Asia rising

 

For most of the last century, the centres of higher education and science were in the West. The United States, Britain, and Europe produced the world’s leading universities and research culture. Students from across Asia travelled there for advanced study, and knowledge flowed mainly in one direction.

But today, Asia is no longer just a consumer of knowledge - it is becoming a global leader in creating, shaping, and sharing it. China, India, South Korea, Japan, Singapore, and Malaysia are investing heavily in research, innovation, and higher education.

This shift is one of the most significant global transformations of our time. Yet with success comes a warning. As Asia rises, it must avoid the trap of imitation - trying to copy Western universities rather than building its own path.

World leaders

Asian universities were once seen as second choice compared to Harvard, Cambridge, orStanford. Today, that view is outdated.

China is now the world’s largest producer of scientific papers and leads in artificial intelligence (AI), clean energy, and biotechnology. South Korea and Japan remain powerhouses in technology and engineering. India’s institutes of technology and science fuel its growth in IT, pharmaceuticals, and space research.

Singapore has become a global research hub, while Malaysia and Thailand are positioning themselves as regional education centres. These countries are no longer just following global trends – they are helping define them.

So, how did the countries that were once followers end up becoming leaders today? The answer lies in investment and policy.

China spends over 2.5% of its GDP on research and development. South Korea spends nearly double that, the highest in the world. Singapore has invested billions in AI, biotechnology, and sustainability research.

Governments across Asia also have clear strategies – China’s “Double First Class” project, India’s “Institutes of Eminence,” and Malaysia’s higher education blueprint all aim to create global-class universities. These policies are not just about prestige; they are about national growth, technological independence, and global competitiveness.

Rankings trap and the Harvard illusion

Over-focusing on global rankings, however, can prove detrimental. Rankings measure things like citations, faculty-student ratios, and reputation surveys. These indicators can be useful, but they do not capture everything that matters.

A university that trains community doctors or develops affordable green technologies may have far greater impact than one that climbs 10 spots up a ranking list. Adopting Western standards too rigidly can undervalue research in local languages or work addressing community issues. Academic excellence must serve society, not just Western determined metrics.

Another danger lies in the desire to become “the Harvard of Asia”. Harvard is a product of American history, wealth, and culture. Simply copying its name, structure, or traditions will not recreate its success.

Asia’s greatest universities will be those that are confidently Asian – rooted in local realities but connected to the world. Rather than imitate Western models, Asian institutions should build on their own strengths: cultural diversity, rapidly growing economies, and the need to solve pressing regional challenges such as climate change, food security, and equitable healthcare.

Culture, freedom, and identity

Asia also possesses a rich intellectual heritage that can guide the future of its universities. Concepts such as ren (humaneness) in Confucian thought, gotong-royong (community cooperation) in Southeast Asia, ahimsa (non-harm) in Indian philosophy, and wa (harmony) in Japan provide deep foundations for education.

These traditions emphasise moral character, social responsibility, and balance – values often missing in purely market-driven Western academic models. If Asian universities draw from their own philosophical roots, they can build institutions that value not only knowledge and innovation but also wisdom, ethics, and community.

Rather than importing Western culture, they can offer the world an alternative vision of human-centred, responsible higher education. Education in Asia has long emphasised respect for teachers, community belonging, and collective success. These are powerful strengths. Replacing them with purely individualistic or hyper-competitive models could dilute what makes Asian education distinctive.

A different vision of success

Asia’s rise in higher education is not about copying the West – it is about creating something new to redefine what “world-class” truly means. That includes:

> Research that addresses Asia’s real challenges.

> Education that forms character as well as skills.

> Partnerships that are global but rooted in local values, philosophies and priorities.

The shift in global knowledge is not a battle between East and West. Western universities will remain influential, but Asia now plays an equal, and sometimes leading, role.

Collaboration, not competition, will shape the next era of global education. The question is not whether Asia can match Harvard or Cambridge, but whether it can succeed without losing its identity. The future of education will belong to those who innovate with confidence in their own foundations.

Governments, however, must guard against over-control. Innovation requires intellectual freedom - the ability to question, debate, and explore without unnecessary restriction. Balancing national goals with academic independence will be a key test for Asia’s universities in the coming decade. Asia’s universities have already shown they can rise. Their next challenge is to rise wisely.

Prof Dr David Whitford is vice-chancellor and chief executive of University of Cyberjaya. He earned a doctorate from Cambridge University and has held leadership roles in medical education. With over 70 research publications on disadvantaged communities and quality healthcare delivery, his academic journey includes positions at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, in Dublin and in Bahrain, where he established community-based teaching and led postgraduate studies. The views expressed here are the writer’s own.

U.S. intellectuals speak out against Asia war

 

Racism against Chinese in the USA

TOP INTELLECTUALS IN THE U.S. stood up this week to speak out for China—and demand a stop to the powerful militaristic country’s drive to start an unnecessary war in East Asia.

The White House claim this week that they did not want conflict with China is “Denial and information distortion bordering on propaganda,” said Stephen Roach, Yale University professor and former chief economist at Morgan Stanley. The untrue statement was “classic Cold War posturing”, he said in statement on Twitter on Thursday.

Others agreed. Falsely painting the Chinese as trying to take over the world is bad for everyone, writer David Rothkopf argued in a Daily Beast essay printed today. Why paint China as a threat?

“Why? Why is it such a great threat even though the country has no history of conquest beyond its region in 5,000 years of history and is far from being able or inclined to pose a direct threat of attack to the U.S.?” he asked.

Even the relentlessly hostile Financial Times printed a column by Edward Luce admitting that the current geopolitical tension in the world did not come from China, but from the U.S.

“This week, Xi Jinping went further than before in naming America as the force behind the ‘containment’, ‘encirclement’ and ‘suppression’ of China. Though his rhetoric was provocative, it was not technically wrong,” wrote Luce in a column on Wednesday. Luce, like most FT writers, normally takes a very hostile line against China.

INTELLIGENCE CHIEF WARNING

On the other side, America’s Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines tried to justify the U.S. stance. She said the U.S. was working against China because the giant country is “increasingly challenging the United States economically, technologically, politically, and militarily around the world”.

She said the goal of the Chinese was to “continue efforts to achieve [President] Xi’s vision of making China the preeminent power in East Asia and a major power on the world stage.”

But Rothkopf responded to Haines’ statement by stating the obvious: so? What else would anyone expect?

“Is there something inherently wrong or dangerous about China seeking to challenge the United States economically, technologically, or politically? Isn’t that what all nations do? Don’t we believe in the inherent superiority of our system? Don’t we believe in the benefits of competition? (I thought that was fundamental to America’s national identity and values.)”

He further pointed out that “all nations seek to have sufficient power that they cannot be bullied by global hegemons (and let’s be realistic, we’re the only global hegemon in this conversation at the moment)”.

In other words, China is taking a tougher stance because the strutting, might-is-right stance that the U.S. takes, has forced it to do so.

COLD WAR

While a belligerent U.S. tries to recreate the old script of the Cold War against Russia, there’s a marked difference between the Soviets and the Chinese, Edward Luce pointed out: “China is not exporting revolution.”

The U.S. justified its hostility to the Soviet Union by saying it was spreading communism, but the Chinese are not spreading their system anywhere.

PUBLIC AGREEMENT

There was a strong outbreak of voices on social media agreeing with these points.

Nobody can believe the White House claim that they are not trying to create war, numerous voices said. “We just send warships and war planes to China’s territorial waters in the friendliest of ways,” was the sarcastic response of Alfonso Araujo.

Stephen Roach’s claim that the White House position was “bordering on propaganda” was “too kind”, said Brenda Teese.

“Biden talks about competition, but what he does is zero-sum and hostile behavior,” said Spencer Du. “China has not yet intended to take the U.S. as its enemy but has begun to take the actions of the U.S. as hostile.”

“If the U.S. cannot acknowledge the legitimacy of the P.R.C. to rule China, then the U.S. is essentially agitating for a war,” said Professor Gregory Herczeg this morning.

BUSINESS COMMUNITY HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW

The U.S. political response was markedly different from the point of view of ordinary people and the business community.

There are more than 70,000 U.S. companies operating in China, David Rothkopf pointed out. The two powerful nations are already strongly intertwined in a positive way – so why ruin this?

The justification for hostility against China is crude allegations that the country “destroyed” Hong Kong and “genocided” the Uyghur population of Xinjiang, but neither narrative remotely reflects the more complex reality. Now the U.S. is making use of Taiwan.

TAIWAN JUST AN EXCUSE

“The problem with the current apparent decision to treat China as an enemy and an existential threat is that it can lead to distorted views on certain issues—such as Taiwan,” Rothkopf says.

“Let’s be real for a moment. What really bothers us about China’s rise is that they are quite open about the fact that they want to challenge our influence in the world. We want to be No. 1. We don’t like being challenged,” he wrote.

Luce agreed that America actively looks for excuses to create negativity. “If Taiwan did not exist, would the U.S. and China still be at loggerheads? My hunch is yes,” he wrote.

The American administration is taking an unnecessarily harsh stance against China’s peaceful rise in its neighborhood, Rothkopf argued. “But isn’t it reasonable for China to want such influence?” he asked.

“After all, throughout world history until the start of the industrial revolution, China had the world’s largest economy and it is now resuming that role.”

Source link 

Related posts:

Philippine Group Protests US-Filipino War Games!