Where is the democratic sense that we always proud for?

This is the first time I feel ashamed with my beloved UM Law Faculty when I first heard about what have happened in recent UM campus election. Pro-M won the election with a very slim majority, 21 seats for Pro-Mahasiswa (similar to Opposition Party in GE) and 20 seats for Pro-Aspirasi or also known as Pro-Establishment (ruling party in GE), and another 2 seats for independent candidates from Law Faculty.

Traditionally and as far as I can remember, candidates from Law Faculty always labelled themselves as independent, and they campaign independently without allies with either camp (party) during the campus election, moreover, the independent candidates have always won the votes of the Law Faculty students. This is okay and nothing to dispute about it, as long as they remain independent, they work what they talk and this is fine.

This is what the UM Law student always proud of, do not take side,  to oppose what they ought to oppose and to support what they ought to support, no matter it is from which camp. Simply say, beyond political, only for the benefit of the Law Faculty or UM students at large.

As mentioned above, this is absolutely fine, as most of the time the independent candidates from Law Faculty are marginal and insignificant, with or without the support of independent candidates from Law Faculty makes no different at all. So who cares you are independent or not? However, the whole story is different when a slim majority result was achieved as in this situation the independent candidates to make a stand is a must. This is simple as if you remain silent, it means you support the slightly won camp, it is a responsibility to make a stand in such situation (they might be a possibility that the winning camp is of the oppression, quotes from Carmen de Monteflores, "oppression can only survive through silence."). So strictly speaking, in true sense, there is no such thing as independent or remain silence, silence means support the establishment, it's simple.

Hence, a hard decision must be made by the independent once the abovementioned situation happened. To support which camp? The Pro-M or Pro-A? This is not an easy question to answer, simply because when the independent candidates campaigned for votes, they labelled and self-claimed as independent (even if they won uncontested, I'm very sure if they did not labelled as independent, someone will come out to challenge them), so whichever camp they support will also violates the promises that they have made, which is, to remain independent, thus what should the independent candidates do?

Simple, the only way out is to held another election within the Faculty, give the power to choose back to the students. This is the most democratic and most suitable way to deal with such situation, and Law Faculty students did it once at 2009. A fresh election was held in the Faculty to return the power to students to decide on take side or not and/or which side to take in 2009!

But this year the representative of Law Faculty is definitely an awkward one.

For a post of YDP (president of MPM) and/or any other consideration which we don't know, the independent canididates, which before the election they self-claimed they are (surprisingly, to remain independent was announced by the President of LawSoc after the hung parliament result was announced, what is his locus standi to do so? Another awkward moment.), betrayed what they had said openly, and betrayed the popular votes and wills of the students in campus election to cast their support to the camp which had lost at the election.

Where is the true democratic sense which we always had and we had it three years back when the same situation happened? Where is the value that we always proud of as law students?

To uphold justices, a piece of words which can never be found in current Law Faculty. Sad.