APRIL 6 — Whether a ceasefire materialises in West Asia or not is, increasingly, beside the point.
The deeper reality confronting Malaysia — and Asean more broadly — is that the current crisis has already crossed the threshold from a geopolitical event into a structural disruption.
The war has begun to rewire energy flows, distort supply chains, and embed long-term volatility into global markets.
In other words, even if the guns fall silent tomorrow, the aftershocks will not.
This is precisely why Malaysia must take future studies seriously — not as an academic indulgence, but as a core instrument of national survival.
For too long, policymaking across much of South-east Asia has been reactive.
Governments respond to crises once they materialised, often with speed and competence, but rarely with sufficient anticipation. Notwithstanding the fact that Malaysia actually has an Institute of Future Studies (IFS) which is located next to the Institute of International and Asean Studies (IINTAS).
The Covid-19 pandemic exposed the limitation to think ahead. To Azam Aris, the Editor Emeritus of The Edge, what ever oil crisis that Malaysia and Asean has before in 1973-1974, indeed, in 1979, and once again in 2008, when the prices of oil shot through the roof, most of the government agencies have failed to learn the lessons completely. Azam Aris referred to these lessons as half learned lessons. We can talk about alternative energy but we are still unable to free ourselves from fossil fuel.
The current West Asia war is reinforcing the supply disruption. The difference now is that the crisis is not a one-off shock.
It is part of a broader pattern of recurring disruptions — what scholars increasingly describe as a “polycrisis,” where energy, food, finance, and geopolitics intersect and amplify one another.
Professor Ziauddin Sardar and Scott Jordan who lead the IFS spoke of the need of polylogue. Dialogue alone is not enough. All sectors must learn how to engage each other and to act swiftly and collectively.
Malaysia cannot afford to treat each crisis in isolation. Neither can Asean.
Nowhere is this more evident than in the evolving situation in the Strait of Hormuz. What appears geographically distant is, in fact, systemically central. The Strait of Malacca is equally important.
At any rate, the chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz has already led to a severe constriction of global flows. How?
Empirically, roughly one-fifth of the world’s fuel supply passes through it; up to one-third of globally traded fertilisers depend on it; nearly two-fifths of helium critical for semiconductor manufacturing is routed through its network; and about half of the world’s sulphur — essential for both agriculture and industry — moves through the same corridor.
This is not merely a disruption of oil shipments. It is a disruption of the foundational inputs that sustain modern economies.
The implications are immediate and far-reaching. Future Studies, which means future strategic planning, is essential. Indeed, critical.
Energy prices are rising. But so are the price of the shipping routes; when in fact during peace time the price of maritime trade is usually 1/3 cheaper than any land route. Not surprisingly, the cost of fertilisers and animal feed escalates sharply.
In turn, food production becomes more expensive, industrial output slows, and inflationary pressures begin to entrench themselves across multiple sectors.
Even in advanced economies, the strain is evident. When fuel prices rise beyond politically tolerable levels, strategic ambitions begin to narrow.
Expansionary policies give way to domestic economic management. This is not a matter of ideology, but of arithmetic. Energy inflation constrains power.
For Malaysia, the lesson is not to wait for the crisis to escalate further before acting. It is to think systematically about what comes next.
Future studies offers precisely that framework. It is not about predicting a single outcome. It is about preparing for multiple plausible futures.
It asks uncomfortable but necessary questions: What if energy prices remain elevated for five years? What if key maritime chokepoints become intermittently unstable?
What if global supply chains fragment further along geopolitical lines? What if food inflation becomes structurally embedded rather than cyclical?
These are no longer hypothetical scenarios. They are emerging realities.
Yet Malaysia’s institutional engagement with future studies remains limited. While there are pockets of excellence within academia and government agencies, there is no fully integrated national framework that connects foresight with policy execution. This gap must be addressed urgently.
First, Malaysia needs a dedicated national foresight architecture — one that brings together economists, security analysts, climate scientists, technologists, and strategic planners into a coherent system of scenario-building and long-term assessment.
This cannot be a siloed exercise. It must be embedded within the highest levels of decision-making, including the National Security Council and key economic ministries.
Second, Asean itself must elevate future studies as a regional priority. The challenges posed by the West Asia crisis are not confined to any single country. They are systemic. Asean’s strength has always been its capacity for consultation and coordination.
That capacity must now extend into structured foresight exercises, joint scenario planning, and shared contingency frameworks. Third, there must be a shift in public discourse.
Too often, crises are framed in terms of immediate impact — price increases, supply shortages, fiscal pressures — without sufficient attention to their long-term implications.
Future studies requires a different mindset. It demands that societies think beyond the present, that they recognise patterns, and that they prepare for sustained uncertainty rather than temporary disruption. This is where leadership becomes critical. It must be calm. Not chaotic.
Calmness is essential. But calmness without foresight is insufficient.
A society can remain composed and still be unprepared. What Malaysia requires is a combination of composure and anticipation.
The experience of countries such as Sri Lanka and Lebanon illustrates what happens when structural vulnerabilities collide with external shocks.
Economic stress accumulates quietly, often masked by short-term fixes, until it reaches a tipping point.
When that point is crossed, policy options narrow dramatically, and recovery becomes far more painful.
Malaysia is not in that position. But that is precisely why it must act now.
There is also a broader intellectual challenge. Future studies must be grounded not only in technical analysis, but also in civilisational wisdom.
Both Islamic and Confucian traditions emphasise prudence, moderation, and long-term thinking.
In the West that is the Aristotelian concept of the Golden Mean too.
The concept of Chung Yung in Confucianism, and the Islamic emphasis on balance (wasatiyyah), both point to the importance of avoiding extremes — whether of complacency or panic.
In practical terms, this means building resilience before crises deepen.
It means diversifying energy sources, strengthening regional supply chains, investing in food security, and ensuring that fiscal policies can absorb prolonged external shocks.
With or without a ceasefire in West Asia, the trajectory of global uncertainty is already set in motion.
The question is no longer whether Malaysia will be affected. It is whether Malaysia will be prepared.
Future studies, therefore, is not a luxury. It is a necessity. And the time to act on it is now.
* Phar Kim Beng is a professor of Asean Studies and director at the Institute of International and Asean Studies, International Islamic University of Malaysia.
** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
