Balabac and the price of strategic complacency

 Defence policy cannot be built solely around another country’s intentions of today.

From Samirul Ariff Othman

Malaysia should neither overreact to military developments on Balabac Island nor dismiss them simply because it currently enjoys good relations with the Philippines.

Balabac lies close to Sabah and is one of nine Philippine locations covered by the Enhanced Defence Cooperation Agreement with the US.

It remains a Philippine military facility under Philippine control, and Manila has legitimate reasons to strengthen its defences amid tensions with China in the South China Sea.

That, however, does not mean Malaysia should be indifferent to what greater military capability so close to Sabah could mean in the longer term, as Balabac Island is situated just 50km north of Sabah.

Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim was right to place the issue in the context of Balabac’s proximity to Sabah, the Philippines’s longstanding claim over the state and an increasingly complicated regional security environment.

The point is not that the Philippines is preparing to threaten Malaysia. There is little reason to suggest that it is.

The lesson is simpler: defence policy cannot be built solely around another country’s intentions of today.

Governments change. Leaders come and go. Alliances evolve, sometimes rapidly.

Military capability, on the other hand, takes years to build.

Fighter aircraft, maritime surveillance systems, naval assets, and air-defence networks cannot suddenly be acquired and made operational when a crisis emerges. They require sustained investment, training, maintenance and institutional capacity.

This is why good relations, while valuable, cannot substitute defence preparedness.

The same principle applies across the region.

Singapore is one of Malaysia’s closest economic partners, yet it maintains one of Southeast Asia’s most sophisticated armed forces. Malaysia does not regard this as evidence of hostile intent.

Nor should it. Military capability and political intention are separate matters.

Balabac should also be seen as part of a wider shift in Malaysia’s strategic environment.

The Philippines is strengthening defence ties with the US, China continues expanding its maritime and military capabilities, while Indonesia, Singapore and Australia are also modernising their armed forces.

None of these developments is necessarily directed at Malaysia.

Collectively, however, they mean Malaysia is operating in a more militarily capable and strategically contested neighbourhood.

The answer is not an arms race.

Malaysia should continue strengthening diplomatic relations, supporting Asean cooperation and maintaining open military-to-military communication with its neighbours.

But diplomacy works best when backed by credible national capability.

Malaysia should therefore focus on areas such as maritime domain awareness, air surveillance, naval and air-force readiness, unmanned systems and the defence of Sabah and Sarawak.

More defence spending alone is not the answer, either. What matters is whether expenditure translates into usable capability.

Balabac is therefore best treated as a reminder rather than a threat.

The Philippines has legitimate reasons to strengthen its defences, just as Malaysia has legitimate reasons to consider what those changing capabilities mean for its own security.

The question is not whether the Philippines is Malaysia’s enemy. It is whether Malaysia is preparing for the strategic environment it may face 20 or 30 years from now, rather than assuming today’s circumstances will remain permanent.

Friendship matters. Diplomacy matters.

But defence is insurance, and prudent countries do not wait for a crisis before deciding they need it. - FMT

Samirul Ariff Othman is a lecturer, international relations analyst and senior consultant.

The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.