The Asia‑Pacific (APAC) cybersecurity sector saw a notable slowdown in 2025, with investor appetite shifting from breadth to depth as funds and corporates pick fewer, more mature targets, according to data from Tracxn.

While the regional market has accumulated meaningful capital over the last several years, the 2025 picture is one of moderation: total capital raised in APAC reached US$8.35 billion to date, but annual inflows have decelerated sharply from the peak years.

Also Read: From fraud fighters to zero-trust builders: SEA’s cyber stars

Tracxn’s dataset shows funding peaked in 2021 (about US$1.7 billion that year) and has tapered since. In 2025, the region attracted US$185.2 million, representing a 27.7 per cent year‑on‑year decline from 2024. The number of rounds also contracted to 43, down 27.1 per cent year‑on‑year, suggesting investors applied far stricter filters on deal quality and go‑to‑market proof points.

The picture in APAC diverged from global trends: worldwide cybersecurity funding expanded to US$14.6 billion in 2025, a 41 per cent year‑on‑year uptick, even though the number of global rounds fell to 457 — a 13.5 per cent decline.

In short, the world pumped more capital into fewer, bigger bets; APAC pulled back.

Early‑stage resilience, late‑stage drought

Stage‑level analysis reveals a nuanced internal dynamic. Early‑stage investments (seed and Series A equivalents) accounted for the lion’s share of 2025 activity in APAC, with US$138.8 million deployed, up 15 per cent year‑on‑year. That suggests venture investors retained an appetite for early product‑market experiments in cybersecurity, provided founders could show rapid adoption or defensible data moats.

By contrast, seed rounds as a category declined 34 per cent year‑on‑year to US$25.1 million, and late‑stage funding collapsed to US$21 million, a 78 per cent year‑on‑year drop.

The late‑stage drought is particularly striking: it points to a scarcity of crossover and growth capital available for scaling cybersecurity companies in the region, forcing many to either seek offshore capital or stretch to profitability sooner.

Geography of capital: India dominates

India, Australia, and Singapore held the ground in APAC funding in 2025, with funding heavily concentrated in a handful of markets. India led the region with US$116 million raised, followed by Australia with US$32.1 million and Singapore with US$24 million.

Also Read: Why Flexxon thinks software-only cybersecurity is no longer enough

The Indian figure underscores the country’s accelerating enterprise digitisation and chronic security needs across finance, fintech, healthcare, and public‑sector projects. Australia’s placement reflects a robust security vendor scene and strong crossover investors, while Singapore continues to punch above its weight as a regional security hub, buoyed by a mature professional services base and government emphasis on cyber resilience.

Segment winners: application security and data protection surge

Segmental winners in 2025 point towards enterprise pain points being monetised through AI and automation. Application security software attracted US$46.1 million (a dramatic 922 per cent increase from US$4.5 million in 2024) driven by startups that combine automated offensive testing, attack surface management and AI‑assisted remediation.

India-based FireCompass, a continuous automated red‑teaming and attack surface management player, and Protectt.ai, focusing on mobile app and AI security, were among the most funded in this category.

Data security platforms also made a leap, securing US$43.1 million — up 130.5 per cent from US$18.7 million in 2024. Startups such as QuintessenceLabs, which brings quantum‑enhanced cybersecurity capabilities, and Pantherun, an Indian innovator with a patented data protection algorithm, drew significant investor interest. The surge in data security reflects enterprises’ strategic shift from perimeter defence to protecting the data and models that power digital services.

Website security software, previously neglected by investors in the region, recorded US$20 million in 2025 — all attributable to Kasada, the Sydney‑based anti‑bot and scraping defence firm, which closed a US$20 million Series C. That single transaction highlights a broader trend: focused, revenue‑generating point solutions with clear ROI on defence spend continue to attract concentrated capital.

Notable names: Kasada, FireCompass, CloudSEK and the long‑tail leaders

On a deal basis, 2025’s largest rounds in APAC were led by Kasada (US$20 million Series C), FireCompass (US$20 million Series B), and CloudSEK (US$19 million Series B). Kasada’s raise is emblematic of demand from large digital platforms for robust bot‑defence as attackers weaponise automation and cheap compute to scale attacks.

Looking at historical funding across the region, Tracxn shows Acronis as the most capitalised cybersecurity company to date, with US$658 million raised. That is followed by Cloudwalk (US$504 million) and Druva (US$475 million) — names that underscore the diverse paths to scale in APAC, from endpoint and backup solutions to AI and imaging companies with wider market ambitions.

What this means for 2026: higher quality, deeper enterprise integration

Tracxn’s outlook suggests 2026 will not be a return to the frothy, high‑round environment of 2019–2021, but rather a transition to healthier, more focused expansion.

Also Read: Singapore’s AI adoption surges, but data complexity raises security risks: Report

Several tailwinds support this: enterprises across APAC continue to digitise, regulatory pressure for cyber resilience is rising (particularly in finance and critical infrastructure), and the attack surface is ballooning with cloud, APIs and AI deployments.

Key areas to watch include:

• Application security and attack surface management: enterprises seek continuous, automated defences as software delivery accelerates.
• Data security platforms and model protection: the proliferation of AI systems creates new vectors that require both cryptographic and behavioural defences.
• Identity‑led architectures: zero‑trust and identity verification will remain top priorities as workforce and customer interactions decentralise.
• AI‑driven threat detection: startups that can reduce mean time to detect and respond by leveraging cross‑organisational telemetry will find receptive buyers.

Investors will gravitate towards companies that demonstrate product maturity, enterprise traction and clear paths to profitability or substantial annual recurring revenue. The late‑stage capital gap may persist unless crossover and growth funds re‑enter the market; absent that, promising founders will increasingly pursue strategic partnerships, M&A exits or US and European capital sources.

Regional implications: a proving ground for global players

For Southeast Asia, the 2025 data carries actionable lessons. Markets such as Singapore, Indonesia, and Malaysia are fertile testing grounds for identity, payments and cloud security products that can scale regionally. The rise of serial founders and the repatriation of talent from global hubs can accelerate build‑outs of enterprise‑grade vendors.

However, to emulate more mature ecosystems, APAC needs a stronger pipeline of later‑stage investors willing to finance scaling security firms across time zones and regulatory regimes.

The 2025 contraction is not a setback so much as a correction. Tracxn’s figures reveal that capital is not fleeing cybersecurity; it is being more deliberately allocated. The companies that win in 2026 will be those that turn the complexity of modern attack surfaces into repeatable, enterprise‑grade services with measurable ROI.

For those firms, APAC remains a vast market of unmet demand if they can prove they can deliver results at scale.

The post Global cybersecurity heats up, and APAC cools off appeared first on e27.

When we talk about AI in biotechnology, the conversation usually revolves around science: faster drug discovery, protein folding breakthroughs, or personalised medicine. But the real story is bigger than science. It’s about how ethics, governance, economics, politics, and society intersect at this new frontier.

Ethics: Who gets a cure, and who doesn’t?

AI can now generate millions of molecular candidates in weeks. AlphaFold 3 takes us further, predicting how proteins interact with DNA, RNA, and small molecules. That’s revolutionary for discovery. But who benefits? If incentives remain profit-driven, rare diseases and those affecting poorer regions may still be ignored.

There’s also the dual-use dilemma: the same AI that designs a life-saving drug could be misused to generate harmful compounds. Ethics here isn’t just about dataset bias—it’s about responsibility for outcomes. And it’s not abstract. Imagine a parent in a low-income country watching global headlines about “AI-discovered cures” while their own child has no access. The technology promises universality, but the distribution risks being anything but.

Governance: Science sprints, law walks

Regulation is scrambling to keep up. The EU AI Act now classifies biotech applications as “high risk,” demanding strict oversight. In the U.S., the FDA has introduced Predetermined Change Control Plans (PCCPs), allowing developers to declare in advance how AI systems may evolve post-approval.

These are steps forward, but they reveal a deeper challenge: science is sprinting, while law is jogging behind. Worse, regulations are fragmented. The EU enforces precaution; the U.S. experiments with flexibility; China pushes rapid state-backed adoption. Companies may exploit these gaps, moving data and trials to whichever jurisdiction offers the lightest touch. Governance isn’t just slow—it’s uneven.

Also Read: AI, advanced therapeutics, and the geopolitical balancing act in biotech

Economics: The monopoly question

AI should lower the cost of early-stage discovery. In theory, that democratises innovation. In practice, it risks concentrating power. Training and deploying frontier models requires massive compute and proprietary datasets—resources controlled by a handful of tech and pharma giants. Smaller labs risk becoming dependent, licensing access rather than innovating independently.

The economic implications ripple outward. Will insurers reimburse AI-designed treatments differently? Will costs actually fall for patients, or will monopoly pricing persist? Alphabet’s Isomorphic Labs, which has already signed multi-billion-dollar partnerships with major drugmakers, embodies this tension: breakthrough efficiency paired with concentrated control.

Politics: Biotech as geopolitical strategy

COVID-19 taught nations that control over vaccines and treatments is not just a health issue—it’s sovereignty. Governments are now pouring billions into AI-biotech ecosystems. Whoever leads in this space doesn’t just sell cures; they wield geopolitical leverage.

Emerging technologies like quantum computing add another layer. Quantum promises to simulate molecules and chemical interactions at scales classical computers can’t touch. Partnerships such as Boehringer Ingelheim with Google Quantum AI are early signals. For countries, this isn’t just about innovation—it’s about future control over health, defense, and economic power.

Social impacts: Access, trust, and equity

Let’s say AI shortens discovery cycles tenfold. Who gets the new drugs first? Wealthy nations with purchasing power? Patients with premium insurance? Without careful policy, AI risks widening global health inequities between the Global North and South.

Trust is another fault line. How comfortable will people be taking a treatment designed largely by machines? In healthcare, perception shapes adoption as much as efficacy. Review articles note that even when accuracy improves, social acceptance cannot be assumed.

There’s also the question of data. AI-driven biotech relies on genomic and clinical datasets. Who owns this data? Are patients fully consenting to its use? And when genomic data flows across borders, what protections follow it? Without clear answers, privacy and trust will become major bottlenecks.

Also Read: Asia-Pacific governments step in as private biotech investors pull back

Workforce and culture: Who gets left behind?

AI’s acceleration raises uncomfortable questions about the people inside the system. If algorithms handle much of early-stage drug design, what happens to thousands of researchers who once did that work manually? There’s a risk of deskilling, where human expertise erodes as machines take over the hardest parts of the pipeline.

Yet there’s also an opportunity. New roles are emerging: data stewards, model auditors, bioethics officers. The biotech workforce could shift from “pipette in hand” to “oversight of AI-wet lab loops.” Whether this is empowering or displacing depends on how institutions prepare now.

The real blueprint

The future of AI in biotechnology isn’t just about algorithms—it’s about design. A resilient blueprint must embed ethics, governance, economics, politics, and social equity from the start.

Because the promise is enormous: faster cures, more resilient health systems, breakthroughs against diseases that have long eluded us. But the risks are just as stark: monopolies, inequity, regulatory arbitrage, public mistrust, and workforce disruption.

For innovators, leaders, and policymakers, the central question is simple but urgent:

Can we design a biotech future where AI serves not only markets, but humanity?

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post AI in biotechnology: Promise, power, and the politics of progress appeared first on e27.

Each year, millions of lives across Asia are sustained by blood transfusions, yet many countries in the region continue to experience recurring shortages. According to the World Health Organisation, 40 per cent come from high-income countries, despite these countries accounting for 16 per cent of the world’s population. In Asia, where demand outpaces supply, this imbalance is starkly felt.

Why people hold back

As a regular blood donor, I’ve come to appreciate both the urgency of the need and the depth of public hesitation that surrounds blood donation. When I ask friends why they don’t donate, the answers are strikingly similar: “It must be painful” or “I’m worried I won’t qualify.”

The truth is, the procedure itself is far less intimidating than people assume. However, one obstacle remains—screening potential donors for low haemoglobin levels. The WHO estimates that anaemia affects an estimated 571 million women and 269 million young children worldwide, with the highest prevalence in South and Southeast Asia.

In fact, up to 15–20 per cent of potential donors are turned away in some Asian countries due to low haemoglobin counts. Pre-screening usually involves a finger-prick blood sample. While minor, it acts as a psychological barrier for many. For those living with Sensory Processing Sensitivity, which includes about 20 per cent of Singapore’s population—myself among them—that single fingertip prick can be particularly painful even hours after testing.

Also Read: Healthtech in South and Southeast Asia – Seeing beyond the “obvious”

Reimagining screening through technology

The gap is what motivated me to create an app with a non-invasive haemoglobin scanner. The idea was simple: if people could check their haemoglobin levels quickly and painlessly before visiting a donation centre, we could remove one of the main barriers to participation. And by scanning their lips.

According to a retrospective study of the Singapore Blood Transfusion Service, about 14.4 per cent of prospective blood donors were deferred either temporarily or permanently at the pre-donation screening stage. Among the top reasons for deferral were a low haemoglobin count, alongside factors such as recent medication use and recovery from a flu or fever. This means that one in seven Singaporeans presenting to donate blood are turned away.

The first wave of feedback was eye-opening, not just from prospective blood donors but also from individuals who regularly require blood testing for medical reasons, as well as inactive donors who shared that they might be more inclined to donate if pre-screening felt less invasive. And fast. Both groups shared that an easier, pain-free haemoglobin check could be a meaningful help in reducing anxiety, encouraging participation and lessening care costs.

Developing Genesis1 is not just about convenience. It is about using advanced technology – specifically, Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning – to normalise blood donation and reframe the experience as empowering rather than intimidating. What struck me most was that modern technology could transform the act of giving blood from something intimidating into something empowering.

Beyond donor centres

From a healthtech perspective, the potential extends far beyond donor centres. Anaemia often goes undiagnosed, particularly in communities with limited access to healthcare. A portable, easy-to-operate tool could empower clinics, schools and even self-help groups to screen populations at scale, turning what is currently a reactive diagnosis into a proactive measure.

For governments and Non-Governmental Organisations managing national blood banks and public health campaigns, this kind of solution could optimise donor pools, reduce deferral rates and ultimately help build more resilient healthcare systems.

Also Read: The most-funded healthtech startups in Southeast Asia: A decade in review

Small shifts, big impact

The strength of health innovation in Asia lies in its scale. With large and varied populations, even a slight increase in active donors results in a significant impact. Think about it.

A five per cent increase in active donors translates into thousands of lives saved annually. By reducing barriers to eligibility screening, the application takes a small but significant step towards closing the supply gap, particularly in regions like Thailand and Indonesia, where shortages can mean the difference between life and death.

From fear to solidarity

The broader vision is clear: technology should serve as an enabler, not a gatekeeper. By designing tools that are intuitive, affordable and scalable, we can influence public attitudes towards blood donation and tackle one of the region’s most urgent yet solvable healthcare challenges.

Innovations like Genesis1 can help reshape public health attitudes across Asia. If people start to view health checks as accessible and painless, blood donation will feel less like a test of endurance and more like an act of shared responsibility. That shift, from fear to solidarity, could help cultivate a culture where giving blood is not unusual, but expected.

Blood donation is fundamentally an act of solidarity. By combining that human kindness with thoughtful innovation, we can ensure that fear and inconvenience never stand in the way of saving lives.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image courtesy: Canva Pro

The post Why I built an app to make blood donation less scary appeared first on e27.

Breaking into any industry as a startup in Asia is no small feat, but healthcare is in a league of its own. Known for its sky-high barriers to entry, strict regulations, and entrenched systems, healthcare is one of the hardest industries to disrupt and build in, especially in a region as diverse and dynamic as Asia.

Yet, for entrepreneurs willing to take the leap, the potential for massive impact and lucrative rewards make healthcare an industry worth exploring. Let’s delve into why healthcare is so tough to crack, the opportunities hiding within these challenges, and why startups should still consider this as a game-changing frontier.

Why healthcare is so challenging to disrupt

Entering the healthcare industry as an entrepreneur is not for the faint-hearted. Unlike sectors that thrive on rapid innovation and quick market entry, healthcare demands a meticulous, patient-centered approach. The industry is tightly regulated, highly capital-intensive, and deeply entrenched in legacy systems. For startups, this means navigating a minefield of challenges before making an impact.

Here are the key barriers that make healthcare one of the most difficult industries to disrupt:

• Regulatory complexity

Healthcare is one of the most tightly controlled sectors globally and Asia’s regulatory landscape is especially intricate. Each country enforces its own rigorous approval processes for new technologies, drugs, or devices. Entrepreneurs must invest significant time and resources into navigating these frameworks, with timelines often stretching into years before a product or service can be commercialised.

• High capital requirements

Building a healthcare startup demands substantial funding. Unlike industries where a lean MVP (Minimum Viable Product) can validate ideas, healthcare innovation requires clinical trials, certifications, and compliance testing—all of which are time-intensive and costly. Startups need to be prepared for a long runway to achieve profitability.

• Fragmented markets

Asia’s diversity is both a blessing and a challenge. While it offers enormous market potential, each country’s healthcare infrastructure, patient demographics, and consumer behaviour differ widely. Entrepreneurs must create hyper-localised solutions while maintaining scalability—a balancing act that’s easier said than done.

• Consumer trust and adoption

In healthcare, trust is paramount. Patients, providers, and regulators are cautious about adopting unproven solutions. Startups must focus on not just innovation but also credibility, ensuring that their offerings meet the highest standards of quality and reliability.

Also Read: Decoding digital preferences: A glimpse into the future of health tech ecosystem in SEA

Why startups should still take the leap

While the barriers are steep, the rewards for healthcare entrepreneurs who succeed are unparalleled. The healthcare sector is ripe for disruption in Asia, with several drivers creating fertile ground for innovation:

• Unmet Needs and Inefficiencies: The region is plagued with challenges such as uneven access to care, long wait times, and underfunded healthcare systems. These inefficiencies represent opportunities for startups to step in and create transformative solutions.
• Digital Transformation: The pandemic accelerated digital adoption in healthcare, opening doors for telemedicine, AI-driven diagnostics, and healthtech platforms. Entrepreneurs can now leverage technology to address age-old challenges more effectively.
• Growing Middle Class: As incomes rise across Asia, there’s an increasing demand for high-quality healthcare services. Startups focusing on affordability, accessibility, and convenience can cater to this expanding demographic.
• Social Impact and Legacy: Few industries offer the chance to create as much tangible, positive change as healthcare. Entrepreneurs venturing into this space have the opportunity to build companies that save lives, improve well-being, and shape the future of medicine.

Key opportunities for startups in healthcare

Despite the significant challenges, the healthcare industry in Asia presents immense opportunities for entrepreneurs who are willing to innovate and persevere. The region’s growing population, rising healthcare demands, and increasing adoption of technology have created fertile ground for startups to address critical gaps in care.

By identifying unmet needs and leveraging cutting-edge technologies, startups can disrupt traditional healthcare models and create transformative solutions. Here are some of the most promising opportunities in the healthcare sector for entrepreneurs:

• Telemedicine and virtual care: Platforms like Halodoc (Indonesia) and Practo (India) have shown that connecting patients and doctors remotely is not only viable but highly scalable. Entrepreneurs can explore niche markets, such as mental health support or specialised consultations, to carve out a unique space.
• AI-powered diagnostics: Artificial intelligence is revolutionising diagnostics by improving speed and accuracy. Startups can focus on creating affordable diagnostic tools tailored to specific markets, like rural areas where access to medical expertise is limited.
• Personalised medicine: With advances in genomics, startups can deliver tailored healthcare solutions, from customised treatment plans to preventive care, allowing patients to receive more effective interventions.
• Preventive healthcare and wellness: Wearable technology, health monitoring apps, and digital platforms promoting preventive care are gaining traction. These solutions appeal to tech-savvy consumers seeking to take charge of their health.

Startup survival tips for healthcare entrepreneurs

To thrive in this challenging yet rewarding space, consider these essential survival strategies:

• Play the long game: Healthcare is a marathon, not a sprint. Be prepared for long lead times and plan your funding runway accordingly. Investors with deep industry knowledge can be invaluable partners.
• Localise and scale thoughtfully: While the ultimate goal may be regional or global scale, begin by deeply understanding and solving the problems of a specific market. Once proven, expand strategically to new geographies.
• Build credibility from day one: Trust is everything in healthcare. Collaborate with established healthcare providers, hire domain experts, and prioritise data security and regulatory compliance to build confidence with all stakeholders.
• Embrace collaboration over competition: Healthcare is not an industry where disruption is synonymous with destroying incumbents. Often, startups succeed by working alongside established players to create synergies.

Also Read: What telemedicine and health tech holds across SEA amidst COVID-19

Why the healthcare industry needs entrepreneurs

The healthcare industry is overdue for innovation, particularly in Asia. It’s a space crying out for fresh ideas, bold thinkers, and courageous doers. While the challenges may seem insurmountable, they also act as a moat, ensuring that only the most committed and visionary entrepreneurs enter.

For those willing to invest their time, effort, and ingenuity, the rewards extend far beyond financial gain. They include the satisfaction of making a meaningful impact, improving lives, and leaving a legacy.

In healthcare, the stakes are high—but so are the rewards. If you’re an entrepreneur ready to take on one of the hardest industries to disrupt, Asia’s healthcare market is waiting for you. Will you answer the call?

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Join us on Instagram, Facebook, X, and LinkedIn to stay connected.

Image credit: Canva Pro

The post The hardest industries to disrupt and start in Asia: A focus on healthcare appeared first on e27.

In today’s hyperconnected world, cybersecurity and data governance have become board-level imperatives. A single breach, data leak, or regulatory misstep can inflict not only financial loss but also reputational damage, legal penalties, and erosion of stakeholder trust. Yet, despite escalating threats, many boards in Asia still treat cybersecurity as a technical issue rather than a strategic risk requiring active oversight.

Boards that treat cybersecurity and data governance as strategic responsibilities safeguard enterprise value, build stakeholder confidence, and enable sustainable growth.

The rising stakes of cyber and data risks

Asia is a hotspot for cyber threats due to its large digital economies, rapid adoption of cloud and AI technologies, and cross-border data flows. Boards must consider risks that include:

• Ransomware and cyberattacks: Disrupting operations, supply chains, and customer services.
• Data privacy breaches: Regulatory fines under GDPR, PDPA, or local privacy laws.
• Third-party vendor vulnerabilities: Supply chain attacks exposing sensitive information.
• AI and algorithmic risks: Mismanaged models leading to bias, fraud, or operational errors.
• Reputational exposure: Loss of customer trust can impact market position and valuation.

The frequency, complexity, and financial impact of cyber incidents are growing. According to recent studies, Asian organisations face a 40–50 per cent higher risk of cyberattacks than global averages, making board-level attention essential.

Also Read: Code, power, and chaos: The geopolitics of cybersecurity

Boards must shift from compliance to strategic oversight

Traditional approaches — approving IT budgets or receiving quarterly reports – are no longer sufficient. Boards must integrate cybersecurity and data governance into enterprise risk and strategy discussions:

• Strategic risk lens: Treat cyber and data risks as core to enterprise risk management, not merely IT risk. Consider potential operational, regulatory, financial, and reputational impacts.
• Continuous monitoring and reporting: Boards should receive real-time dashboards on threat levels, incident response readiness, and regulatory compliance. Lagging metrics are insufficient in a rapidly evolving threat landscape.
• Scenario planning and stress tests: Boards should engage management in simulations of cyberattacks, data leaks, or AI system failures. These exercises reveal weaknesses and prepare leadership for high-stakes incidents.

Key questions boards should ask

To fulfil their oversight responsibilities, boards should challenge executives with strategic questions:

• How are we securing critical infrastructure and sensitive data across the organisation?
• What are the key third-party or supply chain vulnerabilities?
• How frequently do we conduct penetration tests, audits, and incident simulations?
• What is our incident response plan, and how quickly can it be executed?
• Are cybersecurity and data governance KPIs embedded into executive performance evaluations?

These questions elevate cybersecurity from a technical discussion to a board-level governance concern.

Integrating cybersecurity into culture and talent strategy

Effective oversight requires more than policies; it requires embedding cyber awareness into organisational culture:

• Executive accountability: CEOs and CIOs must be responsible for implementation, with boards reviewing outcomes.
• Employee awareness: Continuous training reduces risk from human error and phishing attacks.
• Talent capability: Boards should assess whether the organisation has sufficient cybersecurity expertise at all levels.
• Cross-functional integration: Cyber and data governance should be connected with risk, compliance, and business strategy functions.

Culture is the often-overlooked defence layer — it is as important as technology.

Also Read: How cybersecurity crises are redefining corporate accountability

Board capabilities and education

Aspiring independent directors must demonstrate:

• Cyber literacy to understand key threats, mitigation strategies, and emerging technologies.
• Awareness of regulatory trends, including cross-border data flows and privacy compliance.
• Capability to challenge management assumptions while remaining constructive.
• Understanding of AI, cloud, and digital platforms as both opportunities and vulnerabilities.

Boards should periodically engage external advisors, conduct briefings, and participate in tabletop exercises to maintain readiness.

Conclusion: Cybersecurity and data governance as strategic imperatives

Cybersecurity and data governance are no longer IT issues — they are enterprise-wide, strategic imperatives. Boards that integrate these considerations into strategy, risk management, and culture:

• Protect enterprise value from financial and reputational loss
• Strengthen investor and stakeholder confidence
• Enable responsible digital transformation
• Ensure organisational resilience in an increasingly connected world

For Asian boards, the mandate is clear: cyber and data governance are now board responsibilities, not optional technical topics. Boards that lead here create both security and competitive advantage.

This article was first published on The Boardroom Edge.

—

Editor’s note: e27 aims to foster thought leadership by publishing views from the community. Share your opinion by submitting an article, video, podcast, or infographic.

Enjoyed this read? Don’t miss out on the next insight. Join our WhatsApp channel for real-time drops.

Image credit: Canva

The post Cybersecurity and data governance in the boardroom: A strategic imperative for Asian boards appeared first on e27.