RDU chief chides Shawn Loh as out of touch over remarks on university funding burden on parents

On 6 April 2026, Red Dot United Secretary-General Ravi Philemon publicly criticised comments made by Member of Parliament Shawn Loh regarding university funding, calling them “out of touch” with the lived realities of ordinary Singaporeans.

Philemon’s remarks followed an interview released on 30 March 2026 by local media outlet Mothership, in which Loh shared his perspective on education policy and family financial responsibilities.

At the centre of the debate is Loh’s assertion that “university should not be funded by parents,” a statement he framed within a broader discussion on how society allocates resources across different stages of life.

Loh outlines distinction between childcare and higher education

During the interview, Loh argued that subsidising childcare is easier to justify as it produces broader societal benefits, including supporting families and contributing to national identity.

He described childcare support as helping to “relieve the burdens and anxieties of parents,” while strengthening the next generation.

In contrast, Loh said the benefits of university education “accrue more to the individual,” citing improved career prospects and personal development.

He added that “how the rest of society benefits your university education is not that clear,” suggesting this complicates arguments for extensive public funding.

Personal experience shapes Loh’s position

Loh also drew from his personal background, stating that neither he nor his sibling expected their parents to fund their university education.

“I don’t think university should be funded by parents,” he said, explaining that he studied on scholarship while his sibling relied on a loan.

He emphasised that expectations differ across families, indicating that reliance on parental funding is not universal.

Loh further downplayed concerns about university costs in family planning, noting that parents are typically more focused on immediate expenses such as childcare, infant care, and healthcare.

Philemon challenges narrative with cost realities

Philemon responded strongly to these remarks, arguing that they fail to reflect the financial pressures faced by most families.

“If you need proof that the new MPs and much of the 4G leadership are out of touch with how people on the ground feel, this is another example of it.”

He cited surveys indicating that parents place significant importance on ensuring their children receive tertiary education, often at considerable financial cost.

Rising education costs and parental burden highlighted

Philemon pointed to historical data suggesting that parents were spending around S$21,000 annually on university education a decade ago, adding that costs have likely risen substantially since then.

He emphasised that many families are willing to incur debt to support their children’s education.

“More than 50% of parents are willing to go into debt to fund their child’s university education,” he said.

“Almost all students heading for university rely on ‘the bank of mum and dad’: 95% of parents foot at least some of the cost.”

Inequality and competition intensify pressures

Philemon also highlighted broader systemic pressures, including what he described as an “education arms race”.

He referenced 2023 figures showing that families spent S$1.8 billion on private tuition, with higher-income households spending significantly more than lower-income groups.

“There is intense competition and financial pressure around education pathways that lead to tertiary entry,” he said.

“No expense is spared by parents to help their children achieve what’s best for their future.”

Questions raised over privilege and background

Philemon further questioned whether Loh’s personal experiences may have been shaped by socio-economic advantages.

He noted Loh’s academic background at the University of Chicago and the University of Oxford, both globally prestigious institutions.

“Very few Singaporeans, especially from working-class backgrounds, could self-fund Chicago and Oxford in economics without substantial scholarships and institutional support,” Philemon said.

He argued that such pathways are not representative of the average Singaporean experience.

Broader critique of political leadership

Philemon extended his criticism beyond Loh, suggesting that the remarks reflect a wider disconnect within political leadership.

“This is why I say we have two Singapores,” he said.

“One for the ultra-rich class, the top 1%, and the elites like Shawn, and the other for the rest of us.”

He argued that policymakers risk overlooking the real anxieties faced by families, particularly in areas such as education affordability and long-term financial security.

Debate over children as public good resurfaces

A key point of contention lies in how policymakers conceptualise the societal value of education and family support.

Philemon criticised what he described as inconsistency in Loh’s reasoning, particularly regarding the idea of children as a public good.

“On the one hand, he justifies free childcare because children benefit the next generation and ‘our national identity’,” he said.

“On the other hand, he refuses to see tertiary education in the same way.”

He argued that in a context of declining fertility rates, investments in education should also be viewed as contributing to the broader social good.

Policy alternatives proposed by Red Dot United

Philemon highlighted RDU’s proposal for a Child Trust Fund as an alternative approach.

The policy would set aside S$200,000 for each Singaporean child at birth, with funds invested and returns released at key milestones such as higher education.

“This ensures parents are not left wondering how to find S$30,000 to S$50,000 for university,” he said.

“It creates a system where support is ringfenced from day one.”

Philemon argued that policies on education and housing risk being perceived as tools to influence behaviour rather than responses to genuine concerns.

“They treat housing and education as levers to push people into decisions,” he said.

“Instead of listening to the real anxieties about costs, security and dignity.”