Formal disability identification can provide valuable support. But I do not think autistic people should automatically claim every disability benefit for which they technically qualify.
There are three questions worth considering: what disability support is for, whether accepting it is consistent with our principles, and whether formal identification carries hidden long-term costs.
Disability support is compensation, not a privilege
Disability support exists to compensate for barriers or additional burdens. A workplace adjustment may enable someone to perform the same job. Transport assistance may compensate for difficulties travelling independently. Financial assistance may offset disability-related costs. It should therefore be understood as support, not as a prize for having a diagnosis.
This distinction matters because eligibility and need are not always identical. Administrative schemes require broad categories. If autism is an eligible condition, someone may technically qualify even when the particular disadvantage being compensated for has little practical effect on that person’s life.
That does not mean an eligible person is doing anything wrong by applying. But I think there is a second question beyond eligibility: Just because I can claim something, should I?
Principles matter too
I apply a stricter rule to myself. If I do not consider myself disabled in the relevant practical sense, do not need disability-related support, and can participate without the accommodation, I would not personally claim a disability-specific benefit merely because my autism diagnosis makes me technically eligible.
This is not a judgement on other autistic people. Disability may be invisible, fluctuating or costly in ways outsiders cannot see. Someone may also dislike identifying as disabled while genuinely needing support.
But when deciding for ourselves, consistency matters. If I say that I no longer experience my autism as substantially disabling, while preserving disability status mainly because it gives me discounts or privileges, I need to reconcile those two positions.
My own principle is simple: use disability support when it compensates for a real disadvantage, not merely because it is available.
Why I did not apply for Singapore’s PWD Concession Card
Singapore’s Persons with Disabilities (PWD) Concession Card includes autism within its eligibility criteria.
I have nevertheless never applied for it. I stopped needing accommodations around 2010, before the transport concession scheme was introduced in 2014. By then, I did not personally consider the transport discount necessary to compensate for a disability-related limitation. The financial saving therefore did not seem sufficient reason for me to seek formal disability status.
There was also another consideration: the benefit is visible, while some of the possible costs are not.
Why I did not pursue a study award worth S$5,000
I once applied for the now-discontinued SkillsFuture Study Award for Persons with Disabilities. The scheme required applicants to have a “permanent disability”. Its published FAQ accepted a recent doctor’s memorandum, a functional assessment endorsed by a registered healthcare professional, or a PWD transport concession card as supporting evidence. In my circumstances, the route presented to me was obtaining a doctor’s memorandum.
I was disappointed by the mismatch between that administrative category and how I understood myself. An autism diagnosis, an autistic identity and a formal disability classification are related, but they are not identical. I may identify as autistic and different, but I did not regard “permanently disabled” as descriptive of my situation.
I therefore stopped the application. They could keep the S$5,000. Not pursuing an application that depended on a permanent-disability classification I did not consider accurate was worth more than the award.
Hidden costs are difficult to measure
To clarify, this was my decision about protecting my own interests. Other autistic people may understand autism as both identity and disability, or may need disability-related support; I am not suggesting that they should refuse it.
A transport concession saving us money each month is easy to value, and an award worth S$5,000 is clearer still. The possible long-term consequences of submitting information that formally identifies us as disabled are much harder to assess. The lesson is to understand the status, disclosure and documentation attached to a benefit, rather than considering only its cash value.
I have found no evidence that Singapore’s PWD Concession Card is used to disadvantage people in employment or university admissions, and it would be irresponsible to imply otherwise. But once disability information is formally recorded, we cannot know every context in which that information may matter over the next few decades.
Governments change. Laws change. Administrative systems change. Data practices change. Social attitudes can improve or deteriorate. A record created under today’s environment may continue to exist under a very different future environment.
This does not mean that the information will be misused; it means only that we know today’s benefit much better than we know tomorrow’s cost.
Discrimination may also be invisible
One difficulty with discrimination is that rejected applicants often do not know why they were rejected. If someone fails a university, scholarship or government job application, there may be many legitimate reasons. We should not assume discrimination merely because disability information exists, but neither can we assume that disability played no role merely because nobody admits that it did.
A Malaysian case illustrates the possibility. Autistic counsellor Ch’ng B’ao Zhong had recorded his OKU disability status in Malaysia’s public-service employment system. When he later applied for a permanent psychology officer position, he was not shortlisted and was reportedly told that his OKU status was the reason. In January 2025, the Penang High Court ruled in his favour and ordered that he not be discriminated against on the basis of disability in future applications.
This does not prove that disability registration generally causes employment discrimination, nor does it establish anything improper about Singapore’s system. It demonstrates a narrower point: officially recorded disability information can sometimes become relevant to decisions that materially affect our lives. If nobody reveals the reason, we may never know.
Think beyond the immediate benefit
Autistic people can sometimes interpret rules literally: I qualify, therefore I should apply. But while rights give us options, they do not require us to exercise every option. Before formally identifying as disabled or claiming a disability-specific benefit, I would ask:
- What real disadvantage does this support compensate for?
- Do I genuinely need it, or am I mainly attracted by the benefit?
- Does accepting it fit honestly with how I understand my present circumstances?
- What exactly must be certified or disclosed, who will receive the information, and what is known about its retention and use?
- Can I apply later if my circumstances change?
- Am I considering only today’s upside, or also uncertain future consequences?
My own rule
I distinguish three questions:
- Can I claim it? – the administrative question.
- Do I need it? – the practical question.
- Should I claim it? – the question of principles and long-term consequences.
The first question should not automatically answer the other two. There is no virtue in refusing support that genuinely enables us to study, work, travel or live independently. That is exactly what disability support is for. But neither should we treat disability status as something to preserve merely because it provides advantages.
Being autistic, experiencing disability and formally documenting permanent disability are three related but separate matters.
Use disability support when it compensates for a real disadvantage. If the present benefit is small and the need is negligible, consider carefully whether formally identifying as disabled is worth giving up some future optionality.