By Alireza Behzadnia
In every presidential debate, both parties are prepared. Mainly because it is an anticipated event, but in NUMed that was not the case...
Student Council election is over, and The Big Bang (TBB) emerged as the winner. 2 days before the election, on October 24th, a “debate” or open discussion session was initiated by some Stage 1 students for the two competing teams to further explain their manifestos. Only one team, Nerves, was present for the session.
Most of the Stage 1 students were surprised when they saw the sudden announcement on the social networking site, Facebook, regarding the open discussion, which took place at the Jordan Lecture Theatre in the evening of that day itself. Shortly after, TBB informed everyone through the same platform that they had chosen not to attend the session. They later reasoned that they felt an open discussion was unnecessary as their team worked differently, where they would just present their manifesto in 5-10 minutes to each Stage and encouraged students to approach them in person for any enquiries.
Nerves offered listening ears via their Gmail account and welcomed the idea of an open session to discuss the details of their manifesto. Although both teams provided their own feedback channel, truth was few students made use of it. I took an opportunity to interview one of the two Stage 1 students who were behind the idea of having a debate or open discussion session between the two teams running for NUMed’s first Student Council. For confidentiality purposes we call him *Jacob.
Me: Was the idea for organising this event sparked from the US Presidential Debate? (President Obama won the election.)
Jacob: Nah. I just thought it is right to openly question the teams’ manifestos. It should be spontaneous, so we could clearly see the difference between the two teams when they have no time to prepare anything in advance.
Me: Why is it decided that a debate/open discussion should take place?
Jacob: I feel that both groups had an equal chance of winning, but at the end of the day it was just words, anyone can claim something, but living up to it is entirely different. There was no way we could physically go around checking everything, but we could have an open discussion where they could explain how they were going to do it, a proper game plan.
Me: Would it not be better if both teams had some time to prepare themselves, to allow for updates and so making the session more constructive?
Jacob: My idea was that the manifestos would be based on ideas that both teams would have pre-planned, so it should be defendable on the spot. A debate would be a clear way for each individual to show who they really are, while under pressure. A spontaneous session would eliminate any rehearsed expressions or personalities.
I do admit that the organisation of the session was too last minute and thus not well done. I hope we can still do this for the next election, albeit in a more carefully and appropriately planned manner. I did not mean to create any animosity between any parties, or to cause any inconveniences for anyone. For that, I apologize.
About 30 students showed up at the open discussion session which started at 5.30pm. I had a chance to talk to the Social Representative of Nerves, Mr.Jenwae Ho.
Me: How long did your team take to prepare your manifesto? What did you think of the open discussion session?
Jenwae: We started planning our manifesto since the first day the team was formed. We were quite excited for the session, most of us thought it would be beneficial to our campaign.
Me: What would you advise, if any students would like to host a debate for future student council election?
Jenwae: It should be done on an earlier notice, and consent from both parties must be gained before finalising such event.
I also approached Ms. Trisha Kuck, the Social Representative of TBB or the current Student Council for comments.
Me: What is your view on the open discussion session?
Trisha: We were informed at such a late hour, it was past midnight! The organisers could have approached us more properly, in a formal and pleasant manner.
Me: I understand that TBB went around and talked to students individually. Did that make your team feel that there is no need for such a session anymore?
Trisha: Oh no, that is not our view. We just felt that such an organisation could have been more impartial, especially in regards to communicating with both teams. We would have attended another session arranged by Stage 4 student, Paik Hwa the next day.
Ms. Paik Hwa arranged another Q/A session on the 25th of October with a different approach. She first gauged the number of students who showed real interest in attending the session through the aforementioned social networking site. The session was cancelled few hours before the scheduled time as barely 20 percent of the NUMed population showed further interest after what had took place the previous day.
I concluded that NUMedians did not enjoy the little “politics” that have ensued over the few days. Everyone was excited about both the teams’ campaigns until then, and hopefully future student election would not stray away from focusing on the student’s benefit in their perspective.
Perhaps politics is another area that requires medical students to show professionalism?
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment