Last month, the Straits Times (ST) updated its style guide pertaining to language that they will use to describe disability. One of the main updates is that ST noted it will use person-first language over identity-first language (i.e. using “person with disability” rather than “disabled person” or “person with visual impairment” rather than “visually impaired person”). ST also noted it will refrain from using terms such as “wheelchair-bound”.

DPA was not consulted by ST for its update to their style guide. However, we shared our thoughts with ST following the announcement of their update especially as they noted that their style guide is a living document and open to feedback.

As terminology on disability tends to be brought up in conversations around disability, we take this opportunity to share some thoughts on disability terminology from our feedback to ST’s style guide update.

—

Firstly, it is a definite positive that ST has committed to refrain from terms such as “wheelchair-bound”. This is a term that DPA and other disabled advocates have long requested news outlets to refrain from use as it mischaracterises wheelchair use.

Additionally, while not explicitly stated, the article that explained ST’s style guide update does seem to suggest that ST is also potentially considering refraining from terms such as “differently-abled”. If so, this too is a positive.

Historically and up to the present, disabled people have advocated hard to reclaim the word “disabled” or “disability” and have formed our movement and advocacy for a more just and inclusive world based on the term. Thus while well-intentioned, phrases such as “differently-abled” or other vague terminology have typically been utilised by or originated from non-disabled people and does not consider the important history and preference of persons with disabilities.

Person-first vs. Identity-first

While ST is correct to say that person-first is used in many organisations – there are important points about the person-first vs. identity-first conversation that are important to highlight.

The ST article explaining ST’s style guide update notes that a reason behind their preference for “person with disability” is to emphasise that disability is just one part of a person’s identity. The ST article did cite one of the people they consulted who added a caveat noting that some may prefer identity-first (i.e. “disabled person”) as proponents of identity-first language see disability as an inherent part of their identity.   

While these are definitely reasons why some prefer person-first over identity first and vice versa, it is not always the reason why one is used over the other. Many disabled people often see their disabled identity as both an inherent part of their identity while recognising there are other inherent and important parts of their identity – and thus often use “disabled person” and “person with disability” interchangeably.

It is important to emphasise that whether person-first or identity-first is used is often dependent on the geographical and cultural-linguistical contexts. For example, disabled people in countries such as the United Kingdom and parts of North America and Australia have a highly strong preference towards identity-first language. However, identity-first is not always easily translatable into various languages. Languages that are spoken in diverse geographical regions – from parts of Europe, Africa and Central Asia, for example, often have syntax structures that prefer noun-adjective constructions, and people in countries with such linguistical traditions would typically say “person with disability” when speaking in English.    

Additionally, whether to use person-first or identity-first is also significantly dependent on the particular disability community. Particular disability communities – including here in Singapore – have often noted strong preferences towards identity-first language. In particular, the autistic community and the D/deaf/hard-of-hearing communities – including here in Singapore – have often noted a preference for identity-first language.

Overall, persons with disabilities in Singapore often use “disabled person” and “person with disability” interchangeably. There is more consensus on what terms not to use – such as avoiding “differently-abled” or “special”.

We at DPA tend to use “disabled person” and “person with disabilities” interchangeably. Our name (Disabled People’s Association) came as part of the founders of our organisation establishing DPA out of the Disabled Peoples’ International (DPI) network – which was founded in 1981.

It is interesting that the founders of DPI originally named the network the “World Coalition of Persons with Disabilities” before changing the name to “Disabled Peoples’ International”. However, according to archival research, it is not explicitly stated that the use of identity-first language was the reason behind the name change. It is more likely that “Disabled People” was selected instead of “Person with Disability” in the name “DPI” due to 1981 being the year dedicated by the United Nations as the “year of Disabled Persons” rather than an explicit preference for identity first language.

More Than Person vs. Identity First: How Disability is Framed/Portrayed  

Yet, more than person-first or identity-first language, it is just if not more important for news outlets and other media entities to be intentional on how disability is portrayed.

To do so, organisations in the people, private, and public sectors – including news organisations – should strive for best standards of disability inclusion such as that found in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).

The UNCRPD affirms disabled people as equal members of society, and describes disability as not the individual conditions, but emphasises that it is conditions when interaction with social and environmental barriers in society (the social model) that disables disabled people.

This is why terms like “wheelchair bound” are problematic. The term is problematic not only because some wheelchair users can walk short distances, but also the phrase “wheelchair-bound” suggests that a person is bound or confined to their wheelchair when in reality, it is barriers in society (i.e. a lack of ramps, infrastructure not designed with accessibility, etc.) that prevent a wheelchair user from accessing various parts of society.  

Terms and phrases such as how disabled people “overcome their disabilities” or how disabled people “do not prevent their disabilities from stopping them” are thus problematic because they are inaccurate – characterising disability as individual problems to be fixed rather on the barriers that society needs to come together to address.

As advocates point out – it is not our disabilities that we as disabled people need to face but rather entities such as inaccessibility, exclusion, ableism, prejudice, etc. 

Society and organisations such as news outlets should thus aim to emphasise the societal barriers that persons with disabilities face (i.e. lack of inclusive design, attitudinal barriers, lack of reasonable accommodation protocols in law and policy, lack of comprehensive financial supports or policy to cater to the diverse experience of disability, etc.) when writing or discussing disability, and consider refraining from describing disability as “personal challenges”.

Terminology on describing disability is important. It often comes up in discussions on disability as people are concerned about using the wrong terms. As outlined, a general rule of thumb is that “disability” or “disabled” should be used rather than other vague terminology.

However, to conclude, it is worth emphasising that if you are new to the disability conversation, it is worth emphasising that many disabled people are more concerned about the systemic barriers in our society than whether or not to say “person with disability” or “disabled person”.

Thus, if you are new to the disability conversation, many disabled people and advocates thus would not want your concern on whether to say “person with disability” or “disabled person” to prevent you on engaging in important discussions on building a fairer, more equitable and just society for all – including the disability community.