I refer to the ongoing feud between Umno Youth chief Hishammuddin Hussein and MCA president Dr Ling Liong Sik on the 10 percent quota in private institutions of higher learning.

There is no need for a 10 percent quota at all, period. But why only 10 percent? Why not 20 or 50 percent? Surely private institutions of higher learning are a different agency from public ones where the government has a say on the quota allocation?

Private institutions are subject to the market forces of supply and demand. If you have the money and the qualification, you are in  it would only mean more costs to be incurred by the government.

Where will they come up with the money? one may ask. Perbadanan Tabung Pendidikan Tinggi Negara or the National Higher Education Fund? I don't think so going by the large volume of complaints filed against it.

Part of the reason why most non-bumiputra went for private institutions in the first place is because of scarcity of places in public ones, all because of the quota. Another reason put forward is the lack of perceived quality teaching personnel in public institutions.

The call for a 10 percent quota is again a step backward in the current call for meritocracy. Even the latest admission in local public universities under the so-called meritocracy scheme produced 69 percent bumiputra which is much more than the 55 percent quota allocated previously.

With such a large gap in admission in local public universities, where do you think the majority of the non-bumiputra went for their tertiary education? Naturally, the private institutions, by spending a huge amount of their hard-earned money without any help from the government and least of all from PTPTN.

It has come to a point where the non-bumiputra has long given up hope of any help from the government — be it to enter local public universities or to get any scholarship. As a result, neighbouring Singapore benefitted by offering scholarships to these bright students and bonding them to work in the republic.