SMALL FAMILIES IMPROVEMENT SCHEME - ST REPORTS

1 Jan 1994

        The Dec 30 ST editorial on the Small Families Improvement 
Scheme piqued my curiosity when it mentioned that: 

"Far from being welfare in the Western sense, this is a result-
oriented incentive to become independent: the Education 
Ministry can withdraw bursaries if there is no improvement 
after five years."

        Pardon me, but "improvement" in what? Furthermore, why 
was this caveat (bursaries conditional upon an unspecified 
"improvement" within five years) not reported in the numerous articles 
previously published in ST? What other conditions of the Scheme 
might have been left out of your reporting?
        While going through your earlier articles, I also came across 
one that was headlined 4,000 families stand to benefit (ST, 11 Nov). 
The article said that:

"In August, Mr Yeo [Cheow Tong] said about 8,600 families 
would be eligible. The reason for the change was not brought 
up."

        However, in both your Dec 30 editorial and the report by Ms 
Geraldine Kan (ST, 27 Dec), the 8,000 (or 8,600) figure reappeared. 
Why the reversion to the earlier figure? For that matter, why did ST not 
query Mr Yeo about the earlier change from 8,000 to 4,000? Do figures 
any longer hold meaning if they can be bandied around so carelessly?
        As the leading local English daily, readers surely expect 
trenchant, informative and consistent reporting. The recent lapses were, 
therefore, most regrettable.
        I hope that you will set matters right by giving Singaporeans a 
complete and accurate report on the Small Families Improvement 
Scheme.