PARLIAMENT is tabling the 13th Malaysia Plan (13MP) today.
Though this reflection comes somewhat belatedly, I believe it’s crucial to reassess our strategic framework.
Malaysia’s adoption of Soviet-style Five-Year Plans in 1956 was understandable in a post-colonial context.
But as we progress, it is worth asking whether such centrally planned economic models remain effective in the modern age especially given the dynamic, fast-evolving realities on the ground.
Mathematically speaking, there is a quiet transformation underway in Malaysia – it’s not declared in speeches, development blueprints or manifestos, but embedded in our demography, our cities, our institutions and our digital infrastructure.
While political narratives still orbit around charisma and legacy, the country’s sociopolitical operating system has shifted decisively.
What’s changing is not how Malaysia looks on a map, but how it functions as a society and economy.
Start with a simple fact: over 80 per cent of Malaysians now live in urban areas.
This is no longer a rural-majority country.
Nearly a third of our population is in Selangor, Kuala Lumpur and Putrajaya alone.
Selangor has 12 local authorities, four of which are city councils.
In the Petaling district, all three local councils hold city status.
We’re not dealing with a state anymore – we’re managing a regional megacity.
Yet, our political and policy imagination still lags behind this reality.
The major infrastructure race is largely behind us.
Most of the “big-ticket” transport, energy and connectivity projects have been completed or are being implemented.
We are no longer building for access – we must now build for optimisation.
The next phase of development won’t come from more highways or towers, but from what we do with them: smart logistics, integrated mobility, resilient utilities and competitive services.
Then, there’s the demographic clock.
Malaysia has officially entered the early stages of becoming an ageing nation, with our total fertility rate now below the replacement threshold of 2.1.
This has far-reaching implications: a shrinking workforce, growing pension obligations and increasing demand for quality healthcare.
Unlike countries such as Japan, South Korea, or Singapore – whose population grew rich before they grew old – we are growing old while still navigating our middle-income transition.
That’s a structural mismatch we cannot afford to ignore.
Malaysia is classified as an upper-middle income economy by the World Bank, and our total trade exceeds the size of our gross domestic product (GDP).
We rank among the world’s top 30 trading nations.
Our prosperity is deeply dependent on the global economy.
Our exposure to international supply chains, export markets, and capital flows means we are globally integrated by necessity, not just by aspiration.
Yet, at home, we are more connected than ever.
With broadband penetration exceeding 90 per cent, Malaysia’s digital infrastructure is no longer the bottleneck.
The question now is whether our governance, regulatory systems and talent pipeline can keep pace with this connectivity.
Are we translating digital access into digital productivity?
Our political system has also undergone structural shifts – though not always recognised.
Automatic voter registration and the lowering of the voting age to 18 have introduced a new generation of voters into the system: digitally native, politically alert and largely disengaged from the post-independence political compact.
This demographic shift will reshape political expectations and electoral outcomes in the years ahead.
Meanwhile, a generational turnover is happening within the civil service.
Those retiring this year at the mandatory age of 60 were born in 1965 – the year Singapore separated from Malaysia.
All current civil servants were born after Malaysia’s formation in 1963.
They are products of the New Economic Policy, the National Development Policy and the Vision 2020 era.
Their education was shaped not by colonial syllabi, but by national frameworks under the Education Act of 1996.
The administrative state is now fully post-colonial in generation and worldview.
The judiciary reflects the same evolution.
Every judge currently serving in the higher courts from Peninsular Malaysia was born after Merdeka.
The bench is staffed by Malaysians shaped entirely within the country’s own legal, political and educational systems.
Institutional memory may stretch back, but leadership today is wholly indigenous.
All of these points to one conclusion: Malaysia is not what it used to be – and that’s not a lament.
It’s a call to recalibrate, to liberalise.
We are mostly urban, connected, middle-income and globally exposed.
Yet, we are still operating with assumptions forged in a different era – rural-centric policies, personality-driven governance and siloed statecraft.
Honestly, I’m so done with this nonsense.
Malaysia’s challenge is compounded by the fact that while peers like Indonesia are pushing industrial policy reform and Vietnam is scaling rapidly up the value chain, we remain caught between legacy structures and future ambitions.
Our middle-income status is not destiny – it is a policy choice.
And at present, we are falling behind.
The next national pivot cannot be built on charisma alone.
Leadership in this new operating system requires competence, systems thinking and global benchmarking.
Grand cosmetic launches don’t move the needle.
Limited governments matter. Bold execution matters more.
This isn’t about reinvention – it’s about recognising the system we’re already in and updating our strategic playbook accordingly.
Malaysia doesn’t just need reform – it needs a reboot.
Because in Malaysia of 2025, the old operating system won’t carry us any further.
Updating our playbook starts by recognising where Malaysia truly stands – and building the institutions to match.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of Sarawak Tribune. The writer can be reached at med.akilis@gmail.com
