
Commentary: What the Harvard ban means for Singapore and Asia's leadership pipeline
A judge has issued a temporary restraining order, pending a set of hearings this week.
Some observers caution that the Harvard ban might prove to be a temporary tempest - a politically motivated stunt that could be reversed with time. After all, the US has seen abrupt policy shocks before that were later softened (think of the trade tariffs on allies and rivals alike).
Could the Harvard saga be another such episode? Possibly. But the damage may already be done. While the intensity of the storm could potentially ease, the days of unfettered US-Asia academic exchange may not fully return to the old normal.
Singapore and its neighbours must therefore prepare for a world where American universities are a less automatic choice and where Asia needs more self-reliance in training top talent.
FUTURE LEADERS LEFT IN LIMBO
It's undeniable that the Trump administration's clampdown, targeting a crown jewel of American higher education, marks an alarming escalation of politics intruding into academia.
The Trump administration has justified this unprecedented move by accusing Harvard of 'fostering violence' and 'antisemitism' and even of ties to China's Communist Party.
The university in its lawsuit blasted the action as "unlawful" retaliation for its rejection of "the government's demands to control Harvard's governance, curriculum and the 'ideology' of its faculty and students".
On Sunday (May 25), US President Donald Trump defended the ban, saying that the home countries of some of Harvard's international students are "not at all friendly to the United States".
'We want to know who those foreign students are, a reasonable request since we give Harvard BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, but Harvard isn't exactly forthcoming. We want those names and countries,' he said in a post on Truth Social.
Why does this matter to Singapore and Asia? Because for decades, an acceptance letter from a top US university was a ticket to unparalleled learning and networks.
US institutions, particularly Harvard, have helped shape generations of ministers, diplomats and civil servants from Asia and beyond. For instance, Singapore Prime Minister Lawrence Wong holds a master's in public administration from the Harvard Kennedy School. Meanwhile, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and recently retired ministers Heng Swee Keat and Teo Chee Hean are also Harvard alumni.
About 6,800 international students - including 151 Singaporeans - are enrolled at Harvard in its current academic year, accounting for 27 per cent of the student body, according to university figures.
If Harvard, which has produced eight US presidents and is arguably the most prestigious of all the Ivy League schools, is off limits, many Asian elites may rethink going to the US at all. They may question if it's worth investing in an American education if the welcome can be rescinded on a whim.
Indeed, US officials have warned that other universities could face similar bans. 'This should be a warning to every other university to get your act together,' Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem said last week.
For Singapore, this has tangible implications. The country sends thousands of students to US universities annually. Many are on government scholarships or self-funded with hopes that an Ivy League pedigree will vault them into leadership tracks.
If those plans are now in doubt, Singapore's public sector talent pipeline may need to adjust.
We could see more Singaporean scholars head to the United Kingdom, Europe or Australia instead, or remain at home for education.
AN OPPORTUNITY FOR SINGAPORE UNIVERSITIES?
Asia's rise over the past decades has in part been fuelled by sending its best students westward; that option now comes with caveats. Singapore and its neighbours must therefore invest even more in developing regional centres of excellence.
This is already happening. China has poured resources into its C9 League universities, India is seeking to reform its higher education, and Singapore and South Korea boast some of the finest schools in the world. The trend can accelerate, spurred by necessity.
As global education becomes collateral in larger political fights, Singapore could emerge as a neutral academic waypoint.
The city has long punched above its weight in education. Its universities are world-class. Education here is not subject to partisan reversals. Institutions can plan across decades, not election cycles.
With geopolitical tensions rising and US-China ties under strain, Singapore's non-aligned stance and multicultural fabric make it an ideal meeting ground for scholars of all stripes.
We already see this in initiatives like the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, which was established in collaboration with Harvard but has come into its own as a training ground for future leaders from over 90 countries. Its faculty is ranked among the top 2 per cent of the world's scientists.
A TIME TO LEAD BY EXAMPLE
The education of international students has been America's 'greatest soft power resource', a term coined by Professor Joseph Nye of Harvard University, because when those students spend formative years immersed in American ideals and later become leaders back home, they naturally help align their countries' outlooks with the US.
The Harvard ban will have consequences that outlast the current political theatre. Yet, as with previous storms, this too shall pass - if not fully, then partially. Policies can change, doors can reopen.
But rather than passively waiting, Singapore and Asia can turn this moment into an impetus for growth. We can redouble efforts to nurture talent at home and within the region, creating an ecosystem that is resilient to external shocks.
Ben Chester Cheong is a law lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences, and of counsel at RHTLaw Asia. He is a visiting fellow in law at the University of Reading, and a centre researcher at the University of Cambridge.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CNA
15 minutes ago
- CNA
Bank of Thailand set to cut rates on August 13 to support economy: Reuters poll
BENGALURU :The Bank of Thailand will lower its key interest rate on Wednesday to support a slowing economy as negative inflation persists and U.S. tariffs remain elevated, according to a Reuters poll of economists. Thailand's central bank left its policy rate unchanged in June but noted it was open to cutting as needed to counter the effects of an economic outlook that has turned highly uncertain in recent months. Central bank data showed private consumption contracted 0.3 per cent and exports fell nearly 5.0 per cent in June compared with May. This, along with negative inflation for the fourth consecutive month in July, will give policymakers room to cut on August 13. More than 80 per cent of economists, 23 of 28 in the August 4-8 Reuters poll, predicted the BOT would cut its benchmark one-day repurchase rate by 25 basis points to 1.50 per cent on Wednesday. The rest expected no change. "The economy is undeniably softening," Erica Tay, director of macro research at Maybank, said. "The case for an August rate cut has grown stronger. The latest inflation data showed core inflation has reversed its rising trend. Weakening core inflation upends the belief recent price weakness is mostly due to global oil prices and weather-related food supply shifts," she added. Among those who gave a longer-term outlook, 19 of 26 expected rates at 1.25 per cent by the end of 2025, seven said 1.50 per cent and one forecast 1.00 per cent. Vitai Ratanakorn will take the helm at the BOT on October 1 and he has said rates can go down much further. With the U.S. placing tariffs on Thai goods of 19 per cent, albeit less than the initially proposed 36 per cent, economists expect a hit to growth. A separate Reuters poll taken in July forecast growth at 1.3 per cent and 0.9 per cent in the third and fourth quarters, respectively. "If you look at export growth, it's been in double digits until recently, mainly due to a rush by the U.S. to import goods from Thailand and other trading partners," Poon Panichpibool, a markets strategist at Krung Thai Bank, said. "This will come down, and we'll see much slower growth, which is going to reduce overall economic growth in the second half."


CNA
15 minutes ago
- CNA
Lee Kuan Yew on Singapore's separation from Malaysia
Scroll up for the next video X Lee Kuan Yew on Singapore's separation from Malaysia


CNA
an hour ago
- CNA
Analysis:Trump call to oust Intel CEO Tan could sidetrack chipmaker's turnaround
Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan is already facing an uphill battle in turning around the ailing chipmaker. Now, U.S. President Donald Trump's demand that Tan resign over his ties to Chinese firms will only distract him from that task, two investors and a former senior employee said. Trump said on Thursday that Tan was "highly conflicted" due to his Chinese connections. Reuters reported exclusively in April that Tan had invested in hundreds of Chinese firms, some of which were linked to the Chinese military. Tan may now have to mount an effort to reassure Trump that he remains the right person to revive the storied American chipmaker, pulling his focus away from the cost cuts he's trying to implement. "It is distracting," said Ryuta Makino, analyst at Intel investor Gabelli Funds, which, according to LSEG data, owns more than 200,000 shares in Intel. "I think Trump will make goals for Intel to spend more, and I don't think Intel has the capabilities to spend more, like what Apple and Nvidia are doing." AI chip market leader Nvidia and iPhone-maker Apple have committed hundreds of billions of dollars to expand domestic manufacturing, which, according to Trump, will bring jobs back home. Until recently, Intel had emerged as one of the biggest beneficiaries of the 2022 CHIPS Act, as former CEO Pat Gelsinger laid out plans to build advanced chipmaking factories. Tan, however, has significantly pared back such ambitions, as the company's goal of rivaling Taiwanese chipmaker TSMC's contract manufacturing chops have fallen short. Tan said last month that he would slow construction work on new factories in Ohio and planned to build factories only when he saw demand for Intel's chips, a move that is likely to further strain relations with Trump. The company, its board and Tan were making significant investments aligned with Trump's America First agenda, Intel said in a statement on Thursday, without any mention of Trump's demand. The statement was "bland", said David Wagner, a portfolio manager at Intel shareholder Aptus Capital Advisors, which owns Intel stock through index funds. "Either defend your leader, which will be the beginning of a difficult road ahead, or consider making a change," Wagner said. Having this play out over a few months is not something that Intel can afford, he said. Tan himself released a statement late on Thursday. "The United States has been my home for more than 40 years. I love this country and am profoundly grateful for the opportunities it has given me. I also love this company," he said, adding that the board was "fully supportive of the work we are doing to transform our company." "BUILT ON TRUST" Tan, a chip industry veteran, took the helm at Intel about six months ago, after the board ousted previous boss Pat Gelsinger over years of missteps and burgeoning losses. The company's shares are largely flat this year after losing nearly two-thirds of their value last year. Tan was the CEO of chip-design software maker Cadence Design from 2008 through December 2021. Cadence last month agreed to plead guilty and pay more than $140 million to resolve charges for selling its products to a Chinese military university believed to be involved in simulating nuclear blasts, Reuters reported. The sales to Chinese entities occurred under his leadership. Reuters reported on Wednesday that U.S. Republican Senator Tom Cotton sent a letter to Intel's board chair with questions about Tan's ties to Chinese firms and the criminal case involving Cadence. "There has been a lot of misinformation circulating about my past roles," Tan said in his statement on Thursday. "I have always operated within the highest legal and ethical standards. My reputation has been built on trust," he said. It is not illegal for U.S. citizens to hold stakes in Chinese companies unless those companies have been added to the U.S. Treasury's Chinese Military-Industrial Complex Companies List, which explicitly bans such investments. Reuters in April had found no evidence that Tan at the time was invested directly in any company on that list. But Trump's remarks have now forced the limelight on an issue that could erode investor confidence. "If you add in another layer of government scrutiny, and everybody looking into how the company is doing whatever it's doing ... that just makes it harder," said a former senior executive at Intel, who was familiar with the company's strategy under Gelsinger. The source, who declined to be named, was let go as part of Gelsinger's workforce reduction drive last year. Tan's strategy is to "get rid of all of the non-productive parts of the company and really focus on a key few products," the person said. "If (Tan) leaves, it's going to just prolong whatever Intel has to do and needs to do really quickly."