Datuk Prof Dr Mohd Faiz Abdullah appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on March 2, 2026 – March 8, 2026
Throughout history, philosophers have long postulated on the crucial need to maintain a balance between human existence and the environment, and their ideas, bearing the bezels of wisdom, still resonate in today’s climate discourse.
Confucius once stated that “harmony is the most valuable of all things”, indicating that our actions must be in rhythm with nature. Jainism teaches the principle of ahimsa, an all-encompassing philosophy, articulated in the words of Mahavira that “true penance is to protect life”. In Islam, it is incumbent on mankind as stewards (khalifah) on earth, to be its caretaker as enjoined in the Quran and “it is He who has made you successors upon the earth” (6:165).
As we stand at a crossroads, these profound philosophical statements serve not only as a prelude to understanding the climate crisis but as a clarion call for an urgent and new take on how we should respect and safeguard our planet.
For Malaysia, the luxury of treating climate change as an environmental sidebar is long gone. It has become a structural variable in national security, impacting fiscal stability, industrial policy, diplomatic posture and social cohesion. As the awareness debate becomes passé, the discourse on alignment takes on new-fangled urgency.
Far from being merely a humanitarian crisis, the floods of December 2021 was a debacle of national consequence. Losses reached RM6.1 billion. Industrial zones in Shah Alam and Klang were paralysed. Public funds were redirected towards relief and reconstruction.
When a single climatic episode can erase months of output, climate risk becomes macroeconomic risk, posing an acid test on institutional preparedness and physical infrastructure.
Nevertheless, we are not on a sinking ship, at least not yet. The SMART Tunnel in Kuala Lumpur, which diverted floodwaters from the city centre and mitigated damage, stands as an example of foresight. Yet that same episode exposed deeper fissures in less than optimum land-use management, drainage coordination and enforcement. Engineering solutions cannot indefinitely make up for fragmented governance.
However, there is no gainsaying that Malaysia’s climate commitments are nothing to sniff at: a 45% reduction in carbon intensity by 2030 relative to 2005 levels, an aspiration for net zero carbon emissions by as early as 2050, and a transition roadmap projecting renewable energy at 70% of installed capacity by mid-century. On top of that, billions of ringgit have been allocated to flood mitigation and resilience.
These commitments signal earnest intent, but as we know that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, it bears reminding that success can only be attained with systemic coherence.
Electricity demand has spiked, driven by digital expansion and new data centres in Johor and Selangor. There is no free lunch here because growth comes with a price. As fossil fuels still anchor the generation mix, unless there is decisive grid reform, storage investment and disciplined transition planning, we risk heading straight into even greater carbon dependence. Fragility, thy name is expansion without resilience!
The stakes are high. Our maritime gateways, such as Port Klang and Tanjung Pelepas, underpin Malaysia’s trade credibility, where industrial corridors along the Strait of Malacca are exposed to the vagaries of sea level fluctuations and extreme weather. When hinterland connectivity is disrupted, containers stall, contracts slip and insurance costs surge. Climate exposure thus intersects directly with trade and competitiveness.
Along the east coast of Peninsular Malaysia, increasingly volatile monsoons impinge on small-scale fishing communities. Prolonged downtimes drain further the shallow pockets of households already operating on narrow margins. Yet the more pressing concern is not disrupted fishing days but resource stress from depleting fish stocks caused by the rising sea temperatures, shifting currents and coastal degradation.
When natural resources that underpin livelihoods grow scarcer, it breeds structural vulnerability. Falling marine yields, freshwater unpredictability and the ups and downs of agricultural productivity take a severe toll on communities, state finances and food systems. This, in turn, compels governments to fork out greater subsidies even as rural-urban migration of agricultural communities continues apace, while social tensions mount in the scramble for diminishing resources.
Scarcity as a threat multiplier
From this prism, it becomes clear that localised ecological strain is no longer a peripheral but a foundational threat to national security. As a threat multiplier, scarcity distorts economic behaviour, compounds risks and strains institutional capacity. Not that it is of any consolation, but the pressures observed in coastal Malaysia are also experienced elsewhere.
Hence, the domestic picture cannot be separated from global trends. Resource scarcity is already reshaping relations between states, escalating pre-existing tensions and forcing recalibration in alliances. When scarcity converges with climate stress, the multiplier effect widens.
Recent assessments by the UN indicate that roughly 10% of the global population lives under high or critical water stress. Close to 900 million people experience food insecurity in varying degrees. The 2025 Ecological Threat Report projects that by 2050, nearly 2.8 billion people could reside in countries facing severe ecological threats. That is a billion more people than in 2024.
In the Indo-Pacific, these dynamics unfold amid intensifying strategic rivalry. Energy transition supply chains, from critical minerals to advanced technological components, are increasingly geopolitical while geo-engineering issues have a way of complicating trust relations between states. Climate transformation, therefore, runs alongside great power competition, not apart from it, much like defence, economic planning and foreign policy.
Climate security as preventive statecraft
Climate security must be understood beyond disaster response. In as much as embedding climate risk in fiscal planning should be standard practice, major public investments must also warrant similar appraisal. While industrial incentives must align with decarbonisation pathways, defence planning must integrate climate projections, particularly for coastal installations and humanitarian response capacity.
Institutional recalibration, therefore, is necessary. First, climate security requires central coordination. Fragmented ministerial approaches dilute accountability and coherence. A whole-of-government framework, with measurable benchmarks, is indispensable.
Second, resilience rests on social foundations. Infrastructure alone cannot stabilise societies under sustained environmental stress. Transition finance for small and medium enterprises, retraining for workers in carbon-intensive sectors and equitable adaptation mechanisms are strategic investments in cohesion.
Third, climate cooperation can provide strategic ballast in an era of rivalry. Joint early warning systems, coordinated river basin management and structured dialogue on energy transition supply chains can build confidence grounded in shared vulnerability.
The rising tides confronting Malaysia may be measured in centimetres but the repercussions amount to billions of ringgit. As climate considerations have a strategic thrust, they cannot be a mere addendum to economic, defence or other factors but are central to the assumptions upon which stability itself is constructed.
In an era defined by heightened ecological constraint and intensified geopolitical competition, durable security will depend on whether climate risk is internalised as a core organising principle of governance. Climate security is no rhetorical flourish but a resolute statecraft for an increasingly turbulent future.
This article first appeared in Forum, The Edge Malaysia Weekly on March 2, 2026 – March 8, 2026
