2022 National Security Budget

A RMAF Hawk and a Hornet flew alongside a B-52. USAF

SHAH ALAM: 2022 National Security Budget. The Defence Ministry is getting RM16.14 billion in the 2022 budget while the Home Ministry was allocated RM17.089 billion. This is the third year running that the Home Ministry got a higher allocation than Defence, following the government decision in 2019 to move the MMEA in the former. The national security sector got RM33 billion out of the RM332.1 billion allocated for 2022 or around 10 per cent of the total budget.

The 2022 allocation for Defence is an increase of some RM280 million allocated in 2021. Next year’s budget for Home Ministry is also a slight increase from 2021, which was RM16.85 billion. As usual there was no specific procurement programmers outlined in the budget documents apart from a couple of things mentioned in the speech.

The Nexter Systems Caesar 155mm/52 SPH displayed at DSA 2016.

From the Finance Minister budget speech:

Kemakmuran ekonomi tidak akan tercapai tanpa negara yang aman dan damai. Bagi tahun hadapan, Bajet ini menyediakan peruntukan kepada Kementerian Pertahanan dan Kementerian Dalam Negeri masing-masing sebanyak 16 bilion dan 17 bilion ringgit.

Antaranya sejumlah 1.6 bilion ringgit diperuntukkan untuk mempertingkatkan kesiagaan aset-aset utama Angkatan Tentera Malaysia. Peruntukan ini turut melibatkan 14 juta ringgit bagi mengganti peralatan utama PASKAL dan PASKAU seperti payung terjun, alat selam litar tertutup dan bot.

Kebajikan anggota-anggota polis dan tentera kita juga tetap menjadi keutamaan. Bagi tahun hadapan, 230 juta ringgit disediakan untuk kerja-kerja menyelenggara sekolah dalam kem tentera, fasiliti ketenteraan dan Rumah Keluarga Angkatan Tentera. Peruntukan ini turut melibatkan penggantian dan pembaikan lif serta kuarters PDRM.

Nuri replacement. The Airbus EC 725 AP. An EC725 dropping a Paskau team at the Kota Belud ATG range on Nov. 21, 2017.

Operating expenditure (OE) for Defence in 2022 is RM11.05 billion, a slight decrease compared to last year, which was RM11.35 billion. Development Expenditure (DE) increase by some RM400 million to RM5.04 billion in 2022 compared to RM4.5 billion in 2021. What is interesting the allocation for asset procurement goes up to RM5.04 billion in 2022, it was RM4.5 billion last year.

A CGI of P-4 MPA by De Havilland and PAL Aerospace. PAL Aerospace

The DE for the Army in 2022 is RM175 million while equipment is RM1.12 billion; the RMN is RM68 million and RM1.07 billion; RMAF RM39 million and RM1.6 billion and Joint Force Command RM82 million and RM298 million. Interestingly STRIDE is receiving RM40 million in funds in 2022 compared to RM7 million in 2021 and RM5 million in 2020. The Armed Forces quarters development is allocated RM488 million this year compared RM293 million last year and RM166 in 2020.

TAI Anka UAV on finals. TAI

The OE for the Home Ministry is RM13.5 billion while the DE is RM3.5 billion. The bulk of the OE and DE for the Home Ministry is of course allocated to the PDRM which is getting RM2.05 billion for its DE budget. MMEA is getting RM183 million in DE for 2022 compared to RM141 million in 2021.
KM Bagan Datuk (right) and the third NGPC – 4543 – at Destini shipbuilding yard at Port Klang.

What this means in terms of procurement? We will have to wait and see then.

— Malaysian Defence

If you like this post, buy me an espresso. Paypal Payment

About Marhalim Abas 2203 Articles
Shah Alam


  1. A good start for the air force procurement plans. Do you see a restart with the navy’s LCS program with next year’s allocation? And the army will have their SPH I hope.
    Would be interesting to see what STRIDE has to offer. They must have presented a very good sell to the FM to be able to get such a big increase in allocation.
    Also, let hope we don’t see those BMW in the police force anytime soon.

  2. Ed – “they must have presented a very good sell to the FM to be able to get such a big increase”

    Not necessarily. We’ve long had a penchant for spending cash on local entities under the illusion it actually benefits the country.
    When it comes to testing stuff, including how they perform in local conditions and ballistic effects, STRIDE does a decent job. It however has yet to come up with something truly “local” which meets the end users requirements. The laser guided 155mm round [a Krasnapol copy from China] which we were told not to discuss died a natural death. No news is forthcoming about the 120mm mortar [based on a Slovakian design] that was said to be the lightest.

  3. Alhamdulilah, in increase in defence budget is always a welcome. Then again I agree with other commenters before that its better to change the procurement policy rather than having budget increase.

    – With RMAF getting usd400 million, I would say half of that is enough to cover the 2 new MPAs and 3 MALE UAVs (hopefully not the expensive ANKA). The rest of the budget could be allocated for a new radar and maybe 3-5 units of LCA

    – RMN well urgh its not big surprise no budget allocated for LCS due to the ongoing investigation. with usd250 million, I hope RMN spend it wisely ie getting the Helos, UAVs and LMS.

    – I am guessing that the Army wanted the SPH as soon as possible while getting as many 6×6 as they could.

    – What is MMEA next plan after getting the 3 DAMEN 1800 OPV during RMK12? More NGPC and UAV? Please enlighten me.

    – I am note sure what STRIDE may offer. My guess would be body armor or small arms/munitions related stuffs.

  4. Hmm… should we be happy there was no decrease in defence budget? Factored in currency exchange differences, the RM300mil increase will be gobbled up so let’s assume the total to spend is about the same. See the budget comparison will show there isn’t much significant changes from last year:

    TDM RM 1.12Bil(2022), RM 1.02Bil(2021)
    TLDM RM 1.07Bil(2022), RM 1.15Bil(2021)
    TUDM RM 1.6Bil(2022), RM 1.5Bil(2021)

    With roughly the same budget, what did all 3 get this year? Nothing much, except utility vehicles for ATM, MUH for TLDM. So I’m not expecting much either for this year.

    Rather than see the yearly budget, I want to see what’s planned for RMK12.

  5. From what I hear through insiders in this company, BNS facing serious cashflow problem (paid bonuses to management, extreme spending, paid considerable sums for Korean consultation fees etc.). So now they are requesting for gov to pay more (in billions) than the contractual amount to enable the ships to resume. Gov refused. Hence, such a fiasco. LCS will probably cost few billions (upwards 2-3 bil) per ship than 1.5 bil as signed in contract. Good luck to us 🙁

  6. @Joe
    Nice, appreciate the comparison Joe. Yeah sure the increase is minimal but it sure is a proof that we are at least maintaining the annual budget allocation. Obviously we didn’t get to see any big ticket announced since 2020 due to the pandemic. Hopefully the money saved would be used wisely in 2022-2025 where we could see the early result of our past 3 years of planning. My big concern is what are going to get for the MALE UAV.

  7. Luqman,

    Anka is priced for a reason and it’s not expensive if we compare it to a U.S. system. Lets not even mention Wing Loong as poltical considerations means we won’t buy it.

    Also, even if Anka is expensive, if it meets our requirements then in the long run it will be a good return in investment,not to mention the fact that we need a certain level of quality to make up for the lack of quantity or mass.

    We need a UAS which is not too expensive to fly and maintain, one which is already integrated to carry certain payloads and one we can operate for a certain period of time without worrying about product support and wear and tear.

    Yes we have to change the way we do things if we’re ever going to energe from the rut we’ve long been in but it will require deep poltical and institutional changes to the whole defence policy,not just ptocurement.

  8. Althought these excerpts are in reference to another country, they could also be applied to Malaysia where an overstretched and under resourced MAF has to deal with poltical and public indiffrence, not too mention a clear appraisal of the role the MAF plays both in peacetime and times of conflict.

    “The issue is not just a matter of funding and size, but also under utilization of existing assets capabilities or acquiring in sufficient capability”

    “Politicians fail to understand the fact there is no surplus equipment that we can acquire to shore up our defences like there use to be in the 1960’s, and what equipment is available takes time to regenerate and requires a significant investment in training, that still doesn’t compensate for institutional knowledge and experience.”

    “There is also a failure to understand at a political level that the nature and way wars are being fought has changed”

  9. @Luqman
    “it sure is a proof that we are at least maintaining the annual budget allocation”
    At what cost? The over budget is RM 332Bil and that is only possible cuz we lifted the debt ceiling, we are spending today what we pay by credit card. Unfortunately, in politics, it would be a courageous decision to lower it, and indeed it had taken down a ruling Govt before so due to political expediency our children will be paying for what we spend today.

    AFAIK Govt yearly budgets don’t roll onto the new year, unless its something from RMKs, hence why many agencies & ministries do rush to buy something during Q3-Q4 in order to finishup the budget.

    “its better to change the procurement policy”
    Santa Claus has a higher chance of being real than this every happening. No one involved in it will want it to change. No Government will want to change policies that put it into power. And defence procurement had always been murky waters in any country as it has security implications. Airing our dirty laundry out to dry only works to our potential adversaries benefit.

  10. @Marhalim.
    BNS contracted Korean consultants for advise company on how to “transform” their business. Started since the Gagah Samudera Class time.

  11. Kamal – :Started since the Gagah Samudera Class time.”

    That involved a Korean yard which designed the ships. Trouble occured when the local company had cash issues. Were there Korean “consultants” per see?

  12. @Kamal
    Likely they were taken aboard for the completion of those Samuderas but now these are commissioned by TLDM, perhaps they were let go or perhaps are still kept around for the warranty period duration.

  13. No lah, BNS got nothing to do with the completion of the Samuderas. I have no idea whether there were any Korean consultants with BNS during that period or even before that

  14. Marhalim,
    “Where” as in not enough to kick start any of the RMAF plans?
    Of the many STRIDE reengineering efforts, it failed because it did not meet the army requirement or lack of resources/commitment to complete the project?

  15. Ed,

    Both. We also don’t have the economics of scale. If STRIDE comes up with something sound, will the army be allocated the resources to buy it in numbers and can it be exported in numbers? We have many grandiose poltically driven plans which supposedly will result in long term tangible benefits but ultimately, we a lack a clear/holistic policy and insufficent resources.

  16. The excerpts below echo my thoughts and are highly relevant to us. We first have to decide what types of conflicts we’re expected to face and under what circumstances.
    There must also be a clear and realistic appraisal on the part of the political leadership of what the MAF can and can’t handle. We can plan for a variety of threats but realistically can only deal with a select few. The idea which some have; that of deterring China is cloud cuckoo land thinking. in the event of troubles with China we will be acting in concert with Tier 1 partners and will play a periphery/secondary role.

    ”Shopping lists are very relevant, but only when coherently presented in concert with a clear strategic role. We see these ‘lists’ fairy regularly on this & like-minded forums and it does the collective heads of some of us in… some are pet projects at best! You can tell the real Defence Professionals on here… they don’t get into these random lists but will give you a logical & balanced opinion & what is likely to achieve it’

    ”The question of what sort of weapons one needs is secondary… the primary question to answer is what should the Govt mandate the NZDF to do…. given the increasing security concerns in this region the current mandate seems to rapidly becoming ignorant, irrelevant, un-ambitious (is that even a word?) & in many ways ambiguous. Only once strategic roles are defined can you start considering what equipment (not just weapons) that might be needed.’

  17. Azlan,
    Make one wonder how serious they were to have the part on building a self-sufficient defence industry in the Defence White Paper. Surely they must have a coordinated plan between Mindef, Armed Force, and STRIDE to focus only on realistically feasible and needed research that will roll out in the production line and not “died a natural death”.
    You are right about our force defence capability, which for me comes about from the government lack of a continuous future proof defence investment. Again for me, the armed force greatest asset should be the people, followed by a system to could sustain growth and lastly, keep the force abreast with the current technology available. Realistically, this takes commitment, time to build and money, such is the tangible investment.
    With the pandemic and political situation, our defence will definitely to suffer further.

  18. We must live with china economically and diplomatically as we are a direct neighbour to the dragon empire, unlike countries with large standoff distances like Australia or New Zealand.

    Deterrence against china is still needed in the context of our defence. But peacetime security and the freedom to undertake our daily economic activities in our EEZ is and should be the main agenda of our defence posture in regards to China.

    Our deterrence should be planned to take into account the capabilities and actions of our tier 1 partners. Our deterrence plan against a bigger power should enable us to strike back at any aggression and slow the enemy enough to for any help to come from our tier 1 partners.

    Our peacetime security posture should enable us to fully secure our EEZ, with full situational awareness sub-surface, surface and air domains. We should be able to prevent the chinese coast guard from harassing any malaysian economic activities in our EEZ, while at the same time denying chinese fishing boats from doing the same.

    The best way to secure the freedom to do daily economic activities in our EEZ could be done by prioritizing capability increase of our MMEA, something many in the military and even the government does not want to hear, or accept.

  19. Azlan, i totally agree we have to identify which conflicts we are expected to face and and buy the necessary equipment to face these challenges. However, i feel our Defence needs are often decided by politicians who decide what weapons to purchase without proper consultation with our defence personels using it. From to purchase of the Albatros (sea planes), the Caracels (no one from the RMAF evaluated them? ), the MD 530 (where they really requested by the Army?) . We have equiped our forces with not what is required or asked for…..but provided what politicians think we can do with. I believe our men in uniform are well informed of the conflict they face, but their biggest enemy are the people who not provide them with the necessary weapons (or enough of).

  20. @gonggok
    Can we realistically deter the dragon empire? Nope.
    Then I ask who are our “Tier 1” partners, and what did they do for us during the Sarawak airspace incursion back in May?

    If they decided to send a CBG skirting around our EEZ or another air incursion, we can’t do jackshit to chase them away, the best we could show them their presence does not go unnoticed and we always have radars, ships & planes to shadow their movements until they leave.

  21. Charlie – “our Defence needs are often decided by politicians who decide”

    Mahathir introduced the policy in which purchases were based not on actual effectiveness, sutability, commonality or cost effectiveness but on how it would benefit the country. The situation we have now with the local industry getting precedence is also due to him.

    The MKMs,Fulcrums, PT-91s,Laksamanas,Jernas and various other things were due to him, the result was a MAF which had a large footprint, stuff ill suited, one we couldn’t afford to sustain and one with a bit of eveything but not enough of anything..

    Yet some with horizons as large as toilet bowls will insist that if it’s allright for others, the same applies to us.

  22. @ joe

    Are we at war now with china? nope.

    Our peacetime QRA and air policing duties should always be the responsibility of TUDM, not our defence partners. We have high end fighters but we don’t have the money to regularly operate them as our QRA aircraft. Which is why during the sarawak airspace incursion the Hawks are scrambled to barely meet with some of the PLA air force transporters.

    You need to be able to differentiate things we need to prepare when war does happen; compared to things we need to do and prepare to secure our land, sea and air in everyday peacetime situation.

  23. “the Hawks are scrambled to barely meet with some of the PLA air force transporters.”

    It was a peacetime incident in which the circumstances were ideal for the Hawks, in that subsonic aircraft were heading towards our airspace. In a scenario where foreign aircraft were at some distance away and heading away rather than towards, the Hawks might have faced issues.

    It’s plainly obvious that nobody external wise would have done anything as it was a peactime incident, we are not treaty linked and the PLAAF planes did not enter our sovereign airspace.

    Note also that legally military aircraft in inyernational airspace are not required to respond to ATC or even to switch their transponders on.

    Note however that the U.S. did issue a statement and that when the Petronas contracted ship was shadowed, there was first a USN and later a RAN ship in visual contact. We also benefit in various other ways which are noy plainly obvious and which do not make news.

    Plainly obvious but worth pointing due to certain misconceptions and cases of shooting the wrong calibre syndrome some seem to have but in times of actual conflict, it would be in the interests of Tier 1 countries to help us, which incidently is precisely why we have such extensive and deep rooted contacts with the U.S and Australia and why we [like others] maintain our FPDA commitments. It’s a combination of exercises, people to people contacts, exchanges and diplomacy.

  24. “Airing our dirty laundry out to dry only works to our potential adversaries benefit.”

    Who are you kidding. The cock ups and their implications are plainly obvious to a casual observer, what more to a “potential adversary.”

  25. @gonggok
    How would you know when a war is going to happen? Will China send us a nice note 24hrs prior to declaring war? Nope.

    The defence of our country is ours and ours alone. It is pointless to hope the Western Powers will to save us. If they are not coming when there is a serious incursion then when are they coming? When the invasion force has landed? When 50% of country is taken, or 90% is gone? What about if they chose to destroy our defence equipment, military installations & strategic assets (power, water, road arteries, etc) but did NOT invade until they come a second round?

    Believe me when I say, we do not and cannot prepare for a war with a superpower. No way.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.