(Image credit: Copilot)
by Dr Rahim Said
Here we go again. It’s 2025, and yet we’re still colour-coding competence.
In what sounds like a rejected script from a low-budget film, US President Donald Trump has now demanded that Intel’s newly minted CEO, Tan Lip-Bu, resign “immediately” over what he claims are irreconcilable “national security” risks — mostly because Tan is of Chinese descent and (gasp!) once did business with Chinese tech firms.
Let’s get the disclaimers out of the way. Yes, Tan formerly led Cadence Design Systems, which pleaded guilty to selling tech to a Chinese military university — an offence, to be clear, committed by the company, not the man.
Yes, Tan is a veteran investor with broad international exposure, including Chinese ventures.
Of course, yes, the US-China tech rivalry has all the grace and subtlety of a 1980s Rocky vs. Drago match.
But no, none of this justifies the frothy, paranoid nativism that oozes from Trump’s social media tirade:
“The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution…”
No other solution, really? Not an internal review? Not a committee hearing? Not even a polite “can we talk?” Just… pack your bags, Tan.
You’re from Malaysia, which is suspiciously close to China if you squint hard enough. Never mind that Tan hasn’t set up chip fabs in Beijing or hung out with Xi Jinping at the G20. The mere association — by birth, surname, or skin tone — is enough.
Because these days, being ethnically Chinese — even if you’re from Singapore, Malaysia, Canada or anywhere else — automatically casts a long shadow of doubt in Washington.
It’s not about what you’ve done. It’s about what you look like you could do if your loyalties were ever questioned, and the list of accused is growing.
Remember when comedian Ronny Chieng, born in Johor Bahru, found it more convenient to just let go of his Malaysian citizenship as he navigated Hollywood.
That wasn’t just a paperwork decision. It was a survival move — one less bureaucratic nightmare to deal with if you’re trying to build a career while looking vaguely like the bogeyman of the week.
Now enter Tan, trying to save a once-great American company from being swallowed by its more agile, AI-savvy Asian rivals.
Let’s be honest: Intel is no longer the chipmaking juggernaut it once was. TSMC and Samsung own the foundries. Nvidia owns AI. Intel owns… nostalgia.
Tan didn’t inherit a thriving empire. He inherited a corporate ICU patient.
Yet, instead of giving him a chance to pull a rabbit out of the semiconductor wafer, he’s being told to walk the plank — not because he failed, but because he fits the profile of someone who might someday fail America.
Isn’t it ironic that while Elon Musk can cosy up to China for Tesla’s Gigafactory in Shanghai, or Apple can rely on Foxconn in Zhengzhou, a Malaysian-born CEO is being accused of betrayal-by-ancestry?
What next? Will every tech leader with a name starting or ending in “Ng,” “Tan,” or “Lee” need to carry a loyalty card certified by the Pentagon?
This isn’t a national security debate. It’s a witch hunt dressed in patriotism and powered by Cold War cosplay. Tan’s greatest sin, it seems, is not having a name like Bob, Chuck, or Todd.
So, let’s call it what it is: The Yellow Peril rebranded for the digital age.
In this post-globalisation world, where multinationals are stitched together by supply chains and diaspora networks, the demand for racial purity tests in executive offices is not only unethical — it’s suicidally dumb. If the US keeps this up, it won’t be China that wins the tech war. It’ll be America that surrenders — to its ignorance.
Anyway, if Tan steps down under pressure, don’t be surprised if the best minds from Southeast Asia — and beyond — take their talents elsewhere.
After all, it’s hard enough building the future. It’s even harder when the past keeps knocking at your door with a deportation order.
Welcome to 2025, where meritocracy is conditional, globalism is a liability, and being born Chinese is still considered a threat — even if you were born in Johor.
(The views expressed here are entirely those of the writer)
WE