It starts with Sabah, a lingering wound in Southeast Asian geopolitics. Long claimed by the Philippines and governed by Malaysia, the dispute has flared up again. In 2025, President Marcos Jr. reignited the claim, echoing Duterte’s words: “Sabah is ours. That is historical.” Malaysia fired back. PM Anwar Ibrahim declared: “Sabah will never be part of the Philippines. This is Malaysian territory, full stop.”
But this is no longer just about history. Sabah is now part of a larger power game: the South China Sea standoff. Both nations face Chinese encroachment. But their strategies couldn’t be more different. The Philippines is loud and assertive. After aggressive Chinese actions near Second Thomas Shoal, Manila doubled down. Under the Re-Horizon 3 strategy, it shifted focus from insurgency to external defense. Massive joint drills, new missile systems, and defense ties with the U.S., Japan, and Australia are pushing rapid military modernization.
Malaysia, by contrast, remains quiet but cautious. It avoids public confrontations, even after incursions into its EEZ. Instead, it builds strength behind the scenes, reinforcing East Malaysia, expanding surveillance, and focusing on flexible “Force of the Future” doctrine. It drills near Sabah but avoids the spotlight.
In capability terms, Malaysia leads in airpower and submarines, while the Philippines excels in alliances and momentum. The Philippines fields more troops and ships, but many remain lightly equipped. Still, its modernization is accelerating, and driven by public will. A 2025 poll showed 61% of Filipinos support stronger defense, even at the risk of conflict with China. In Malaysia, 57% prefer diplomacy to escalation.
So, who has the better strategy? Is the Philippines being bold or overreaching? Is Malaysia’s silence wise or risky? And with Sabah back in the spotlight, could this historical dispute turn into Southeast Asia’s next flashpoint? As China tightens its grip, smaller powers must choose: resist loudly, or endure silently?
Defense Budgets: A Race Against Time or a Financial Straitjacket?
In the high-stakes game of Indo-Pacific geopolitics, money is muscle. And in 2025, both the Philippines and Malaysia have opened their wallets wider but are they spending smart, or simply spending more?
Let’s start with the Philippines, where defense has become not just a national security issue, but a matter of national identity. The 2025 approved budget for the Department of National Defense stands at a record-breaking PHP 271.9 billion (approx. US$4.65 billion), a 12.3% increase from 2024. On paper, that’s impressive. But dig deeper, and the cracks start to show. Out of this amount, the Army claims PHP 138.2 billion, followed by the Air Force with PHP 51.6 billion, and the Navy close behind at PHP 51 billion. That means land-based operations still dominate spending, despite the country’s growing maritime threats in the West Philippine Sea.
But here’s the kicker: only PHP 35 billion (US$595 million) is guaranteed for the military modernization fund, a drop from the expected PHP 50 billion. Another PHP 40 billion (US$680 million) is marked as “unprogrammed,” meaning it will only materialize if there are surplus government revenues. As one defense analyst sarcastically put it: “You can’t defend the Spratlys with ‘if funds allow.’”
This raises serious questions. Is US$595 million enough for a military trying to transform itself into a “world-class force” while directly facing off against China’s maritime militia and coast guard? And does the reliance on unprogrammed funds suggest that modernization is more of a political slogan than a sustained national priority? For all the rhetoric, some observers are skeptical. “The ambition is huge. The funding? Not so much.”
Meanwhile, Malaysia’s 2025 defense budget stands at US$4.8 billion (RM 22.5 billion), a noticeable bump from US$4.37 billion in 2024. Of this, US$1.3 billion is specifically set aside for maintenance, repairs, and procurement of new military assets. The country’s defense spending trajectory looks solid, with an expected 8.4% compound annual growth rate (CAGR), potentially reaching US$6.2 billion by 2028. On paper, this sounds like a methodical, upward trend, precisely what you’d want for long-term defense planning.
But there’s a catch, Malaysia’s procurement system has long been haunted by scandal. From the controversial Scorpène submarine deal to more recent reports of overpriced and underdelivered assets, trust in how Malaysia spends its defense budget remains shaky. As one Kuala Lumpur-based analyst remarked in a 2025 defense roundtable: “Malaysia’s issue isn’t money. It’s what happens after the money’s spent.”
So the debate here is equally sharp: Can Malaysia truly convert dollars into strength on the ground, or at sea, if corruption and inefficiency remain unaddressed? Is a bigger budget actually meaningful if projects are delayed, canceled, or quietly swept under the rug? Unlike the Philippines, where the issue is underfunding, Malaysia’s challenge is overpromising and underdelivering.
Both countries, then, are racing against time, but on different tracks. The Philippines faces an immediate and growing external threat, but is stuck with limited guaranteed funds. Malaysia, meanwhile, has the budget and time but struggles with internal accountability. It’s like watching one soldier sprinting with a limp, and the other walking straight but tied to a weight.
This brings us back to the key question: Does a bigger budget equal stronger defense? Or does real power come from how efficiently and honestly that budget is spent?
Land Forces Showdown: Numbers vs. Readiness – A Doctrine Mismatch?
When it comes to ground forces, the Philippines might appear as a land power giant, boasting around 150,000 active troops and a staggering 1.2 million reserve force as of 2025. That’s more than double Malaysia’s active force. But here’s the twist, does quantity equal capability, especially in a 21st-century battlefield dominated by technology, speed, and doctrine?
The Philippine Army (PA) continues to carry the weight of a history deeply entrenched in counter-insurgency operations, shaped by decades of internal conflict against communist rebels and Islamist militants. As one anonymous defense expert bluntly puts it, “The PA is trained to fight rebels in jungles, not divisions on open terrain or amphibious invasions.” Even with modernization funds, this mindset is hard to pivot. In 2025, the Army is operating on a US$2.4 billion budget, a significant share of the defense pie, but how it’s being spent matters more than how much is allocated.
On the ground, the PA is acquiring new tools for mobility and fire support. Deliveries of Bell 412EPX aeromedical helicopters are ongoing, while the country recently received 10 out of 32 ordered S-70i Black Hawk helicopters, part of a deal signed in 2022. It’s also fielding 12 ATMOS 2000 155mm self-propelled howitzers, purchased for $40.8 million, with plans to expand the fleet. These are important upgrades, but many question whether helicopter mobility and artillery alone can offset the structural legacy of a force not yet trained or equipped for large-scale, high-intensity warfare.
Here’s the critical question: Can a force that’s spent most of its existence chasing guerrillas in the mountains rapidly shift to defending reefs, islands, and supply lines against a heavily armed adversary like China or even in a regional flashpoint like Sabah? In an archipelagic setting, mobility is vital, but mobility without protection or firepower might just be a faster way to reach the battlefield… and lose.
Now flip the lens to Malaysia, where the Malaysian Army operates with 113,000 active personnel and around 51,600 reserves. Smaller in manpower, yes but potentially leaner and more lethal. Kuala Lumpur is investing in a mechanized and armor-heavy doctrine, prioritizing firepower over numbers. Their acquisition of AW149 utility and combat search and rescue helicopters is part of a broader strategy, but the real punch comes from main battle tanks like the PT-91M, armored personnel carriers, and a more integrated ground maneuver force.
Balancing Act: The Philippines at the Heart of U.S. Indo-Pacific Strategy
In 2025, Malaysia has earmarked RM 12 billion (approx. US$2.56 billion) for defense procurement across all branches, and a notable portion is directed at the army’s mechanization. This is not just about upgrading, it’s about redefining how wars are fought. As one analyst observed in a recent Kuala Lumpur security forum: “Malaysia is building a force that can hold ground, not just chase threats.”
So here’s the tactical trade-off: The Philippines has boots. Malaysia has armor. In a conventional land conflict, say, a clash in Sabah or a joint defense scenario in East Malaysia, who has the upper hand? Does a larger infantry force with helicopter support beat out a smaller but heavily armored opponent? Or is the Philippines playing catch-up in a domain where it’s still doctrinally outgunned?
Let’s not forget: in a limited land conflict, mobility and airlift capacity matter but firepower, protection, and logistics often decide the outcome. The Philippines is trying to rewire its land doctrine while already on the clock. Malaysia, meanwhile, has built a force more aligned with conventional warfare but with its own challenges in training, sustainment, and modernization speed.
Naval Power Clash: Blue Water Ambitions vs. Archipelagic Realities
In a region where control of the seas defines sovereignty, the naval forces of the Philippines and Malaysia are both navigating turbulent waters, one chasing blue water dreams, the other struggling to keep its fleet afloat amid delays and dysfunction.
The Philippine Navy (PN) in 2025 is on the move, literally and symbolically. With a budget slice of US$870 million and a growing fleet of 90 vessels, the PN ranks 30th globally with a TrueValueRating of 33.7 (WDMMW 2025). The Navy’s active personnel count sits at around 24,500, and while its warships aren’t the most advanced, the emphasis on fleet size and presence reflects a serious shift in doctrine. As one recent YouTube analyst put it: “The PN is signaling a decisive shift from coastal defense to credible deterrence in the increasingly volatile South China Sea.”
This isn’t just rhetoric. The flagship acquisition for 2025 is the much-anticipated HDC-3100 corvette (BRP Miguel Malvar) from Hyundai Heavy Industries, with another due in 2026. At the same time, the PN is overseeing the construction of six new offshore patrol vessels, expanding its ability to patrol its vast maritime territory. But perhaps the most buzzed-about headline: Manila is seriously considering buying at least two submarines, a US$1.5 billion leap that’s drawing both applause and alarm.
Critics aren’t pulling punches. “Procuring submarines without the support infrastructure, trained personnel, and long-term funding? That’s how you build white elephants, not deterrence,” warned one naval strategist in a 2025 defense forum. With only US$595 million guaranteed for modernization this year, and submarine operations being some of the most resource-intensive in the world, the question arises, is the Philippines aiming for prestige at the cost of practicality?
Let’s not forget, what the PN urgently needs is enhanced maritime domain awareness, fast patrol crafts, and coastal radar systems to counter China’s daily grey-zone incursions near Second Thomas Shoal and Sabina Shoal. As one Filipino naval officer bluntly told local media in April: “We don’t need to hide underwater yet, we need to see what’s above the surface first.”
On the other side of the Sulu Sea, the Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN) fields a smaller fleet, just 45 ships, and ranks 32nd globally with a TrueValueRating of 25.7. But unlike the Philippines, Malaysia already owns two Scorpène-class submarines, operational since the late 2000s and has traditionally been viewed as the more technically advanced navy. However, 2025 tells a very different story.
The long-delayed Maharaja Lela-class Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) program has become Malaysia’s naval embarrassment. Launched with much fanfare but plagued by cost overruns, corruption allegations, and mismanagement, the first ship, KD Maharaja Lela, was only 96.52% complete as of July 2025, despite being launched over a decade after the project began. The second vessel, KD Raja Muda Nala, was only just launched on July 3, 2025, years behind schedule. That delay has crippled fleet readiness, leaving RMN with high-tech assets… that are still sitting in dry docks.
So, here’s the debate: Malaysia has submarines and more sophisticated combat systems but can you claim naval superiority if your most advanced platforms are years behind schedule and shrouded in scandal? “You can’t sail on corruption,” a Malaysian opposition MP quipped earlier this year. And with most of RMN’s active platforms dating back to the 1990s or early 2000s, fleet age and operational tempo are growing concerns.
Meanwhile, the Philippines is playing catch-up, but arguably doing it with clearer priorities, getting affordable, multi-role ships in the water now, instead of betting everything on shiny flagship programs that might not float. Manila’s fleet isn’t elegant, but it’s visible, expanding, and increasingly present in contested waters. That’s something the RMN, despite its past reputation, is struggling to match.
Air Power Face-Off: Fighter Gaps, Drones & the Battle for the Skies
In an era where air superiority can tip the balance of power, the skies over Southeast Asia are becoming increasingly contested, and the Philippines and Malaysia are racing to modernize, but on very different trajectories.
Let’s start with the Philippine Air Force (PAF). With a 2025 budget of US$890.5 million, the PAF is making strides, but is it enough? The most anticipated arrival: 12 brand-new FA-50 Block 20 light fighters, set to double its supersonic fleet. Add to that six more A-29B Super Tucano light attack aircraft expected by 2026, and you have a force that’s growing, but still fundamentally limited.
But the ambitions are bigger. Defense Secretary Gilberto Teodoro Jr. dropped a major hint in July 2025: “We need tankers, we need sustainment… It’s easy to buy, but the real challenge is maintaining these systems with adequate reserves and munitions.” The Philippines is also eyeing Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft and plans to acquire at least 40 multi-role fighter jets, with F-16s and Gripens on the table.
The debate? All this sounds bold but is it viable? Critics argue that light fighters and prop-driven attack aircraft may offer some air defense utility, but they’re far from air superiority platforms in the face of modern threats from China or even regional adversaries. “What good is a fighter without radar coverage or refueling support?” one aviation analyst asked bluntly. And with modernization budgets still relying heavily on unprogrammed funds, is the MRF dream just talk?
Switch over to Malaysia, and you get a more diverse but fragmented picture. The Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF) is expecting a wave of new gear between October 2025 and 2028 including FA-50 light combat aircraft, maritime patrol aircraft (MPAs), air defense radars, and new helicopters. But that’s not all. Malaysia is also adding three Anka-S combat drones from Türkiye, a move signaling serious investment in surveillance and unmanned capability. Plus, it’s leasing up to 28 Leonardo helicopters, including the AW149, with deliveries starting in 2026.
So what’s the catch? Despite the variety, the RMAF faces a familiar enemy: fleet complexity. With a mix of Russian, American, European, and now Turkish systems, interoperability becomes a nightmare. Logistics, maintenance, and training pipelines are stretched thin. “They’re buying puzzle pieces from different games,” a retired RMAF officer joked in a recent defense forum.
Here’s the core debate: Does Malaysia’s diversified air strategy, blending manned jets, drones, and patrol assets, create practical adaptability, or is it building a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none force that risks fragmentation in real combat?
Strategic Chessboard: Alliances, Autonomy & the Indo-Pacific Tug-of-War
In the high-stakes game of Indo-Pacific geopolitics, the Philippines and Malaysia aren’t just upgrading weapons, they’re making strategic bets on survival, sovereignty, and global alliances.
South China Sea – Two Strategies, One Pressure Point: At the frontlines of maritime tension, the Philippines is leaning hard into alliances. After years of gray-zone confrontations with China, Manila has doubled down on military pacts, forging deeper ties with the U.S., Japan, Australia, South Korea, and even exploring links with France, Italy, and the UK. The game-changer? Plans for a U.S. ammunition depot and factory in Subic, a stark signal that Western powers are back in force.
Meanwhile, Malaysia is walking a tightrope, holding onto a “diplomatic first” posture, guided by UNCLOS principles and ASEAN solidarity. In a May 2025 press release, the Malaysian Foreign Ministry reiterated: “Malaysia firmly holds the view that matters relating to the South China Sea must be resolved peacefully and constructively.”
A New Cold War Weapon? NMESIS Deployed in the Philippines During Balikatan
Debate Point: Is Manila’s alliance strategy a crucial shield against Chinese aggression, or a dangerous proxy trap that could drag the Philippines into a bigger war? Is Kuala Lumpur’s non-aligned stance offering strategic flexibility or quietly ceding space in the face of incremental Chinese encroachment?
Foreign Aid vs. Independent Procurement: On the hardware side, the Philippines is powered by U.S. FMS, with ongoing support from Japan, South Korea, and Australia, not just equipment, but joint patrols and war games. In contrast, Malaysia is diversifying, adding Turkish drones, Italian helicopters, and European systems to its arsenal. The approach? Strategic independence, but at the cost of interoperability headaches.
Debate Point: Is the Philippines’ dependency on external aid strategic realism, or a dangerous erosion of autonomy? And does Malaysia’s “mix-and-match” procurement strategy enable true self-reliance, or create a patchwork force lacking synergy?
Self-Reliant Defense Posture (SRDP): Rhetoric or Reality? The Philippines passed its SRDP
Revitalization Act in October 2024, an ambitious move toward local defense manufacturing, tech transfer, and homegrown industry. Malaysia, meanwhile, is pushing ASEAN defense collaboration and actively courting defense investments, as showcased at the ADMM Retreat 2025.
But here’s the burning question: Can either country really build a viable defense industry from scratch, under budget constraints and foreign tech restrictions? Or is SRDP more symbolic posturing than a tangible path to independence?
Conclusion: A Looming Gap or Converging Capabilities? A Test of Political Will
As we close this Southeast Asian military face-off, one thing is clear: this isn’t just about tanks, ships, or fighter jets, it’s about political will, strategic clarity, and the sheer ability to adapt under pressure.
Malaysia may hold the edge in conventional firepower today, built on years of consistent (if sometimes inefficient) defense spending and a doctrine favoring mechanized, balanced forces. But its slow-moving procurement processes, plagued by scandals and delays, beg the question: Is Malaysia still capable of turning spending into real strength?
The Philippines, once focused almost entirely on counter-insurgency, is now in hyperdrive transformation mode, accelerating defense reform, forging powerful global alliances, and trying to close decades-old capability gaps in just a few years. Yet it still struggles with limited guaranteed modernization funds, doctrinal inertia, and an urgent need to train for external threats in a hostile maritime domain.
Debate Point: Will Manila’s rapid, alliance-fueled pivot finally create a credible deterrent against regional threats like China, or burn out due to political turnover, budget shortfalls, and strategic overstretch? Will Malaysia’s steady, self-reliant doctrine win in the long run, or is it quietly falling behind in a region that rewards speed, adaptability, and partnerships?
The Future? The real contest isn’t Philippines vs. Malaysia. It’s Ambition vs. Execution. Both countries talk of modernization, deterrence, and sovereignty. But only those who back words with sustained funding, integrated strategy, and institutional discipline will truly shape the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific.
