you are right , countries like britain , france and germany have small land forces but strong large airforce and navy instead.
Backward Terrorist countries like Syria and Iran have large land forces to suppress their own people .
Turkey is moving in that direction , it has a strong airforce and navy , only air defence that needs to be upgraded.
US, UK, France and Germany do not need to protect their own homelands as much as Turkey - and their armies (land forces) are still bigger than all of their neighbors. Thus, such comparison is not proper.
Also, they don't have such large airforces or Navies - for example, France is not known for an oversize Navy (10 submarines, 12 frigates - despite being a nuclear country and a UN SC permanent member), although it has many colonial outposts in Africa and French Guyana, just to name a few, and thus needs a larger navy and airforce. France and others didn't even have enough bombs and missiles to bomb Libya - you might have read that story two years ago, they all depended on US for supplying them air-to-surface missiles and bombs.
Britain has many colonial outposts - and thus needs a big navy. Germany Navy has 83 ships including 13 frigates, 5 corvettes, 8 fast attack craft, 5 minesweepers, 12 minehunters, 4 submarines, 21 auxiliary vessels and 15 miscellaneous vessels - very much comparable to Turkey, and in fact smaller than Turkey in many respects.
Thus, all the countries you've mentioned 1) are situated in safe regions, where they are bigger than their neighbors and won't be attacked, or are geographically safe, like UK, Canada and US, and 2) are either members of the UN SC or otherwise have nuclear weapons, and are members of NATO, thus it's highly unlikely for UK to invade France or France to invade Germany, and 3) have many imperial outposts such as islands and entire countries. Neither Turkey, nor Malaysia - nor Iran or Syria, have that, and thus do not need as large of a Navy.
Finally, if you want to have a Navy that's equal to Land Forces and Air Force, then Navy is always, under all scenarios, the biggest expenditure in all armed forces of the world. You are basically throwing money away for "power projection" that has a diminishing return on investment with each additional ship after a certain number - because Navy is always more vulnerable to the Air Force and anti-ship missiles, mines and coast artillery. Indeed, what are all these ships gonna do against a bunch of Harpoon's or Yakhont's? At a cost of $2.3 million per such anti-ship missile, a country like Turkey can buy 100 of them and be well-protected against most Navies. On Yakhont: "They are hard to detect and even harder to shoot down or decoy away, so they're a powerful tool for keeping warships a long way off the Syrian shore."
Russia delivers anti-ship and air defence missiles to Syria - Naval Technology
You don't have to buy expensive Yakhont - you can buy for $1,200,000 a Harpoon Block II. This defense scenario doesn't even include cruise missiles, advanced mines, and air-to-sea bombs and missiles that can be deployed by airforce - from 100's of miles away.
So no, for a country like Turkey, which has no imperial baggage, no far-flung islands to keep busy with, no imperial subjects and slaves, and which is in a very dangerous neighborhood, where Greece, Cyprus, Syria, Iran, Armenia, and Russia, just to name a few, feel and act hostile, it needs a very large Land Force, and a large Air Force. Turkish Navy is useless against Iran and Armenia, and there are great limitations on what it can really do against Greece that has up to 6,000 islands (that's 6,000 obstacles for radars unless Turkish radars can penetrate granite and rock formations). It needs a Navy against Syria, but since Syria has Yakhont - Turkey can't really use its Navy. So what - just Cyprus? Or against nuclear Russia? Hmm.
