Dear Editor,

The revelations coming out of Wednesday’s meeting of Parliament’s Public Administration and Appropriations Committee are, frankly, striking.

According to the Students’ Loan Bureau (SLB), some borrowers are saying they did not know they had to repay their loans; others apparently believe that repayment can be postponed indefinitely; and then there are those who, by the bureau’s own account, simply do not want to pay.

Let us pause here.

How does an educated adult take out a loan to finance a university education and later claim not to know that the money must be repaid? This is not a trick question, it is not an obscure clause hidden in a legal document written in Latin — a loan is a loan. The very word loan implies an obligation to repay. Yet the SLB is reporting a delinquency rate of 47.5 per cent as at March 2026, with some borrowers reportedly denying or misunderstanding the most basic principle of borrowing.

This is rather astonishing. And I say this while fully acknowledging that Jamaica has a serious problem with unemployment, underemployment, low wages, and financial hardship.

The same report rightly points to graduates who are struggling because of circumstances beyond their control. Some have pursued further studies, some have unstable employment, and some are simply unable to make the required payments. These people must not be treated in the same manner as those who can pay but deliberately choose not to. But how will the SLB differentiate between the two groups?

This distinction matters. But let us also be honest about the other side of this conversation. Some of the same graduates who claim confusion about student loans understand perfectly well how borrowing works when they want a car. They understand the monthly instalment. They understand the interest. They understand that missing payments can damage their credit standing. They understand that a repossessed vehicle is a real possibility. And when the dream is homeownership, they understand that a mortgage is not a gift from the bank. They know that the financial institution expects its money back, over years, with interest.

So what happens to our collective financial literacy when the loaner is the SLB? The hypocrisy is difficult to ignore.

The Government and the SLB deserve credit for making tertiary education financing more accessible. The SLB’s revolving loan model is designed precisely to allow one generation of students to borrow and repay so that subsequent generations can benefit from the same fund. The bureau has also introduced measures such as the Debt Reset Programme, which provides structured repayment arrangements and targeted relief, including waivers on late fees, insurance charges, and portions of interest arrears. This is commendable.

Indeed, the SLB’s own data show that it lent approximately $20 billion to students over the past five years, while collecting about $8 billion in repayments and receiving $3.2 billion in government support.

But accessibility must come with responsibility. We cannot applaud the availability of the loan when we need the money and then develop selective amnesia when repayment is to begin.

A loan is a loan and must be repaid.

The consequences are not abstract. The SLB is a revolving loan scheme. The money being repaid today is part of the financial capacity that helps tomorrow’s students access tertiary education. When borrowers who can pay refuse to do so, they are not merely frustrating a government agency, they are weakening the opportunities available to the next student who needs assistance.

That is the part that appears to be missing from the national conversation. The young woman in rural Jamaica who wants to become a nurse is affected. The young man from a struggling family who wants to become an engineer is affected. The student whose parents simply cannot finance university is affected.

Every dollar that is unnecessarily withheld from the system has implications for its sustainability. And there is another consequence: The SLB has indicated that delinquency can affect borrowers’ credit standing, while maintaining good standing can improve access to future loans from other financial institutions. In other words, refusing to pay is not an act without consequence. It can follow the borrower.

Still, I agree with the parliamentarians who have urged the SLB to distinguish between those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. A social lender must understand the social circumstances of its borrowers. The bureau has already indicated that repayment plans, deferred payments, and graduation-date extensions are available in appropriate cases.

The SLB must continue to improve its human touch. A graduate earning little or nothing should not be treated like a deliberate defaulter with a stable income and a refusal to engage. There must be flexibility, compassion, and case-by-case assessment.

But compassion cannot become a national excuse for irresponsibility. We must stop confusing hardship with defiance. If a borrower is unemployed, he or she needs to say so. If one’s salary cannot accommodate the repayment, it is important to engage the SLB. If a borrower is pursuing further studies, that should be communicated to the bureau. If one’s circumstances have changed, it is wise to seek an arrangement. But if the borrower has the capacity to pay and simply decides that he or she will not, then spare us the excuses.

An educated society must understand the difference between a grant and a loan.

The SLB has opened doors for thousands of Jamaicans. We must not allow indiscipline, denial, and selective amnesia to close those doors for the generations coming behind us.

Borrow today, repay tomorrow. That is not punishment; that is how the opportunity survives.

Oneil Madden

maddenoniel@yahoo.com