influenced the SNEP to undertake some significant reforms in the
Education Act (EA) 1961. This Act (had been amended to Education Act 1996) was enacted
in 1961. According to this Act, the tasks and responsibilities of education programmes lie
with different ministries that include Education, Social welfare, and Health. It is also
stipulates that free and compulsory education is a right for children with cognitive
disabilities including those with mental retardation (MoE, 2014; Nasir & Efendi, 2016).
Malaysia entered its second stage when the first formal teacher preparation program
for special education was established by the MoE in 1961 (Jelas & Ali, 2014). The trends
regarding care and welfare of AYCWD started to gradually change, although training for
teachers remained low. In 1980s, Malaysia started to develop its education system for
AYCWD by sending teachers and other education professionals abroad for undergraduate
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 5

research degrees, in-service teaching attachments and empowerment in the field of

special education in order to attempt to customise special education programmes for
those with disabilities in Malaysia. Consideration for AYCWD was also included in the
United Nations (UN) and UNESCO’s activities, workshops and conferences related to
disabilities (which continued up to 1990s-2000s). This new trend was part of the active
development of local policy and changes in realistic practices at that time (Jelas & Ali,
2014; Nasir & Efendi, 2016).
Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) centres were introduced in Malaysia in 1983
(UNICEF, 2017). These centres were quite detached from the public school system, and
were intended to cater to people with disabilities and their families within their own
communities (Department of Welfare Malaysia official website on Registration of Persons
with Disabilities, 2015). In this stage, despite the dominance of the medical model of
disability, there remained a lack of disability and special needs education laws. Moreover,
the service providers at that time did not have systematic and planned strategies for
carrying out SNEP, as they were not yet considered an integral part of the general
education.

Constructing and Rationalisation Stage (CRS) (1990- Until the present time)
In the 1990s, special needs education witnessed a rapid growth in Malaysia. Many special
education schools became available and resource classrooms were created in public
schools (Lee & Low, 2014; MoE, 2005). An intensive remedial schooling programme was
developed to support learners with learning difficulties or those who do not achieve their
expected–grade level. During this period, the schooling system adopted the curricula for
Sign and Braille language learning from European countries. They subsequently accepted
the western expertise as well as their conceptualisation as regards ‘special needs educa­
tion’ and ‘disability’ (e.g. UK, the USA and France) (Nasir & Efendi, 2016). The first
preservice teacher preparation programme leading to a Bachelor degree in special
needs education was launched by National University of Malaysia in 1993 (Jelas & Ali,
2014). In 1994, Malaysia became a signatory of the Salamanca Statement and committed
to creating schools to serve all children including disabilities (Lee & Low, 2014; MoE, 2013).
This has made AYCWD more visible in general life, and the perceptions of special
education and disability in the Malaysian society has gradually changed (Lee & Low, 2014).
The Special Education Department (SED) was established and started its operation in
1995, in order to take over and organise responsibilities of SNEP at that time (Ministry of
Education, 2005, 2014). The Education Act was passed in 1996 and SNEP was placed under
the umbrella of the MoE (Nasir & Efendi, 2016) while the rights for AYCWD to equal
education opportunities, medical care, and participation in work and life activities were
affirmed. According to the Education Act, children with disabilities can further their
education in primary and secondary schools regardless of their status and background,
but not lesser than their normal peers. This means that these children, similar to their
normal peers, are a part of the Malaysian society. The Act recommended that all special
education schools should be put under the control of the SED (Ministry of Education,
2013, which led to an increase in the number of special programmes specifically devel­
oped to serve the AYCWD. In this regard, special education provision emphasised ‘educa­
tion’ rather than the prior focus on ‘rehabilitation and employment’. The mainstream
classroom was viewed as a right of students with disabilities, and all public school
6 H. ALSHOURA

teachers were given the responsibility to ensure this right. Special education school/
centre placement was to be on the basis of needs, and University Education (UE) was to be
available for those students (mainly those with learning disabilities) who were academi­
cally qualified. Such practices seem contradictory to the current inclusive education
policy.
The Child Act in Malaysia was enacted in 2001 as the first Act for AYCWD to assist
educational institutions to develop policies, practices, and procedures against discrimina­
tion towards children with disabilities, to respect their views and their rights to life, and to
enable their effective participation in a free society (UNICEF, 2017). After that, the Persons
with Disabilities Act (PWDA) was enacted and entered into force in 2008. This Act aimed to
ensure rights by outlining obligations to provide care, education, recreation, healthcare,
and rehabilitation services to AYCWD, each consistent with their own abilities (Laws of
Malaysia, Act 685, 2008) (UNICEF, 2017, 2014). However, these laws do not contain any
comprehensive definition of ‘disability’ or ‘persons with disabilities’. They rather only
provide some guidance on the concept of ‘disability’ and its types. Additionally, they do
not contain any detailed legislation or regulations regarding enabling people with
disability, including their families and carers. Both Acts neither specifically clarifies the
types of implementable measures, nor do they identify practical mechanisms for their
implementation in the Malaysian context, which leads to diverse interpretations, disorga­
nised follow ups and inadequate accountability measures.
The concept of Universal Design (UD) was first used and promoted in Malaysia by the
Persons with Disabilities Act (2008) (Yusof, 2016). The concept has been increasingly
incorporated into the Malaysian legislation, standards, and guidelines to improve acces­
sibility and usability in the built and natural environments with the aim of accommodat­
ing everybody to the greatest degree possible. Interpretations to the concept were made
in order to reflect a more international perspective and commitment of issues related to
AYCWD (Khairuddin, Dally, & Foggett, 2016) in line with Malaysia’s obligation to the UN
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2008 and 2010 respec­
tively (Ministry of Education, 2014). Despite the initiatives to accelerate the growth of the
concept, it cannot be denied that the practical introduction of this concept into the
Malaysian education system is a very slow process, where its acceptance and implemen­
tation remains considerably deficient with many barriers in the application. Many of these
barriers are muddied in the misconceptions of the concept, with confusion in the use of
terminology, and divergence of thought due to differences in terms of cultural and social
contexts. The public and professionals have only perceived it as a design template for
people with disabilities; however, the main focus has been on wheelchair users rather
than all categories of disability (Yusof, 2016). Thus, there is a need to change how
Malaysians see or define disability and its relationship to the built and natural environ­
ments (Lee & Low, 2014).
The government launched the Malaysia Education Blueprint (MEB) (2013–2025), which
was upgraded by different partners including the NGOs and local academicians that
advocated for the inclusion of AYCWD in ordinary schools after conducting
a comprehensive review of the Malaysian education system in 2011(2001 & 2008). The
MEB for 2013 to 2025 incorporates a roadmap that aims at achieving 75% enrolment of
AYCWD in inclusive education schools by 2025, by ensuring the presence of facilities and
equipment needed for a conducive and supportive educating environment (Human
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 7

Rights Commission of Malaysia, 2015). The current education reform has seen the gradual
implementation of inclusive schooling system. The system has been adapted to varying
degrees by government schools.
Moreover, there are many non-profit NGOs that provide resources, funds and other
type of supports for AYCWD and their parents across Malaysia (Special Education, 2013).
Thus, these organisations fill an important gap in the public-education system. However,
the exact number of NGOs and the programmes that they offer those students are
currently unavailable, because most of those organisations are not formally registered
in Malaysia (UNICEF, 2017).

Discussion on Critical Issues for SNEP

Education Settings and Related Services
The statistics in (Tables 1 and 2) were extracted from ‘Quick Facts 2017 – Educational
Statistics’ published by the Malaysian MoE in 2017. (Table 1) shows that the number of
Malaysian AYCWD in primary and secondary schools remained relatively constant over
the 2015 to 2017 period. During the same time period, there was a marked increase in the
enrolment of students with disabilities with the partial inclusion status. However, the
number of classes, enrolment and teachers in the preschool stage (aged 4 to 6 years)
(Table 2) during that same period showed a significant decline, despite increasing atten­
tion to special educational needs.
The education and care programmes and related services for AYCWD vary according to
the type and severity of disability. The programmes are also dependent on a mix of
available support services and facilities, which ranges from shelter to provision of health­
care, early childhood intervention, education, training and others. Most of these services
for AYCWD are often delivered through formal curricula, preparation and writing of
Individualised Educational Plans (IEPs) and lesson plans, applying behavioural manage­
ment plans, and effective instructional methods (Bandu & Jelas, 2012; Lee & Low, 2014;
MoE, 2013; Special Education, 2013).

Table 1. Enrolment in SNEPs (2015–2017).

Level 2015 2016 2017
Pre-school 656 678 1,122
Primary 29,078 29,810 31,089
Secondary 24,221 26,677 25,302
Total 53,974 57,184 57,513
Partial Inclusion 1,357 4,239 13,081
Full Inclusion 9,798 12,531 12,315
Total Inclusion 11,155 16,770 25,396

Table 2. Number of class, enrolment, teachers, and school in 2017.

Tape Preschool Primary secondary Total
Classroom 206 3,048 2,518 5,772
Enrolment 1122 27,231 21,745 50,098
Teacher 204 8,083 5,308 13,325
Mainstream School - - - 2,299
Special School - 28 6 34
8 H. ALSHOURA

AYCWD are placed either in the special education schools or in the mainstream
education schools. The special education schools are only for children who are deaf and
blind. Meanwhile, mainstream or inclusive education schools (starting late) are provided
for AYCWD with mild-to-moderate disability, while those students who do not meet the
MoE’s eligibility criteria are referred to Community-Based Rehabilitation (CBR) pro­
grammes (Bandu & Jelas, 2012; Ministry of Education, 2017; UNICEF, 2013). For example,
learners who have severe learning disabilities or visually impaired are not welcomed into
the main-stream settings, because of their poor academic achievement. Hence, there is no
particular education curriculum for these learners. Moreover, different schools take dis­
similar approaches to offer interactional strategies and curricula, which might not encou­
rage learning diversity.
The biggest challenge faced by AYCWD in Malaysia is the lack of comprehensive
assessment practices, procedures, and instruments. This includes the late or delayed
identification and evaluation process for AYCWD, which mostly starts when the ‘child’
goes to special needs education school or centre. In addition to the lack of adapted
screening and assessment tools (e.g. most educators use locally or self-adapted tests
based on their own experiences), standards and guidelines for the general assessment
process are often absent. Moreover, the evaluation process and the setting up of an IEP
are usually not implemented by the multidisciplinary team (Lee & Low, 2014; UNICEF,
2013). There is also a lack of professionals and therapists to aid in the assessment and to
acquire more benefits from the service providers. In addition, the facilities and equipment
in these programmes are generally insufficient (Ganeswaran, 2013).

Vocational Training and Employment (RTE) Services

The RTE services were introduced in Malaysia to help Malaysians with disabilities to
acquire self-employable skills and jobs (Wahat, N.W. & Ortega, 2015). The services are
offered to assist persons with disabilities in starting their businesses as well as to provide
independent living services as they are unable to effectively operate in a traditional
employment context. People with disabilities who are able to manage themselves with­
out assistance have several opportunities to obtain prevocational trainings such as handi­
crafts, sewing, carpentry, cooking, and many more (Social Welfare Department [SWD],
2008). Besides that, the SWD grants an allowance of RM 300 to workers with disabilities if
they earn less than RM 1,200 in order to encourage them to enter the workforce. It also
grants them around RM 2,700 to help them start their own businesses. Other benefits and
facilities that are presented by the government includes tax deductions and rebates,
national transportation discounts, housing rental facilities, and 50% deduction of the
excise duty on national vehicles (Lee, SeeY, & Mey, 2011; Wahat, N.W. & Ortega, 2015).
Nonetheless, Ta and Leng (2013) reported that only 581 persons with disabilities have
been employed since 2008 in different occupational settings in Malaysia.
Current RTE services in Malaysia, however, are more evident on paper than in reality.
Wahat, N.W. and Ortega (2015) pointed out that employment rates of Malaysians with
disabilities remain limited, and the majority of them have very little or no training, receive
low pay, besides being part-time or temporary workers. Moreover, there is often a lack the
acceptance or support to workers with disabilities from their co–workers (Schur et al.,
2009). These limitations could lead back to the socioeconomic constraints faced by
AYCWD and the negative or unwelcome attitudes of local employers that exclude persons
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 9

with disabilities (Wahat, N.W. & Ortega, 2015). Employers usually have a strong preference
in employing people who are normal as opposed to employing people with disabilities.

Early Identification and Intervention Programmes

Early childhood special education (ECSE) for children between 4–6 years old in Malaysia
began to emerge in the early 1970s. Before that time, local education policies restricted
SNEP to school children aged 6 years old and above, hence the preschool children with
developmental delays or/and disabilities were provided with no services whatsoever
(UNICEF, 2014). Even today, Malaysia still has no clear policies or regulations regarding
SNEP for those with developmental delays or/and disabilities. The young children under
3 years of age (especially in the suburban and rural areas) are largely un-served. Little has
been done in the country of Malaysia to develop the capabilities of preschool staff in
respect to early identification and intervention programmes and services for such children
(Md-Yunus, 2013). In public schooling settings, current ECSE services are primarily geared
towards children in grades 1–4 and sometimes to sixth-grade. For children who do not
make progress, their families are encouraged to reach out for programmes and services in
special needs education settings. Furthermore, despite the increasing awareness of the
importance of ECSE (Ministry of Education, 2013, the special education system in Malaysia
is challenged to improve not just in terms of access and equity to ECSE programmes and
services, but also in terms of the quality of its outcomes (Bari, Abdullah, Abdullah, & Yasin,
2016; UNICEF, 2014).
The shortage of early detection and intervention services in Malaysia as regards
AYCWD is very apparent. Current ECSE practices have generally failed to support and
help preschool-aged children with disabilities, particularly those with developmental
delays and speech/language problems living in rural areas (Kamaruddin, 2007). This
failure has been linked with many issues such as lack of both reliable information and
modern screening instruments as well as the absence of an inclusive framework of action,
which has resulted in the service gaps (Md-Yunus, 2013). Besides that, the lack of qualified
and skilful educators can be a significant barrier to the successful implementation of the
ECSE services (Bari et al., 2016). This has left the parents of AYCWD with no choice but to
search for private care services that can cater to their children (UNICEF, 2017).
Early childcare intervention authorities, caregivers, and parents need to join forces to
create a protective environment for infants and toddlers who are at-risk of developmental
delay and AYCWD. It is very important for everyone involved to have a comprehensive
and updated database, to analyse the current position and determine priority actions to
be treated (Bari et al., 2016). A systematic and holistic early detection and intervention
programme that is focused on parental involvement has to be developed and implemen­
ted with the coordination and involvement from multiple service agencies. Malaysia in
collaboration with developed nations such as U.S. and U.K can also benefit directly from
the research experiences in this field.

Inclusive Education Practices

The services provided for AYCWD in Malaysia range from shelter (i.e. isolated care
settings) to provision of education in the special schools or public schools. The
Malaysian education system has adopted the UN ‘Standard rules on the equalisation of
opportunities for people with disabilities (1993), and the UNESCO Salamanca Statement
10 H. ALSHOURA

on ‘Principles, policy and practice in special needs’ (1994) that advocated the develop­
ment of inclusive education in line with the current global trend (Jelas & Ali, 2014).
Malaysia enacted similar legislation in 2008 with the Persons with Disabilities Act
(PWDA_2008). According to this Act, the term ‘inclusive education’ was introduced for
AYCWD as part of the continuum of their care and available services. It was also mandated
that all AYCWD who are ‘educable’ or do not pose a major problem are eligible to have
access to public schooling settings with the exception of those who are unable to manage
on their own (Jelas & Ali, 2014).
The MoE’s figures indicated that, only 57,513 students with disabilities received inclu­
sive education services in public schools in 2017 (Ministry of Education, 2017). This
number represents a small percentage of students with disabilities in government
schools. UNICEF (2017) reported that, around 200,000 students with disabilities in the
primary schooling population was estimated to have gone unidentified while another
23,000 children were out of schools. Thus, it can be concluded that hundreds or even
thousands of these students are enrolled in the public schooling system without being
presented with the needed support scheme. The term ‘Hidden Integration’ may describe
what is largely practised in the governmental schools.
Sukumaran, Loveridge, and Green (2015) indicated that, eligibility for the inclusive
education setting depends on the decision made by the school in line with the Malaysian
MoE’s guidelines and regulations. For example, students who have hearing impairments
are handled on a ‘case’ by ‘case’ basis, accommodating mainly those with hearing aids and
residual hearing. Students with blindness are only integrated into ordinary classes from
the third year of elementary school onwards, and not during the early years of school
learning. Meanwhile, students with LD are integrated into ordinary classes according to
their readiness to cope with the standard school curriculum without posing any major
problems (Lee & Low, 2014). The assessment process of whether or not students fit these
inclusive setting criteria is the school’s decision which depends on the nominations and
general willingness of the teachers, and] recommendations of the special needs teachers.
Thus, most students with disabilities will attend classes within the school community, thus
having opportunities for social interaction or non-academic activities with their normal
peers outside ordinary classes. These practices can invalidate any chance for both social
and educational inclusions (Kamaruddin, 2007; Sukumaran et al., 2015).
The belief that the student has to be ‘educable’ to be eligible for enrolment in an
inclusion classroom may reflect a limited interpretation of the inclusive education concept
(as a place that one needs to be eligible or ‘educable’ and not as a service delivered for all).
Such narrow and rigid interpretation has resulted in the development of a school system
that practices exclusionary policies. The practical concept of ‘equal educational opportu­
nities and rights for all’ is still evolving in Malaysia, as educational policymakers put their
interpretation of what they perceive to be educational rights into practice (Jelas & Ali,
2014). Nevertheless, inclusive education is still not a compulsory practice in the Malaysian
context (Sukumaran et al., 2015).
In order to make these legislations on inclusive education a reality, there is a need for
all concerned parties, to improve its effectiveness at both the policy and the implementa­
tion levels, as well as engage the community and raise public awareness of the ideas of
equal rights and access for all (Bari et al., 2016). The education institutions also need to
improve their pre- and in-teacher preparations by developing infrastructures and
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 11

equipment for inclusive education (Jelas & Ali, 2014; Kamaruddin, 2007). At the same time,
the efforts should focus on changing negative attitudes towards inclusion practices (Low,
Lee, & Ahmad, 2018). However, adopting only the most applicable parts of PWDA_2008
would benefit the local educational system more than applying the act in its entirety (e.g.
adapting it for those that have learning disabilities or mild disability as viable targets of
the extension services).

Training and Support Programme for Teachers

The first Bachelor programme in special needs education was initiated by National
University of Malaysia (UKM) in 1993 (Jelas & Ali, 2014). After that, several universities
and education colleges (one or two-year programme) in Malaysia began offering future
teacher education programmes (Diploma, BA, MA, and PhD) for various levels of special
education. Furthermore, preservice teacher preparation was complemented with in-
service preparation programmes provided by the MoE through 27 teacher training
colleges for both general education and special education teachers, to meet the profes­
sional development and support in their workplaces across Malaysia (Vethamani, 2011).
Although these special education training programmes for teachers have been spreading,
their quality has currently been the focus of criticism at both the pre-service and in-service
levels in most aspects. Many Malaysian teachers have not received adequate training or
acquired specific knowledge in the special education field (Bandu & Jelas, 2012;
Ganeswaran, 2013). The available teacher education training in special education prac­
tices does not depend on a group of professional-standards for inclusive teaching practice
(e.g. the cooperation and collaboration approach in the workplace, teachers’ continuous
professional-development, and evaluation of teacher education training) (Lee et al., 2011;
Md-Yunus, 2013). Low et al. (2018) indicated ‘no planned interaction and co-teaching’
between both general and special education teachers in the inclusion settings.
Currently, developing well-equipped and well-qualified educators is viewed as an impor­
tant issue in the Malaysian education system. This includes the awareness of implementing
inclusive education, especially among general teachers. The teacher education programme
reform has remained a key factor in overcoming this issue (Khairuddin et al., 2016). Thus,
Malaysia needs to empower its national universities to include the inclusive education in
their curriculum for all courses involving education. In addition, it is advisable to incorporate
the awareness and knowledge of inclusive education in all collegesto facilitate teaching
approaches involving students with special needs in inclusive setting. Adherence to profes­
sional-standards should also be promoted to guarantee the quality of the support pro­
grammes, and migration from the segregation model to the full-inclusion model
(Khairuddin et al., 2016; State of the World’s Children, 2013; UNICEF, 2017).

Today’s Challenges for the Development of Malaysia’s SNEP

Programmes and services for AYCWD cannot be isolated from socio-economic and
cultural factors (Md-Yunus, 2013). Despite significant steps taken by Malaysian educa­
tion system since the 1990s to improve the living conditions of AYCWD, achieving
remarkable progress in this field remains a challenge under prevailing contextual
barriers and constraints. The World HealthOrganisation (World Health Organization
(WHO), 2011) and UNICEF (2014, 2017) reports identified and summarised the chal­
lenges facing Malaysian society with regards to disability and special education
12 H. ALSHOURA

provision. The identified challenges include accessibility issues (such as school building
access and teaching resources), absence of parental involvement or participation, the
fragmentation of existing efforts and inadequate/ineffective coordination mechanisms
within and between parties involved, transition challenges, and a lack of national data
and information on disability.

Access to School Buildings and Resources

The infrastructural obstacles and lack of special devices provision are some of the significant
challenges that affect the current access to services (Bari et al., 2016). Many existing school
buildings are highly inaccessible, and it is almost impossible for students with physical
impairments or blindness to move from one classroom to another classroom or to use
diverse school facilities (Nasir & Efendi, 2016; State of the World’s Children, 2013). Another
determined obstacle which has to be considered in this field with respect to special needs
education services involves poor management of available resources (Bari et al., 2016).

Absence of Parental Involvement or Participation

Current legislation and training programmes about SNEP do not grant adequate considera­
tion to parents of AYCWD. Although some families effectively cooperate and participate in
their child’s learning programmes, parental involvement in SNEP, especially on IEP imple­
mentation, is often very negligible (Nasir & Efendi, 2016). Inadequate efforts are made to
increase and raise public awareness of parents and family members of the rights of their
AYCWD (Vethamani, 2011) or to encourage educators to facilitate the involvement of
guardians in the SNEP (Nasir & Efendi, 2016; UNICEF, 2017). Thus, there should be concerted
efforts to promote parental participation in the inclusive educational process.

Absence of Cooperation
One of the existing weaknesses of the Malaysian special education service is the absence of
cooperation between parties involved (Bari et al., 2016). The absence of different respon­
sible sectors to organise and unify all efforts to resolve the current problems and develop
service delivery models is apparent. It is necessary for all involved parties to coordinate and
combine their policies and programmes under one body (Kamaruddin, 2007).

Special Transition Services (STSs)

Policies and procedures related to STSs for students having disabilities have not been
developed in Malaysia. Special education service providers generally do not have
a planned and systematic approach for implementing STSs, possibly because such ser­
vices are not yet seen as an integral part of the Malaysian special schooling programmes
(Wahat, N.W. & Ortega, 2015). Although the special education teachers are often aware of
the STSs, the general schools do not have support teams to provide the transition
opportunities, and most of these responsibilities are discharged by special teachers
based on their own initiatives. Lee et al. (2011) concluded that Malaysian teachers are
not equipped with the knowledge regarding STSs. Therefore, the STSs should be provided
by professional and qualified educators rather than by the special teachers themselves.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 13

Lack of National Data

There is no available data on the exact number of AYCWD in Malaysia (Wahat, N.W. &
Ortega, 2015). Besides that, the detailed demographic information (e.g. gender, age,
socio-economic status, history of the case, ethnicity and others) about these children
are currently scarce and randomised. In addition, available data does not cover many
AYCWD who remain invisible within the larger-environment. This is certainly the reason
why Malaysia is facing a lack of clear understanding of this problem (Lee & Low, 2014).
Furthermore, many parents of AYCWD are not fully aware of the range of available
services that have been provided for their children. This is because the parents do not
receive adequate information regarding the overall education system and the advance
healthcare options that are still limited. As a result, families and their children struggle to
cope with the fragmentation of services and disarray among support providers (i.e. MoE,
Ministry of Health and MoSW) (Lee & Low, 2014). Thus, there are families that seek help
from the private sectors which certainly involve a higher cost as compared to the services
provided by the MoE Malaysia (UNICEF, 2014, 2017).

Suggestions for Improving the Current Practices and Programmes

Many policies may be considered to improve the special education practices in Malaysia,
and they include:

Developing a comprehensive support system for examination and evaluation procedure, and
alternative assessment measures of educational outcomes for children with disabilities (see
Lee & Low, 2014) under the Malaysian context in terms of cultural standards and language.
This needs to involve a number of processes that include the use of appropriate diagnostic
tools for students of various categories of disability, monitoring of remedial and special
education practices, and organising training workshops for educators and parents (Bari
et al., 2016; UNICEF, 2014). Moreover, the identification of eligible children for inclusive
special education services and support programmes should be made by a multidisciplinary
team (Linertová et al., 2019).

Restructuring of school buildings by building ramps to classes and easy access facilities
(e.g. toilets). The government should create unified guidelines for all new school buildings
to comply with disabled-friendly infrastructure guidelines (Lee & Low, 2014). The govern­
ment should also seek funds from international funding bodies and private institutions to
modify the infrastructure of the local school buildings.
Enhancing special education teacher preparations; requiring educators to take course­
work; organising SNEP-focused training workshops on the best convenient care interven­
tions; continual practice of teaching techniques, and the building of effective IEPs for
students in all disability categories. Studies (see Sukumaran et al., 2015) conducted by
practitioners have shown that coursework and workshops to support inclusive education
practices is a fundamental training for Malaysian educators.
Expanding the concept of parental-involvement to parental participation; encouraging
and enhancing the family role in the students’ development, and setting up connections
and links between the parents, early childhood or preschool programmes and children’s
transition into the primary school. Furthermore, the parents and community involvement
and support should be mobilised in creating awareness, planning, as well as implementa­
tion of the SNEP (Szumski & Karwowski, 2012).
14 H. ALSHOURA

Setting up national information technology centres to design assistive technology,

technical aides and teaching strategies for AYCWD, in line with the current development
of educational technology and strategies for inclusive education approach in Malaysia
(Szumski & Karwowski, 2012; UNICEF, 2014).
Improving disability information resources and developing ways to create national
comprehensive databases by systematically collecting data related to all disability cate­
gories in Malaysia. The access to this information should be facilitated by the decision
makers, authorities, researchers, and teachers. Ta and Leng (2013) reported that avail­
ability of this systematic data will help to develop SNEP, and guide the current legislation
and planning of future education programmes (Linertová et al., 2019).
Increasing funding for existing special education schools or centres with the aim of
expanding service delivery and effectively allocating resources and support as needed
(Nasir & Efendi, 2016). Additionally, Lee and Low (2014) highlighted the need to develop
an clear and structured guideline with effective funding system to tackle the dual
challenge of developing SNEP (e.g. early childhood intervention, rehabilitation, and
inclusion) and seeking to make it inclusive.

Conclusion
This paper provides a critical assessment of literature on the development of special needs
education provision (SNEP) for AYCWD in Malaysia. The review illustrates that Malaysia has
made significant progress in developing SNEP for AYCWD over the past 30 years, by enacting
legislations and regulations, developing published appropriate curriculum and instructional
materials, and adopting integration in general and private schools. Nevertheless, SNEP in
Malaysia still faces various challenges related to remedial, educational, and training needs for
AYCWD (UNICEF, 2014). Existing SNEP support is inadequate, poorly equipped and
resourced, and run by school staff with little contribution from AYCWD. In addition, the
review indicated the prevalence of negative disposition towards persons with disabilities
rather than positive attitude (Lee & Low, 2014; Wahat, N.W. & Ortega, 2015). As a result, the
services provided tend to be special and separate instead of being inclusive. Therefore, there
is the need for novel alternatives for educational service delivery and effective-action plans
to confront obstacles to the implementation of SNEP initiatives and overcoming challenges.
More specifically, timely adoption of emerging trends (e.g. inclusive education) all over the
world appears to be the most efficient way to ensure proper education for AYCWD.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

References
Bandu, S. H., & Jelas, Z. M. (2012). The IEP: Are Malaysian teachers ready? Procedia, Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 47, 1341–1347.
Bari, S., Abdullah, N. A., Abdullah, N., & Yasin, M. H. (2016). Early intervention implementation
preschool special education students in Malaysia. International Journal for Innovation Education
and Research, 4(6), 139–155.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DISABILITY, DEVELOPMENT AND EDUCATION 15

Department of Statistics Malaysia (2017). Key statistics of population & demography 2017.https://www.
dosm.gov.my/v1/index.php?r=column/cone&menu_i=TERQb2VMUUt3mBIOGo4RXRKR0ZBQT09
Department of Welfare Malaysia official website on Registration of Persons with Disabilities (2015).
Retrieved 2015, from: http://www.jkm.gov.my/content.php?pagename=pendaftaran_orang_kur
ang_upaya&l
Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific. (2015). Disability at a glance 2015
strengthening employment prospects for persons with disabilities in Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok:
United Nations.
Economic Planning Unit. (2018). Key economic indicators. Retrieved from http://epu.gov.my/sites/
default/files/MEIF_2018.pdf
Ganeswaran, L. K. (2013). Challenges of special education in rural schools: Teachers perspective.
International Seminar on Quality and Affordable Education (ISQAE), 2, 529–531. http://jpwpkl.moe.
gov.my/download/phocadownload/sektor/spm/upm/malaysiaeducationblueprint.pdf
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. (2015). The right to education for children with learning
Disabilities– focusing on primary education: A Report by Human Rights Commission of Malaysia.P,9–14.
Jelas, Z. M., & Ali, M. M. (2014). Inclusive education in Malaysia: Policy and practice. International
Journal of Inclusive Education, 18(10), 991–1003.
Kamaruddin, K. (2007). Adult learning for people with disabilities in Malaysia: Provisions and
services. The Journal of Human Resource and Adult Learning, 3(2), 50–64.
Khairuddin, K. F., Dally, K., & Foggett, J. (2016). Collaboration between general and special education
teachers in Malaysia. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(1), 909–913.
Lee, L. W., & Low, H. M. (2014). The evolution of special education in Malaysia. British Journal of
Special Education, 41(1), 42–58.
Lee, M. N., SeeY, A., & Mey, C. M. (2011). Employment of people with disabilities in Malaysia: Drivers
and inhibitors. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 212–224.
Linertová, R., González-Guadarrama, J., Serrano-Aguilar, P., Posada-de-la-paz, M., Péntek, M.,
Iskrov, G., & Ballester, B. (2019). Schooling of children with rare diseases and disability in
Europe. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 66(4), 362–373.
Low, H. M., Lee, L. W., & Ahmad, A. C. (2018). Pre-service teachers’ attitude towards inclusive
education for students with autism spectrum disorder in Malaysia. International Journal
Inclusive Education, 22(3), 235–251.
Md-Yunus, S. (2013). Early education and development in Malaysia: Issues and challenges in
providing a framework for a multiethnic society. ECEC around the World. https://www.child
research.net/projects/
Ministry of Education. (2005). Curriculum guide for preschools. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Curriculum
Development Center.
Ministry of Education. (2013). Education (Special education) regulations 2013. Kuala Lumpur: Attorney
General’s Chambers.
Ministry of Education (2014). Application guide for the placement of students with special needs in
form. Putrajaya: MoE. Retrieved January. http://apps.moe.gov.my/jpkhas/permohonan/pan
duan_ting4.pd
Ministry of Education (2017). Quick facts (Malaysia education statistics). Https://Moe.Gov.My/
Images/Terbitan/Buku-Informasi/Quick-Facts2017/20170809_Quick-
Facts_2017_Final5_Interactive.Pdf
Nasir, M. N., & Efendi, A. N. (2016). Special education for children with disabilities in Malaysia:
Progress and obstacles. Geografia: Malaysian Journal of Society and Space, 12 (10). pp. 78–87.
ISSN 2180–2491.
Schur, L., Kruse, D., Blasi, J., & Blanck, P. (2009). Is disability disabling in all workplaces? Workplace
disparities and corporate culture. Industrial relations. A Journal of Economy and Society, 48(3), 381–410.
Singh, A. (2008). Meeting the needs of children with disability in Malaysia. The Medical Journal of
Malaysia, (63), 1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Amar-ingh_Hss/publication/23399309
Social Welfare Department (2008). Rehabilitation, services and development of disabled people.
http://www.jkm.gov.my/
16 H. ALSHOURA

Special Education (2013). Special education program. Ipoh: Perak Education Department. Retrieved
October 11, 2013.
State of the World’s Children (2013). Children with disabilities and see; executive summary. https://
downloads.unicef.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013
Sukumaran, S., Loveridge, J., & Green, V. (2015). Inclusion in Malaysian integrated preschools.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 19(8), 821–844.
Szumski, G., & Karwowski, M. (2012). School achievement of children with intellectual disability: The
role of socioeconomic status, placement and parents’ engagement. Research in Developmental
Disabilities, 33(5), 1615–1625.
Ta, T. L., & Leng, K. S. (2013). Challenges faced by Malaysians with disabilities in the world of
employment. Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development, 24(1), 6–21.
Tajuddin, S. N., & Nordin, M. Z. (2017). Discovering social actors’ experiences to different schooling
system in Malaysian multicultural society: ‘National unity’ perspective. International Journal of
Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 7(4), 111–121.
U.S. Census Bureau (2016). American community survey, American FACTFINDER. https://factfinder.
census.gov/rest/dnldController/deliver?_ts=579047984177
UNICEF. (2013). The state of the world’s children: Children with disabilities. New York: Author. http://
www.unicef.org/publications/fi
UNICEF. (2014). Children with disabilities in Malaysia-mapping the policies, programs, interventions
and stakeholders. Kuala Lumpur: Author. http://www.unicef.org/malaysia/UNICEFChildren_with_
Disability_in_2014
UNICEF. (2017). Childhood disability in Malaysia; A study of knowledge, attitudes and practices. Kuala
Lumpur: Author. https://www.unicef.org/malaysia/Final_File_Childhood_Disability_in_Malaysia
1teractive_PDF).compressed_3_Oct_2017.pdf
Vethamani, M. E. (2011). Teacher education in Malaysia–Preparing and training of english language
teacher educators. The Journal of Asia, 8(4), 85–110.
Wahat, N.W., L. S., & Ortega, A. (2015). Work ability of employees with disabilities in Malaysia.
Disability, CBR & Inclusive Development Journal, 26, 2.
World Health Organization (WHO) (2011). World report on disability. Retrieved from applications.
https://www.who.int/disabilities/world_report/2011/report.pdf
Yusof, L. M. (2016). Universal design and professional practice obligations in Malaysian domestic
housing. PhD. thesis, School of Architecture and Built Environment, Deakin University.