Law puts parents in unfair and precarious position

It is worrying to hear that parents are legally obliged to fund their children's overseas education (Parents obliged to support children's education, Aug 29).

A university education is more of a privilege than an entitlement. I do not remember university education being covered under the Compulsory Education Act.

It was reported that the courts will dismiss a case if a parent cannot afford to fund the child's university education.

But what about a similar scenario: A family can technically afford a university education for the child and not go bankrupt.

However, funding the child would mean that parents might need to continue to work hard or tighten their belts and live less comfortably. Under such circumstances, are the parents equally liable?

Also, what about other factors? For instance, if the child insists on having a university education but the parents feel that he is simply not cut out for it, and his strength lies elsewhere?

Or what if the child does not possess the right attitude for learning and is likely to waste the education, but insists on pursuing further studies?

After all, parents know their children best. I am sure parents would not want to invest money in a futile endeavour, especially since tuition fees are not cheap. This puts parents in an unfair and precarious situation.

Sean Lim Wei Xin

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on September 03, 2019, with the headline 'Law puts parents in unfair and precarious position'. Print Edition | Subscribe