By Abdul Khald Abdul Aziz

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia: The recent piece titled “MIER struggling to stay afloat” has generated waves of sympathy for Malaysia’s oldest economic think tank.

The article frames the Malaysian Institute of Economic Research (MIER) as a noble institution run by selfless volunteers who are keeping the ship afloat in the face of government disengagement and private sector indifference.

But let’s be honest: this narrative, if anything, confirms that MIER is suffering from a crisis far deeper than cash flow. Its problem is not a lack of money — it’s a loss of purpose, relevance, and credibility.

Once a go-to source for macroeconomic insight and strategic policy thinking, MIER today finds itself caught between nostalgia and obsolescence. And unless there is a radical reinvention of its role and structure, no amount of donor goodwill will save it.

A Think Tank in Survival Mode Is Not a National Asset

When the chairman of MIER proudly proclaims that board members now meet weekly just to “keep it alive” — personally covering operational expenses — we are not witnessing heroism. We are witnessing institutional dysfunction.

Think tanks are supposed to be independent voices that challenge orthodoxy, provide timely economic foresight, and shape national narratives. If your business model is reduced to passing the hat around the trustee table, then the issue is not insufficient funding — it is a failure to adapt.

Compare this to Singapore’s Institute of Policy Studies or South Korea’s KDI — institutions that evolved, diversified their funding, embraced talent, and built platforms of enduring policy influence. MIER, in contrast, is clutching at relevance by partnering with banks instead of producing independent macroeconomic surveillance.

Where Is the Surveillance? Where Is the Thought Leadership?

MIER’s historic strength lay in its independent forecasting, business sentiment indices, and its role as a national macroeconomic conscience. Those days are gone.

Today, its Business Conditions Index (BCI) — once a key barometer cited by policymakers — has fewer than 100 respondents — a stark decline from its pre-COVID levels.

The Consumer Sentiments Index (CSI) has similarly faded into statistical irrelevance. Bank Negara Malaysia, the Monetary Authority of Singapore, and major banks no longer track these indices. That is not a clerical oversight. That is a judgment on quality.

GIGO — Garbage In, Garbage Out — is a brutal but apt diagnosis for indices whose sampling is inconsistent, methodology opaque, and analytical rigour uncertain.

To make matters worse, the long-standing relationship with Merdeka Center — Malaysia’s leading polling agency — has been severed under questionable terms.

Not only does this raise concerns about institutional integrity, but it also reflects a troubling trend toward internalisation without capacity — a recipe for methodological failure.

And the exodus of key personnel such as Elayne Yee Sew Lin — architect of the CSI and BCI — means MIER has suffered a deep institutional memory loss, one it has not yet begun to rebuild.

Partnering With Banks Is Not Independence — It’s Drift

The chairman highlights MIER’s collaboration with Affin Bank and an upcoming economic conference as evidence of continued relevance. But let’s be clear: partnering with banks is not a substitute for policy thought leadership. It is, at best, a side hustle.

A think tank that functions like a consultancy-for-hire — chasing funded events and short-term contracts — is not fulfilling its national role. It’s diluting it. And when the same think tank no longer produces independent papers on fiscal reform, inflation dynamics, or industrial strategy — but instead clings to sponsored surveys and panel discussions — its trajectory is unmistakable: irrelevance dressed up as outreach.

What Is MIER’s Value Proposition in 2025?

This is the question no one in the article seems to answer.

• Is MIER doing something Bank Negara or the Department of Statistics Malaysia (DOSM) cannot do?
• Are its models outperforming those from universities or regional consultancies?
• Is its output timely, provocative, and cited — or has it faded into academic white noise?

Today, the answer is grim. MIER is not leading conversations; it is trailing them. It is not setting national priorities; it is reacting to them. And the credibility that once made it indispensable has thinned to anecdote and memory.

Romanticism is Not a Rescue Plan

The lament that “MIER must survive because it’s one of the last independent voices” rings hollow if that voice is no longer analytically sound or operationally viable. Independence means nothing without impact. Legacy means little without leadership.

Yes, Malaysia needs more independent think tanks. We need competing models, dissenting forecasts, and diverse policy critiques. But we need them to be competent, bold, and forward-facing — not clinging to a legacy model that no longer works.

If MIER wants to survive, it needs to rebuild its economic credibility, invest in analytical talent, professionalise its governance, and clearly define what it alone can offer. Otherwise, the hard truth must be said:

A think tank that must beg to exist has already lost the battle for relevance. And Malaysia, in an era of economic uncertainty and geopolitical flux, deserves far better.

*Abdul Khald Abdul Aziz has contributed to regional and international discussions on economic governance, institutional reform, and macroeconomic strategy.*