EMIR Research’s earlier work highlighted Upholding Quality Standards and Professionalising P/CVE Efforts (T10) and Research-based Rigor (T8) as global best practices among key trends (“Global P/CVE Trends: A Roadmap for Malaysia’s Resilience”). We then identified five strategic pillars—Prevention, Detection, Preparedness, Recovery, and Adaptation—which dovetail with the ten trends, forming a comprehensive toolbox for a holistic PCVE approach (“Closing the Gaps: Comprehensive P/CVE Toolbox”).
EMIR Research has argued that while Malaysia’s Action Plan on P/CVE (MyPCVE) provides a basic framework architecture with some local contextualisation, it lacks alignment with a comprehensive (end-to-end and multi-tiered approach) informed by global best practices. Notably, MyPCVE lacks clear outcome-oriented performance metrics, standardisation mechanisms, professionalisation pathways, and a research-driven framework—all fundamental to an effective P/CVE strategy.
Professionalisation ensures P/CVE efforts are systematic—driven by specialised training, quality assurance, and rigorous monitoring—rather than ad hoc or personality-driven. Standards provide a foundation for success (Uhlmann, 2021), while an integrated Input-Output-Outcome-Impact (IOOI) framework tracks the causal path from inputs to impacts, grounding efforts in science and data (Figure 1). This clarity prevents unstructured interventions, that may inadvertently reinforce VE, while also streamlining information exchange among P/CVE actors for early issue identification. Adherence to standards, rigorous professionalisation, and a well-structured IOOI framework more readily expose weaknesses for continuous improvement while ensuring interventions remain effective, sustainable, and adaptable.
While MyPCVE explicitly acknowledges the importance of the IOOI approach, it overly emphasises output-based KPIs—often reducing assessments to box-ticking exercises, such as counting workshops held, programmes launched, funds spent, instruments created or, sometimes, even vague “activities” (Figure 2). Meanwhile, outcome-oriented measures—such as reductions in recidivism, radicalisation rates, or successful detainee reintegration—are sidelined. This risks a reliance on “speed-to-spend” metrics that inflate activity levels without guaranteeing meaningful outputs and long-term impacts.
While MyPCVE recognises the need for specialised training in countering violent extremism, it lacks clear systemwide mechanisms for credentialing, continuous development, and professional retention. Initiative 3.5, for instance, calls for “enhancing personnel allocations” but neither the initiative nor the plan provides specifics on recruitment, training, or accreditation pathways. Similarly, while Initiative 4.6 correctly emphasises expertise-building and experiential learning, there is no clarity on curriculum development, instructor qualifications, or alignment with international best practices. Professionalisation demands structured capacity-building—through academic partnerships, certification programmes, and international collaborations—to develop a specialised P/CVE workforce. Without this, initiatives risk being led by generalists rather than specialists, undermining their effectiveness.
Similarly, while MyPCVE mentions updating SOPs (2.8), gazetting fatwas (2.9), and mandating registrations (2.10), the plan overall lacks clarity on who and how will develop, enforce, and oversee these standards. Without a structured mechanism led by qualified P/CVE experts, these efforts risk being ad hoc, inconsistent, and disconnected from a systematic, evidence-based approach.
Also, despite emphasising research, accurate assessments, and validation (e.g., psychological profiling in 3.2, extremism indices in 2.12), MyPCVE lacks a coherent strategy for generating or applying evidence. For instance, it does not specify who will validate the “Psychological-Radical Profiling Assessment Tool” or how data from the shared database (1.7) will inform policy adjustments.
Overall, while some initiatives explicitly recognise the need for P/CVE-specific professional development, quality standards, and research—and many others implicitly call for such coordinating mechanisms across all pillars—MyPCVE lacks specifics on how these mechanisms will be operationalised, integrated across agencies, and implemented to drive tangible outcomes. Without these critical coordinating mechanisms, the plan fails to address one of its own key challenges—ineffective coordination, integration, and cooperation between agencies (MyPCVE, p. 25).
For Effectiveness, Malaysia’s P/CVE efforts must shift from fragmented implementation to a system-wide, adaptive framework—embedding an end-to-end process across Prevention, Detection, Preparedness, Recovery, and Adaptation—while integrating four key initiatives at its core (Figure 3).
Institutionalising the IOOI Framework
Institutionalising the IOOI framework through a dedicated Adaptation initiative enables all P/CVE stakeholders to make evidence-driven, impact-focused decisions, particularly when public funds are involved. This approach ensures continuous assessment, refinement, and optimisation across all pillars, allowing for strategic resource allocation to maximise impact.
In Prevention, it ties early intervention resources to measurable outcomes, such as the programme effectiveness in reducing radicalisation risk. In Detection, it moves beyond simple arrest counts, tracking whether investments in intelligence-sharing, risk assessments, and monitoring tools lead to a quantifiable decline in extremist incidents and successful diversions. Within Preparedness, the framework ensures that emergency response training, security enhancements, and inter-agency drills are periodically assessed for cost-effectiveness and readiness gains. Finally, in Recovery, IOOI evaluates whether victim support services, psychosocial aid, and reintegration efforts translate into tangible improvements—such as reduced trauma, lower recidivism, and higher reintegration success rates.
Expert-Led PCVE Standards & SOPs
To ensure consistency, efficiency, and interoperability across agencies, MyPCVE must institutionalise expert-led standardisation through an Adaptation initiative dedicated to developing, reviewing, and refining national P/CVE guidelines and SOPs. Multi-disciplinary expert panels should establish evidence-based standards that are consistent across agencies, responsive to evolving threats, and aligned with global best practices. Without this, Malaysia’s P/CVE efforts risk fragmentation and inefficiency, with agencies adopting siloed, ad hoc approaches that undermine coordination.
Currently, MyPCVE’s Initiative 3.1 focuses narrowly on appointing assessment panels for rehabilitation, yet in the broader context of the plan, this panel seems to exist in isolation—created as an end goal in itself rather than as part of an integrated system. There is no clear mechanism for how its work will feed into broader P/CVE efforts, align with overarching quality benchmarks, or drive tangible improvements. Institutionalising expert-led P/CVE standards ensures that prevention, detection, preparedness, and recovery initiatives follow structured, professional frameworks and reduces the risk of ineffective cooperation, or duplication of efforts.
A Dedicated PCVE Research Consortium
A research-driven approach is vital to keeping Malaysia’s P/CVE policies evidence-based, adaptive, and resilient to evolving threats. To achieve this, MyPCVE must establish a dedicated research consortium to continuously and systematically evaluate policy effectiveness, programme impact, and radicalisation trends—directly informing policy refinements.
Without a structured research backbone, P/CVE policymaking risks being reactive, anecdotal, or politically influenced rather than scientifically validated. A permanent research consortium ensures continuous, high-quality analysis, guiding resources toward interventions with proven deterrence outcomes. It strengthens all pillars by identifying effective early interventions (Prevention), tracking extremist narratives and risk indicators (Detection), assessing emergency readiness and inter-agency coordination (Preparedness), and evaluating reintegration and victim support programmes (Recovery).
Institutionalising research rigour transforms MyPCVE from a static policy document into a dynamic, intelligence-driven framework, ensuring interventions evolve based on evidence, not assumptions.
Advanced PCVE Training & Degree Pathways
To build a skilled, professional P/CVE workforce, MyPCVE must institutionalise specialised training, certification programmes, and academic pathways—ensuring Malaysia develops well-trained experts rather than relying on generalists or ad hoc training. While Initiative 4.6 touches on this, it must be expanded and structured to include:
• Collaboration with international institutions (perhaps through dedicated research consortium, as per above) to integrate global best practices and advanced P/CVE methodologies.
• University-level degree programmes in counterterrorism, deradicalisation, intelligence analysis, and forensic psychology to foster multidisciplinary expertise.
• Mandatory certification pathways for frontline P/CVE practitioners, ensuring structured, evidence-based training for law enforcement, rehabilitation, and crisis response personnel in line with international standards.
Without professionalisation, Malaysia’s P/CVE efforts risk being led by underqualified personnel, making programmes vulnerable to politicisation, poor execution, or reliance on personality-driven leadership rather than systematic, expert-led approaches.
Institutionalising IOOI, expert-led standardisation, research rigour, and professionalisation under Adaptation forms a synergetic, mutually-reinforcing initiative cluster that also strengthens all P/CVE pillars. IOOI drives evidence-based research, refining training and ensuring expertise is applied through standardised frameworks. This cycle keeps MyPCVE adaptive, effective, and impact-driven—transforming it from a policy document into a resilient, future-proof strategy.
Dr Margarita Peredaryenko and Avyce Heng are part of the research team at EMIR Research, an independent think tank focused on strategic policy recommendations based on rigorous research.
** The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the position of Astro AWANI.
