All year, we’ve been attending governance meetings and keeping an eye on what’s going on in the AMS, Senate and Board of Governors. We’re familiar with the issues and the pressures of each position in student government. This elections season, we talked to all the candidates, attended all the debates and fact-checked their claims and platforms. Here’s the result.
We’re not here to tell you who to vote for, but we will be honest about each candidates’ strengths and weaknesses. Behold, The Ubyssey’s guide to all of the 2024 AMS Elections candidates.
President
Christian ‘CK’ Kyle
CK has the most experience in student government among all candidates and has worked in the President’s Office this year — he’s your capable, status-quo candidate. He created a strong student community as EUS president in 2022/23. He’d like to create an exam database and increase student community on campus, and while these goals are not particularly new, they’re detailed and in line with what students want. However, his dismissal of other candidates’ qualifications during debates brings into question his ability to work with people coming from other perspectives.
Marx could bring a unique perspective as president with their years of work in AMS services. Marx has also been part of resource groups and has built connections with students who have previously felt ignored by the AMS, especially as part of the PC1/2 working group. As seen in debates, Marx is passionate about fighting for the voices of marginalized students but some of their platform points lacked specificity and they could struggle with the institutional limits of the role.
Alexandra Smith
Smith highlighted her experience as a resident advisor and teaching governance procedure throughout her campaign. She wants to bring more transparency to the AMS and seems intent on improving the tenor of discussions between the AMS and students at large. While her platform has some interesting initiatives like pushing for more needs-based student aid, there may be an oversized focus on residents and some goals outside the president’s role.
Shaun “The Bulldozer” You
The Bulldozer brings an outside perspective to the race. He is enthusiastic about wanting to rebuild relationships with students who have previously felt dismissed by the AMS by adding minimum consultation time for large policy changes, but his unspecific platform shows a lack of experience. While he genuinely wants to bring change for students, it seems he needs to concretize his goals first. The Bulldozer’s joke candidacy is also not a particularly silly one — it’s unclear what the bit added.
VP Administration
Kevin Heieis
Kevin Heieis’s strength in public speaking makes him a promising candidate for a role that needs effective communication and presence. He’s promised a quick turnaround in communication and event promotion that lets club members take control of their own marketing. His idea to replace Porch with a Mexican burrito bar, while fun, may be out of the scope of the position.
Amy Liao
Amy Liao’s priorities and AMS experience as the club administrator promise a smooth transition from this year’s administration. Her practical goals and sustainability focus set her apart. However, budgeting was not the strongest suit of the VP administration office this year, and Clubs Fair and related club events were the only initiatives she expressed could be an opportunity to cut costs.
Jai Sodhi
It’s clear that Jai Sodhi conducted external research on the initiatives that work at other large post-secondary institutions when creating his platform. Sodhi’s club-centric vision aims to reintroduce sleeping spaces on campus and increase the Nest’s operating hours. However, these initiatives may become costly on top of the AMS’s ongoing financial deficit, and work against food insecurity is mostly done by other executives.
VP Finance
Gavin Fung-Quon
Fung-Quon is the status quo candidate in this race. He has worked extensively in the VP finance portfolio and is currently the associate VP funds, meaning he knows the AMS’s financial management. His idea to automate the deposit system for clubs and expand information campaigns about student subsidies are unique. However, the rest of his policies lack ambition. He plans to focus on long-term financial sustainability goals articulated by this year’s office. Fung-Quon is knowledgeable and seems passionate, but is certainly not looking to make waves.
Mokham Singh Malik
Malik is an AMS newcomer and is looking to make big changes to its finances with a focus on cutting costs. He has a background in political organizing as a youth board member of the BC United. His plan to cut all AMS executive salaries and reduce the number of paid support staff is unique but it’s unclear how feasible — or ultimately worthwhile — this plan would be. Malik is ambitious, but showed some knowledge gaps in the debate.
VP Academic & University Affairs
Drédyn Fontana
Fontana has experience fighting for students through his term as the EUS's VP academic. He has fresh ideas on sexual violence prevention, namely on how to make UBC's sexual misconduct policy more survivor-centric. He’s knowledgeable on what the VP AUA office achieved this past year and where it can improve, but lacked specific ways he’d get his food security goals done besides initiatives already in the works. Fontana is also passionate about advocating for affordability and accessibility, specifically around UBC's Disability Accommodations Policy and the Centre for Accessibility.
Taushifa Shaikh
Shaikh's platform centres on affordability, but with no student government experience at UBC, her housing goals are outside the scope of the VP AUA. She has experience with bureaucracy through working for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Shaikh's platform includes sexual violence prevention, specifically around improving BIPOC students’ experiences during the investigations process. She clearly knows what students want and has worked with university administration in the past, but sometimes lacked specifics on how she would achieve her goals.
VP External
Ayesha Irfan
Irfan has a solid platform and is consistent about her proposed policies throughout campaigning. Her time spent on AMS Council, coupled with her experience working in all levels of governments, shows she has the knowledge to get the work done. Having lobbying experience is not required, but using pre-existing connections in the interest of students doesn’t hurt. Her ambition and passion for students is clear, though Irfan may struggle prioritizing everything she wants to accomplish in a one-year term.
Jake Sawatzky
Sawatzky’s platform covers areas of student interest and concern, but lacks depth on actionable goals. It is unclear what he specifically wants to accomplish in office or how he would do so. Sawatzky does seem like a people-person, despite being reserved in the first debate, and shows genuine interest in wanting to engage and build relationships with students and the community. While Sawatzky has some knowledge gaps, it could be possible for him to learn and grow in the position.
Board of Governors
Eshana Bhangu
Bhangu, the only incumbent, has spent over three years delivering on her promises for students across various roles, including AMS president and VP academic and university affairs. This year, she provided strong and targeted advocacy against tuition raises and made student voices heard on the Board in key discussions. Bhangu’s platform is nothing groundbreaking — she is keen to continue focusing on increasing student affordability and housing. But, if her platform points resonate with you, Bhangu is a candidate who can get them done.
Kamil Kanji
Kanji hopes to make the jump to the Board after successful stints as a student senator and VP academic and university affairs. He seeks to continue similar goals as his predecessors around student affordability and leverage his current relationships with university administration to achieve results. In the past, he’s shown he can secure funding for the student body’s needs despite budgetary constraints — something that could prove valuable for next year. However, his plans from last year to “break down communication barriers” between the Senate and students didn’t materialize this year, and he doesn’t seem keen on focusing on them this time around.
Jasper Lorien
Lorien is a first-year student vying to bring a voice of disabled students to the Board and to increase the university’s commitments to affordability and divestment. Overall, Lorien has a good grasp on what is feasible and what isn’t. They have a background in advocacy as an executive of the Disabilities United Collective and have shown familiarity with policy at the debates. However, with their limited time at UBC, they haven’t had the same opportunities to develop relationships with university administrators as other candidates.
Ferdinand Rother
Rother's platform centres international students, advocating for capping international tuition increases and scaling up international financial aid. His campaign also calls attention to campus sustainability and lays out a vision to create a better cycling network for bikers and pedestrians alike. Rother has leadership experience as Interfraternity Council president, but has little familiarity liaising with Board members, and his absence from the debates raises questions about how he’d make his voice heard.
Siddarth Rout
Rout’s platform focuses on advocating for international and graduate students — communities not often heard on the Board. Although he has ambitious ideas to reduce food insecurity on campus, his goals appear unrealistic and unfeasible, demonstrating his lack of understanding and knowledge of what the Board is capable of accomplishing. Rout did not attend either of the debates, which leaves us with unanswered questions about his goals and ability to achieve them.
Leonard Wang
Leonard Wang’s emphasis on his finance and banking background says a lot about the approach he wants to bring to the Board. He supports incremental tuition increases and also seemed unfamiliar with the issue of food insecurity, which limits his ability to advocate for central issues facing students. While he has experience on Senate, the majority of his campaign revolves around working with the university’s investment management trust, raising questions about his understanding of the governor role. Wang also did not attend the debates.
Enav Zusman
As a PhD candidate and parent, Zusman brings perspectives to the Board that have often been missing. She’s been involved with student governance for 10 years, so she seems likely to have the institutional knowledge to work within the structures of the Board. While her policy proposals are sometimes outside the scope of the role, she brings fresh and comprehensive ideas that seem to come from genuine concern for student wellbeing. However, her absence at debates made it difficult to assess how she would achieve her goals.
Senate
Alex Chui
Chui’s platform is geared towards representing the voices of faculties outside of arts on the Student Senate Caucus. While his goals lack specificity compared to some of the other candidates, something that became especially clear during debate, Chui’s platform is hoping to increase transparency and focus on feasibility. Despite, showing some knowledge gaps during debates, he will be able to bring a non-arts perspective. S, so if you thatthat, vote for him.
Kareem Hassib
Hassib brings genuine care and knowledge to the race, which he has also developed through experience on the Board of Governors. He places strong emphasis on his engagement and transparency efforts, like regular updates on personal social media accounts. However, his platform of accessibility, accountability and equity remains largely the same since he ran last year and has seen little progress. But Hassib’s passion is evident, and if he is able to continue advocating his platform next year, he could continue his work thus far making headway on his original goals.
Kamil Kanji
Kamil Kanji is one of two incumbents running in this year’s Senate race, bringing two years of experience that will help him advocate for student priorities around expanding academic support systems and equity, diversity and inclusion initiatives. As a lead author of the Student Senate Caucus’s three-year policy strategy he’s demonstrated an ability to work with other student senators to push for student-focused policies. But, while he has delivered results, he has also struggled to engage with the students who elected him, forgetting that you can walk and talk at the same time.
Jasper Lorien
Lorien’s campaign focuses on advocating for the needs of disabled students. They bring their extensive involvement in advocacy with Disability United Collective and have a meaningful platform focused on self-certified academic concessions, accessibility in UBC buildings and addressing UBC ties with organizations complicit in human rights abuses. While Lorien’s advocacy experience is outside student government, they showed expertise and familiarity with Senate policies at the debates.
Sahib Malik
Commuter students are the focus of Malik’s platform, which aims to expand remote class offerings. He has done some research, but his main platform promises are extremely ambitious and would face significant hurdles in the slow-moving Senate, considering student terms are only a year long. When it comes to issues beyond the central focus of his platform, his proposals can also lack specificity. Malik has a clear focus, but his inexperience and infeasible goals could hamper his effectiveness as a senator-at-large.
Kyle Rogers
Rogers proposes ambitious platform goals, including an extended fall reading break and earlier December exam period, but his knowledge of the feasibility of these changes seems unclear considering it took years to get a fall reading break at all. However, Rogers does appear receptive to the needs of the student body, and has experience in local politics on the Student Union at UBCO. While he could learn how to be an effective senator on the job, it’s questionable as to how much he could deliver on his platform within a one year term.
Ferdinand Rother
Rother has some experience interacting with aspects of UBC governance through his role as president of the Interfraternity Council. While his commitment to international students, student community and academic flexibility are evident, and his platform is fairly specific, the Senate may not be the ideal place to advance his goals. As a newcomer, he also has knowledge gaps around the student caucus’s work on Senate 2026 that he would need to fill if elected. Rother did not attend any debates.
Taushifa Shaikh
Although Shaikh’s work at the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation gives her experience in bureaucratic processes, her focus on housing policies and affordability is not particularly relevant to the Senate. She held herself well on the debate stage despite her lack of experience in student government, though she may be set back by her seemingly surface-level knowledge of prior Senate policies and lack of direction in her platform.
Solomon Yi-Kieran
Yi-Kieran brings a fresh perspective to the table as a first-year in the Senate race. He is keen on amplifying 2SLGBTQIA+ and international student voices. As a member of the BC NDP and first-year representative on AUS, he brings some prior experience in student advocacy and governance. Despite being a newcomer, Yi-Kieran has shown he can go toe-to-toe with his fellow candidates in debates and has a genuine passion for academic policy.
Share this article
