VA may sounds good in theory, but what is its advantage over DCA, especially if the regular amount to put in is "tiny" like a few hundred ringgits? If a fund dropped 10% or 1k in value this month, are you ready to pour in 1k next month when the regular investment budget is only $400?
Being very objective and unemotional would means sticking to the set plan. The plan may be this, out of the savings from monthly salary, some is put in fd or fixed income funds, some in equity funds, say $400. So without fail, whether sunshine or earthquake, must buy $400 worth of equity funds every month.
This would be DCA style.
We can varies it slightly by choosing say 4 funds out of our existing 5 funds to put the $400 (with $100 per fund or S200 into 2 funds each.) How the 2 or more funds is selected out of the 5 funds is not upmost important. Every method will have its own weakness - sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, sometimes we get lucky, sometimes not - this is the reason why we do it DCA, not one-time lumpsum.
(If it is a regional fund, sometimes I looked into the stock index for that particular market... for example choose the fund with its market index below the 200-day MA.
https://sg.finance.yahoo.com/q/ta?t=2y&l=on...&s=%5EAXJO&ql=1 )
Now, with VA, you will need to put in some calculations and more effort in knowing the current values of the funds. Because VA is "topping up" the fund to the desired level. (The desired level can be a fixed number or percentage or a constant value. It can also be an increasing value... ie. you want it to grow 4% or 5% every year.)
As said, are you ready to "top-up" when the fund drops more than your planned budget?

VA would be good for those OCB people like the WMK fella..... those with an engineer mindset, everything must calculate to the nearest cent punya.