Anxious Harvard-bound Singaporeans press ahead with plans, even as some still don't have visas
The president of the Harvard Club of Singapore said that none of the prospective Singaporean students have relinquished their offers. -- PHOTO: BLOOMBERG
SINGAPORE (The Straits Times/ANN): Singaporean students bound for Harvard University are still pressing ahead with their plans despite uncertainty over US President Donald Trump's ban on foreign students, even as some still do not have their visas.
Welly Tantono, the president of its Singapore alumni club, told The Straits Times on June 14 that as far as she is aware, none of the prospective Singaporean students have relinquished their offers.
The Harvard Club of Singapore on June 14 organised a pre-departure meeting for the Republic's Harvard hopefuls, which ST understands was attended by more than 10 matriculating undergraduates and postgraduates.
Among them, about half have yet to obtain their visas, said a Harvard Club Board member, who declined to be named.
Some existing visa appointments at the local US embassy have also been cancelled, and new appointments are difficult to make, he added.
A total of 22 people had indicated on the club's website that they would attend the annual event, which was held at Monk's Brew Club in Katong.
Tantono said the event had hoped to 'offer comfort' to matriculating students.
Typically a celebratory affair, it took on a different tenor this year with the theme Navigating Your Next Steps Amid Uncertainty, as anxious attendees sought advice and assurance.
According to the club's website, immigration lawyers were present to address students' concerns about student visas, immigration issues and legal documentation.
Current Harvard students and alumni were also invited to offer guidance to new students.
Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan had said on June 7 that Singapore's embassy in Washington has been seeking clarification from the US State Department and Department of Homeland Security on whether there would be a delay in visa processing for Singaporean students hoping to study in the US.
He added that the Government is trying to find solutions to deal with the worst-case scenario where students are not able to physically study in Boston.
Harvard's fall semester is due to start in late August, with first-year students arriving a week early for placement tests and adjustment to campus life.
Tantono said that amid the uncertainty, Harvard University has been up to date in its communications with international students, who understandably may have many concerns.
The students have also been in contact with the Harvard International Office, she added.
Trump has made recent moves to re-work the landscape of American higher education – claiming that private schools have tolerated campus anti-Semitism, while fostering anti-American and 'radical left' ideologies.
In April, the Trump Administration froze close to US$3 billion (S$3.8 billion) of Harvard's federal research funding.
A month later, the school's right to host and enrol foreign students and scholars was terminated – a move that was later halted by a US District Judge.
Trump's June 4 directive to bar foreign nationals seeking to study the US from entering the country was also blocked temporarily by the judge, who on June 5, also extended May's hold by about two weeks.
The new temporary block made in June will also last for two weeks.
The effects of the president's siege have been felt across the university, where close to 6,800 international students make up about a third of the student populace. - The Straits Times/Asia News Network
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
2 hours ago
- New Straits Times
US trade war enters precarious 'Slow Grind' phase
US trade negotiations have transitioned from their opening act, with its many twists and turns, into a new, protracted chapter: the Slow Grind. It may be less turbulent than this past spring's drama, but no less worrying for investors. Now that the US and China have the framework for a trade agreement, attention may start to turn to the European Union, which appears next in line to strike a deal with the Trump administration. But the prospect of a swift resolution seems remote. Finding significant common ground to meaningfully reduce the EU's substantial goods surplus with the US, roughly US$200 billion annually, presents a formidable challenge, as major avenues appear blocked. The EU is highly unlikely to concede on agricultural market access given the region's strong and comprehensive policy for protecting local agriculture. Large-scale aircraft deals also seem improbable given the Airbus-Boeing rivalry. The contentious issue of pharmaceutical pricing will complicate any healthcare deals. While Europe could theoretically increase purchases of US defence equipment or relax "Buy European" policies in defence procurement, the political palatability of such moves is low. Consequently, the focus may inevitably shift towards the services sector, where the EU runs an approximately US$100 billion annual deficit with the US, driven largely by the operations of American technology giants. Here, a potential landing zone exists: the EU could conceivably ease some of its more burdensome technology regulations with limited immediate downside, offering a tangible, albeit partial, lever to address the overall trade imbalance. In fact, Section 899 in the Trump administration's proposed "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" — which threatens to increase taxes on entities from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" — appears to be aimed directly at digital taxes levied by EU countries on US technology companies. This suggests that this area could be a focal point in US-EU negotiations. US negotiations with the EU are also occurring against a markedly different backdrop than the one that prevailed in May during the earlier round of trade talks with China. Back then, the US was just emerging from a significant bout of financial market volatility and facing the risk of "empty shelves" if onerous tariffs on China remained in place, so both investors and business leaders were demanding urgent action. Importantly, EU exports to the US are predominantly industrial and luxury goods, not the daily consumables that directly impact the average American's pocketbook. Adding to this calmer backdrop, capital markets have shown signs of adapting to the current administration's seemingly unpredictable trade tactics. The S&P 500 index has rebounded 20 per cent since its post-Liberation Day low and is only around 2.0 per cent below its all-time high. One major risk, however, is that the US starts taking a harder line with Europe for fear of looking weak. Central to the US negotiation strategy is the perceived credibility of threats. Given the Trump administration's emphasis on the president's deal-making prowess, the US fundamentally cannot afford to be seen as backing down consistently, a scenario some critics have labelled "Trump Always Chickens Out" (TACO). Being perceived as unreliable with ultimatums would critically undermine the administration's negotiating power, not just with the EU, but globally. This need to maintain a credible hard line could add friction to the process, making concessions harder to make and progress slower to achieve. On the currency front, the euro may continue to appreciate against the US dollar — ending a more than decade-long trend of greenback strength — if wary European investors bring more capital back home. This could give the European Central Bank greater leeway to implement interest rate cuts, with less immediate concern about imported inflation. However, such euro strength has historically been negatively correlated with the performance of risk assets more broadly, adding another layer of complexity to the investment landscape. Further complicating the picture is the risk that the tentative deal just reached with China could unravel, reflecting the ongoing tug-of-war within the US administration between China hawks and pragmatists. The frenetic pace of the trade war's opening chapter has given way to a more arduous phase. This "Slow Grind" promises to generate more uncertainty, testing the patience of markets and policymakers alike, with progress likely measured in inches rather than miles.
The Star
2 hours ago
- The Star
The US is dooming the UN
SAY you are president of the United States and you've been clear that you put America First and that you disdain 'globalists' and all their organs of international multilateralism, chief among them the United Nations. How do you go about discrediting those institutions? One option is to withdraw the US formally. For example, Donald Trump began his second term by announcing that he'll pull the country out of parts of the UN system, including its Human Rights Council, the World Health Organisation and the Paris Agreement on climate change. That just about hobbles these conventions, since fighting, say, pandemics or global warming without American participation seems futile. But the attack doesn't need to be so blunt. You could also nominally remain a member of an institution while ignoring, undermining or sabotaging it. The US still belongs to the World Trade Organisation, for example, even though Trump has inverted its foundational idea by launching a trade war on the world. America also remains, for now, the backbone of Nato, although Trump has undermined its credibility by casting doubt on the US commitment to Article 5, the alliance's mutual-defence clause and thus its reason for being. Something similar is happening at the UN. In 2015 all its members, including the US, adopted an updated mission statement in the form of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). These were meant to be answers to humanity's biggest problems, from ending hunger and poverty to improving health and education and reducing inequality. Even though progress on most of these efforts is running behind schedule, it's hard to fault the intention. And yet the US now does. In March, it formally rejected the SDGs. It was a bizarre spectacle. The task fell to a mid-level diplomat named Edward Heartney, and the occasion was a vote in the General Assembly to adopt an 'International Day of Peaceful Coexistence'. An anodyne ritual, you might think, but you'd be wrong. Heartney got up and delivered a philippic against the 'soft global governance that is inconsistent with US sovereignty'. Such 'globalist endeavours... lost at the ballot box', Heartney went on – referring to the US election in 2024 – which is why America 'rejects and denounces' the SDGs. The audience, more used to hearing such outbursts from rogue states, was stunned. Mark Leon Goldberg, a veteran UN watcher, told me that even Heartney, a career foreign service officer, looked as though he had a gun to his head and was recording a hostage video. And yet, the speech set the tone for what was to come. The US now regularly gums up every proceeding it can. In June, it cast the only no vote (compared with 169 in favour) against a Mongolian resolution to introduce a World Horse Day. Why? To protest against those SDGs, of course, and everything that 'impinges upon state sovereignty as a soft form of global governance'. America's opposition to the SDGs is more than symbolic. This past week, almost all member states are gathering in France for the UN Ocean Conference to make progress on SDG No 14, on saving the world's oceans and seas (which are in at least as much trouble as our atmosphere). The Trump administration is boycotting that meeting. Instead, Trump recently ordered a push to mine international seabeds for minerals, one of the things the conference is most urgently trying to regulate. He and the Republican Congress are also planning to defund the UN system and other international organisations. Since the US has been the largest contributor to UN coffers since the organisation's founding in 1945 (its share of the regular budget was 22 % in 2024), the cutbacks will force the UN to shrink or close programmes (even if it becomes more efficient, as it should). Reform of the UN's Security Council – an aspiration of the Biden administration – is also off the table. The US, like Russia and China, instead exacerbates its dysfunction: In June, 14 of the council's 15 members voted for a resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza; the US vetoed it. Goldberg hopes that the nomination of Michael Waltz as the US ambassador to the UN might provide some relief: Waltz was Trump's national security adviser until May and with his high profile might be 'able to explain the value the UN gives to American security interests'. I doubt it. Waltz's move to the UN was meant as a demotion. If anything, it confirms that Trump views the institution as a dead end. Cumulatively, this trend away from multilateralism, which Trump didn't start but is turbo-boosting, is already changing the world, and for the worse. 'There hasn't been a binding international agreement on any matter – any transnational issue of importance' for years, laments Shivshankar Menon, a former national security adviser of India; 'we're a world adrift'. The historical echoes are ominous. The UN's forerunner was the League of Nations. Conceived by leaders such as then US President Woodrow Wilson at the end of World War I, it was meant to prevent a second. But Wilson's own country then failed to ratify the treaty after Republicans in the Senate turned isolationist. Without American support, the League was powerless to stop the aggression of fascist Italy, Japan and Germany, and gradually became irrelevant as the world went up in flames. Even so, it was formally dissolved only in 1946, when the new UN – finally backed by the US – took its place. Say you're that American president again and, like Trump, you want to be remembered as a 'peacemaker'. Wouldn't you start by broadening your understanding of the UN's reason for existing, and of the bleak scenarios if the UN went the way of the League? If Waltz wants to redeem his career and legacy – a long shot – he should muster the courage to educate the White House that the United Nations isn't America's enemy, but potentially its best friend, if not its last best hope. — Bloomberg Opinion/TNS Andreas Kluth is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering US diplomacy, national security and geopolitics.
The Star
4 hours ago
- The Star
Trump administration weighs adding 36 countries to travel ban, memo says
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump's administration is considering significantly expanding its travel ban by potentially banning citizens of 36 additional countries from entering the United States, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters. Earlier this month, the Republican president signed a proclamation that banned the entry of citizens from 12 countries, saying the move was needed to protect the United States against "foreign terrorists" and other national security threats. The directive was part of an immigration crackdown Trump launched this year at the start of his second term, which has included the deportation to El Salvador of hundreds of Venezuelans suspected of being gang members, as well as efforts to deny enrollments of some foreign students from U.S. universities and deport others. In an internal diplomatic cable signed by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department outlined a dozen concerns about the countries in question and sought corrective action. "The Department has identified 36 countries of concern that might be recommended for full or partial suspension of entry if they do not meet established benchmarks and requirements within 60 days," the cable sent out over the weekend said. The cable was first reported by the Washington Post. Among the concerns the State Department raised was the lack of a competent or cooperative government by some of the countries mentioned to produce reliable identity documents, the cable said. Another was "questionable security" of that country's passport. Some countries, the cable said, were not cooperative in facilitating the removal of its nationals from the United States who were ordered to be removed. Some countries were overstaying the U.S. visas their citizens were being granted. Other reasons for concern were the nationals of the country were involved in acts of terrorism in the United States, or antisemitic and anti-American activity. The cable noted that not all of these concerns pertained to every country listed. The countries that could face a full or a partial ban if they do not address these concerns within the next 60 days are: Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Benin, Bhutan, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cote D'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Ethiopia, Egypt, Gabon, The Gambia, Ghana, Kyrgyzstan, Liberia, Malawi, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, South Sudan, Syria, Tanzania, Tonga, Tuvalu, Uganda, Vanuatu, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. That would be a significant expansion of the ban that came into effect earlier this month. The countries affected were Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo Republic, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. The entry of people from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - has also been partially restricted. During his first in office, Trump announced a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority nations, a policy that went through several iterations before it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018. (Reporting by Humeyra PamukEditing by Bill Berkrot)
