By Mohamad Hazwan Mohd Daut and Amirah Mohammad Sidik

Introduction

Malaysia today stands at a critical crossroads in securing its food future.

Despite its fertile lands and long agricultural legacy, the nation continues to grapple with deepening food security and sustainability challenges. Current self-sufficiency ratios (SSR) tell a sobering story, with rice hovering around 50-60 per cent, fruits about 78-80 per cent, and meat below 25 per cent, reflecting a growing dependence on food imports to meet local demand.

Recognising this pressing issue, the government has made food security a national priority under the Thirteenth Malaysia Plan (13MP, 2026-2030). Within the plan’s first pillar, enhancing economic diversity, one of the headline priorities is the reinforcement of food security, supported by three strategic thrusts: increasing food production, strengthening food supply security, and fortifying supply chains.

Under the overall 13MP framework, the economic sector, which includes agriculture, has been given the largest allocation at 52.8 per cent of total development expenditure, and it is projected to grow the agricultural sector by 1.5 per cent annually during the plan period.

Complementing this broader framework, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food Security (KPKM) has introduced supporting initiatives aimed at revitalising the sector, including cultivating five-planting-seasons paddy across two years to raise yield, improving drainage and irrigation systems, producing higher-quality crop varieties and livestock breeds, and integrating technology into traditional agricultural practices.

These efforts are well-aligned with the National Agrofood Policy 2.0 (DAN 2.0), which sets ambitious improvement targets for Malaysia’s self-sufficiency across key commodities such as rice, fruits and meat as part of a broader national vision to achieve a resilient, high-tech and sustainable agro-food ecosystem by 2030.

Historical Context: Malaysia as an industrial crops fuelled nation

Long before the chatter around food self-sufficiency and smart farms, Malaysian agriculture was being shaped by a very different set of priorities. At the turn of the 20th century and well into the post-independence era, the land that might have grown our daily rice, fruits or vegetables ended up instead planted with rubber trees and oil palm which were the crops grown not primarily to feed Malaysians, but to earn export income and supply global industrial chains.

Under British colonial rule, the emphasis was firmly on commercial plantation crops. Rubber was introduced and developed on a large scale to serve the booming automobile and industrial sectors overseas, whilst oil palm, cocoa and other “economic crops” became major pillars in the economy.

For example, in the period 1985-1995, Malaysia’s land under oil palm grew from around 1.48 million hectares to 2.54 million hectares (average annual growth of 5.5 per cent) whilst paddy area barely increased, from 655,000 hectares to 670,000 hectares (average annual growth of 0.2 per cent) over the same period [1].

By 2019, the imbalance was stark; about 86 per cent of agricultural land was used for industrial‐commodity production such as palm oil and rubber, whilst only 14 per cent serviced agro-food commodities like rice, fruits, vegetables and coconuts [2].

The result: whilst Malaysia became a powerhouse of palm oil and rubber exports, with the plantation sector contributing major export earnings and forming a backbone of the rural economy, the part of agriculture devoted to feeding people’s everyday needs moved to the background.

The policy logic at the time made sense for export-driven growth; foreign exchange, capital accumulation, rural employment through mass estates via bodies like the Federal Land Development Authority (FELDA) established in 1956, under which settlers were allocated land for rubber and later oil palm.

But that strategy had a side effect; Malaysia’s food-crop base such as paddy, vegetable plots, and fruit orchards got comparatively less attention, investment and technological innovation.

In short, the historical trajectory of Malaysian agriculture from being anchored in food crops to becoming anchored in plantation-commodities explains much about why, today, the country faces food-security and sustainability challenges. The very foundation of the sector was built for exports, not for achieving high local self-sufficiency in staple foods.

The same period: Asia’s Green Revolutions – feeding billions through policy and science

While Malaysia’s agricultural landscape was dominated by export commodities like palm oil and rubber, two of Asia’s most populous nations, China and India were rewriting their own agricultural destinies.

Confronted with famine, poverty, and the urgent need to feed hundreds of millions, both countries made bold, coordinated investments in food production that transformed them from food-deficient economies into agricultural powerhouses.

In the 1950s and 1960s, India faced severe food shortages, relying heavily on imports and foreign food aid through programmes such as PL-480. That changed with the Green Revolution of the late 1960s; a movement that married scientific innovation, strong policy direction, and international collaboration.

High-yield wheat and rice varieties developed by Dr Norman Borlaug, often known as the Father of Green Revolution, and adapted to Indian conditions by Dr M. S. Swaminathan were introduced alongside modern irrigation systems, chemical fertilisers, and mechanisation.

The results were transformative: between 1965 and 1990, India’s wheat production tripled, and the country moved from dependence on imports to self-sufficiency in staple grains [3]. By the early 2000s, India impressively had become the second-largest producer of both rice and wheat globally, feeding a population that now exceeds 1.4 billion.

China’s agricultural transformation took a different, though equally revolutionary path. Following decades of collectivised agriculture under the People’s Communes, the Chinese government in 1978 introduced the Household Responsibility System, allowing individual farmers to manage land and sell surplus produce.

This policy, widely recognised as the turning point in China’s rural reform, incentivised productivity and reversed decades of stagnation. Supported by large-scale investment in irrigation infrastructure, hybrid rice research led by Yuan Longping, and agricultural mechanisation, China’s grain production doubled between 1978 and 2010, lifting hundreds of millions out of poverty [4].

Today, China maintains a grain self-sufficiency ratio above 95%, ensuring stable domestic supply despite rising urbanisation pressures.

Both nations understood early on that food security is not merely an agricultural issue but a foundation of national stability and development. Their governments aligned research, subsidies, infrastructure, and education systems to strengthen the link between science and the smallholder farmer.

Whilst Malaysia prioritised export earnings through industrial crops, China and India prioritised feeding their people first and, in doing so, laid the groundwork for sustained economic growth, industrialisation, and rural resilience.

It is not too late to learn from them

Malaysia may have taken a different path, one that favoured exports over edible crops, but the story is far from over. In fact, there is still time to recalibrate, and the examples set by China and India offer a powerful strategy for how a nation can transform its agricultural landscape to ensure food for all.

What both countries proved is that agricultural transformation begins with intent, a deliberate, long-term commitment to make food security a national priority.

When China launched its rural reforms in 1978, its goal was not just to modernise farming; it was to raise rural incomes, reduce inequality, and achieve self-reliance in grain production.

Likewise, India’s Green Revolution was built on the conviction that science and policy could work hand in hand to overcome resource constraints and population pressure.

Malaysia has the advantage of arriving later to the table (late mover advantage), meaning it can leapfrog some of the costly trial-and-error phases that others endured. We have access to digital technologies, precision agriculture tools, gene-edited seeds, and AI-driven crop monitoring systems that China and India could only dream of during their formative decades.

The challenge is no longer about catching up technologically, but rather creating an ecosystem that connects innovation to the everyday farmer, something both China and India eventually mastered.

Three lessons stand out for Malaysia:

1. Elevate food security as a national priority

Food resilience must be recognised as a matter of national security, not just agricultural planning. Malaysia should establish a whole-of-government framework that aligns fiscal, trade, and infrastructure policies under a shared food security agenda. A central coordinating body empowered to harmonise efforts across ministries can ensure that RMK-13 and DAN 2.0 targets are executed cohesively, with measurable outcomes tied to national stability and economic growth.

2. Build a dynamic agro-innovation ecosystem

A sustainable food system depends on strong local innovation. Malaysia can catalyse this by modernising agricultural R&D, strengthening links between researchers, entrepreneurs, and farmers, and supporting agritech adoption. Key enablers include a dedicated AgriTech innovation fund, open access to agricultural data, and incentive schemes for public-private partnerships that deliver field-ready solutions. This approach turns research into real productivity gains and ensures technology serves those who need it most.

3. Empower smallholders through digital and structural reform

Malaysia’s next transformation should focus on empowering small farmers, not just estates. Policies that expand access to credit, training, and shared technology platforms such as digital cooperatives or equipment leasing hubs can raise productivity and income. A modernised smallholder framework, supported by data and market connectivity, will make rural livelihoods more competitive, sustainable, and future-ready.

If Malaysia can weave these lessons into its next decade of agricultural strategy, the results could be transformative. We don’t have to reinvent the wheel, rather we just have to learn from our neighbours who turned necessity into opportunity.

The next “green revolution” for Malaysia need not mirror the past; it can be a smart, sustainable, and data-driven one that secures our food supply whilst revitalising rural livelihoods.

As China and India have shown, it is never too late to start growing not just crops, but confidence in a nation’s ability to feed itself.

-- BERNAMA

Dr Hazwan Daut is currently the Head of Life Sciences at Malaysian Research Accelerator for Technology & Innovation (MRANTI), an agency under MOSTI mandated to accelerate the commercialisation of technologies in national critical sectors such as healthcare and agriculture.

Dr Amirah Mohammad Sidik currently serves as a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Science & Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM). She specialises in plant molecular biology research.