SDM and Pulse, the two student organisations contesting for seats on the University Students’ Council, KSU, yesterday missed an opportunity to explain to fellow students, especially those who do not care who is in power, what exactly they aspire to do for them.

The election will be held tomorrow and while SDM has put forward a manifesto with 35 proposals, Pulse is competing with a total of 87.

For years, the KSU has been led by an absolute majority of SDM members – who follow Christian Democratic principles – and over the past four years, Pulse, the organisation of social democrats, did not contest for KSU.

The debate, that took over two hours, started with the moderator, Daniel Benson Camilleri, asking questions – most of which were not answered – and ended like some horse racing commentary, with one speaker, Mario Cachia of SDM, saying as many words as possible and as fast as he possibly could to prove his track record. Meanwhile, the crowd to his left (SDM members) cheered and that to his right (Pulse members) protested.

For a University debate, this activity was well attended but participants lacked maturity. Most people were interested in mudslinging and hurling insults, as they shouted that the questions they were asking were not being answered.

John Demicoli, the Pulse contestant for KSU president, turned out to be the weakest link. SDM members and supporters strongly criticised, this second year law student, on his lack of experience in student organisations, prior to this election. In the meantime, the SDM members were accused of a conflict of interest because a music company they form part of, Epic, had been paid for some activity.

At the start of the debate, a representative of Insite, the media organisation on campus, said that this year, the electoral commission decided to restrict the communication coming out of Students’ House, on election day. This did not happen in the past and Insite is objecting to it since it has been following and reporting on these elections for a number of years. The decision means that only people inside students’ house will know what is going on, and this goes against the principle of transparency.

He reiterated the call for the electoral commission to give reasons behind its decision, adding that both Pulse and SDM agree with media representation.

In the introduction, Pulse candidate John Demicoli said he is leading a team of students ready to work hard while building on the positive work of KSU members so far. His ambitious and dedicated team has built its manifesto on feedback received from students.

He stressed his aspiration of having a council accessible to students and that works with them and for them.

“It’s not us versus you,” he said.

Mario Cachia (SDM), currently secretary general of KSU, but who is also contesting for president, said his team is again proposing fresh ideas for students to feel more at home while at University. He has been serving on KSU for two years and so is offering continuity and experience – something that according to him, only SDM can give.

Students are involving themselves in activities and campaigns, meaning that they do feel comfortable with KSU. He would meanwhile like to see Pulse participating more in activities and working with KSU, rather than proposing things on which work is taking place.

Pulse president Glenn Micallef said he aspires for a KSU that represents everyone and that is effective for students. His organisation has been close to students and so he believes it can bring the necessary change.

James Cassar, SDM president, said that new proposals and new candidates should have strong foundations to ensure continuity.

In one of his questions, the moderator linked party financing with the campaign organised on campus, which costs quite a lot, judging from the resources they have. He asked where the money was coming from, whether students really benefit from the agenda they have and whether the resources can be put to better use.

Both teams said they raise funds from activities they organise, while personal attacks were launched.

In another set of questions, the candidates and organisation presidents were asked on the initiatives undertaken and which involve direct investment of money from the KSU or some sort of development. He asked whether it should even be the council’s competence to carry out such projects and whether University students can be asked to design portals and systems, rather than having companies outside University doing such work.

From the sketchy replies given, it transpired that the Student Opportunity Fund, which consisted of some €25,000 up till a couple of years ago, has gone down to €10,000, since it has become much more difficult to attract sponsorship from corporate investors.

Pulse blamed the lack of funds on the image KSU has and is therefore proposing its rebranding so that it can beef up the fund to €15,000.

By the end of the debate, questions on how their proposals will effectively improve the lives of students had not been answered.

The four people on the panel were lost putting questions to each other but failed to listen to people putting the questions. They were more interested in getting replies from the weakest link on both sides.

Although questions on proposals for a solution to parking problems, financing (including for stipends and research), the environment and students’ employability were asked, these very relevant subjects were only lightly touched upon. Those present had to try and make sense of what exactly was happening, amid the shouting.

Towards the end of the debate, Robert, a representative of Moviment Graffitti, said the debate was boring and suggested cross voting if students aspired for better minds on the KSU.