In reference to 'MCA and Gerakan silent on quota issue' (May 12) in which its writer, Economist said that the only Chinese politician who spoke up was Lim Kit Siang (the MCA and Gerakan being more vocal and interested in PAS's ban on drinking or gambling or having separate queues for ladies in Kelantan and Terengganu than issues of their children's education), it must be recollected in favour of MCA that it was its Selangor Youth deputy chief Liew Yuen Keong who first brought out the plight of the 500 top scorers to national attention through The Star report of April 27.

Again, it is the MCA Youth that now challenges the Education Ministry on its enrolment figures of bumiputra and non-bumiputra in public universities and private institutions (see Star on May 13).

MCA's modus operandi is to do the background work more than talk. I am sure it is no less concerned about their children's education as suggested by Economist. It has to take into account of the sensitivities of Umno, the big brother in the Barisan Nasional coalition of which it belongs to.

Umno leaders on the other hand will of course defend the quota system in voices stentorian, and even suggest increasing of the bumiputra quota from 55 percent to 66 percent in line with the racial composition. Yet quietly the cabinet would probably find a way to accommodate the 500 non-bumiputra scorers in local tertiary institutions. This is because reality and common sense must prevail. The country can ill afford the brain drain and drain of foreign exchange to benefit other countries.

By the Byzantine nature of our politics, there is always a gap between what is publicly stated, and quietly done regardless whether, that which is done, is for public good or detriment.

Our government leaders are probably more sophisticated and practical than we care to give them credit for. If they appear parochial or racists, it may well be because they think, rightly or wrongly, that their respective constituencies on which they depend for political ascendancy within the party, think along racial lines. Such approach by our politicians, though hardly statesmanlike or inspiring, is however practical.

Worldwide, racial animus is a natural and normal phenomenon whenever different races are placed in the same country. Ethnic groups will evaluate their perceived well-being in comparison with others. In popular perceptions, such measurements are highly subjective. In Malaysia each ethnic group thinks the other is better off (in different areas).

Generally, racial preferences will be imposed by the politically strong (majority) upon the politically weak (minority). The political process dominated by majority is hence used as a means of extracting advantages for their own group at the expense of others. The argument that the quota is meant to effect social engineering to level the playing field between the haves and the have-nots (defined ethnically) is not plausible simply because all racial groups are divided on class lines. For other ethnic groups and not just the target group for affirmative policies suffer the education privations in varying proportions.

I doubt this state of affairs will change amongst the majority of people for the next 250 years. So long as the majority of people incline to these mindsets, so will their political leaders continue to exploit these impulses and insecurities to climb secure and maintain power.

Even if the above applies very much to the state of affairs in this country which is aggravated by the affirmative policies being institutionalised for the benefit of the politically strong majority, the situation on the ground may not be actually so bad for the minorities.

Taking the recent outcry on the 500 non-bumiputra high achievers. If the government still does not secure places in local public universities for them, they can, as suggested by Sreedhara Naidu ('Options for rejected top scorers', May 12) avail themselves to scholarships from corporations, foundations and foreign universities. Even if they could not, their top grades make them good credit risks for banks to grant them study loans.

For non-bumiputra parents that are financially well off, they can afford to send their children abroad for their education even if their grades are ordinary.

For the middle-class parents, they can resort to the twinning programmes offered by the many private colleges which allow students to take introductory courses in Malaysia before transferring those credits abroad for their final years for the degree, thus saving significant amounts of money in tuition and living expenses.

All said, the effect of reverse discrimination of the affirmative quota system against the non-bumiputra is not all that an unmitigated disaster. Consider the following benefits and unintended consequence:

- They learn the value of work ethic and excellence as a basis of survival;

- They do well in their studies and get opportunities to study overseas which open vistas of employment opportunities globally;

- They get tertiary qualifications from well-accredited universities abroad to stand them in good stead.

What about other high achievers whose family financial circumstances cannot afford private colleges offering twinning programmes?

As earlier stated, there is a reasonable chance that the government will find ways and means to accommodate their admission in public universities in order to avert the aggravation of brain drain.

MCA President Dr Ling Liong Sik had also called on all state Barisan Nasional branches nationwide to set up funds to help students with excellent results to continue their studies at private institutions of higher learning. MIC also made similar calls (see Star on May 13) The Barisan Nasional through its education working committee would review the scholarship quota set by the National Higher Education Fund Corporation for non-bumiputras ( Star , May 10 and 12).

Is there a political will to persevere with this reasonable course on the government's part? I don'tsee why it is not the case. I believe the government genuinely wants to liberalise and do good to all sectors not so much because of altruism but the need to survive, and continue in power, in the face of the increasing strength of the opposition stoked by the Anwar Ibrahim debacle.

The coalition in power will try to remain in power at all costs. The signs are obvious - the forming of Suhakam to investigate human rights abuses, the custodial sentence on the ex-IGP for causing grievous hurt, the campaign, beginning with Umno, against money politics, the removal of Foreign Investment Committee (FIC) and capital control restrictions and now the greater receptivity on Information Ministry's part to the Press Council.

In conclusion, the problem of high achievers not getting a place in local universities appears to be politicised to an extent greater than perhaps the actual problem. I am sure in many of the cases of high achievers, it is not that they are not offered a place in public universities but they are not offered that which they want and apply for!

Speaking for myself only, I take a more flexible approach and accept whatever that I could get.

The tertiary education (whatever the discipline) is to allow an opportunity to train my thinking skills. It is not to chart my career trajectory. For example, I have known of people qualified in geology or music to become prominent bankers. Likewise those youngsters who harbour adolescent aspirations to qualify (say) as doctors, lawyers or engineers probably do not know much about the lives and problems that each of these profession entails and what it takes to succeed in them.

There should be a dichotomy between tertiary education and career. The purpose of the former is to train the mind to think. It need not be an automatic credential to the job market.

With this flexible approach, I think educational opportunities abound here for all, and the quota notwithstanding. It shouldn't be a big issue.