I'm a second year undergraduate, currently pursuing my economics degree in our well-known local institution, Universiti Malaya.

Just recently, I attended Pekuma's (Persatuan Ekonomi Universiti Malaya) AGM and it was, well, disappointing that the undergraduates could not even conduct a proper and important meeting as such. The meeting started with a less than an appealing speech by the current president before the committee was dissolved.

It was followed by the naming of candidates for the heads of department; which was a walkover as the number of candidates needed were exactly the number of portfolios available. Then, the meeting proceeded to name the shortlisted candidates for the president and vice-president posts, of which undergraduates who went for a pre-interview were called out.

Things took a pretty disastrous turn when suddenly, the chairperson requested the floor to name any extra candidates for the two posts. What's worse, after voting for one or two candidates, members were still walking in to the meeting late.

Here, exactly, are some points to ponder:

First of all, what is the use of an interview session when members were allowed to name any candidate they deem suitable on the AGM day itself? Wouldn't it be unfair to those who actually took the initiative and effort to go for the interview? Furthermore, members of the floor could just put anyone up there in order to spoil the votes as the candidates themselves were not allowed to vote. My suggestion is either you go for the interview or you open to the floor the selection of candidates. Having both only results in partiality and a mess.

Secondly, doors should be closed when voting begins. We have members walking halfway through the voting process and they were still allowed to participate. So what happens to the earlier candidates whom they missed? Such simple, pure issues of logistics could be missed; don't we question the quality of our university students?

Thirdly, there was no integrity in whatever that was done. There were no checks on people who walked into the meeting, whether they were from the economics faculty or not. I could've called 20 friends from around the campus just to boost someone's votes. Each member was allowed to vote twice, but however, no checks were done on this as well.

When we questioned the chairperson, all she said was that as some of the members did not vote twice, and some voted more than twice, the votes actually balanced out! It was a shock to hear such logic coming from an undergraduate who is matured enough to start a family.

Well, the core of the problem was a racial one indeed. There was only one Malay in the whole candidates' list and therefore the floor was opened for naming more candidates because the racial quota had to be fulfilled. Furthermore, before the voting began, we could already see that there were two factions in the meeting - one faction comprised of Malays and Indians, and the other, of course, of the Chinese.

The highest votes happened to go to a Malay candidate; however the Chinese felt that the meeting was inappropriately conducted and asked for a re-vote for the top three candidates with but the Malays and Indians refused and insisted that the results should be final. The Malays and Indians wanted a Malay president and naturally, the Chinese wanted a Chinese president as well.

In the end, when neither party gave in, two ordinary members went up to the committee and had a brief discussion about an SMS they received. The final decision? The AGM was postponed because apparently, it was conducted without the Jabatan Hal Ehwal Pelajar’s (Student Affairs Department’s) approval and therefore, it was not legit and any voting or decision would not be legitimate as well.

It was at this point that politics become so evidently dirty. Just how credible were the two ordinary members who apparently received that SMS from the HEP? And how could Pekuma call for an AGM without approval in the first place and then tell the members towards the end that the meeting was not approved?

Is that the best way to bail out of a sticky situation when one fails to satisfy either party? The committee failed to exhibit any transparency in every decision and could not give any proper explanation at all.

I'm a radical believer of change; I don't believe that change starts small. I believe that university politics are irrelevant because our country's politics are what matters the most. We should tackle the root of the problem; not the little leaves sticking out of the tree. But what I understood today is this: if this is how politics on the micro-scale are, how much more tragic could it be in our country?

In economics, we learn that individual household consumption makes up aggregate consumption. Micro-economics and macroeconomics are intertwined. Likewise, university politics are reflective of our country's politics. And I believe both suffer from the same lack of transparency, integrity and from racial issues.

How can we talk about national unity when there are racial problems in such a small society like Pekuma? If educated undergraduates, who are supposed to be leaders of tomorrow, do not believe in the concept of ‘Malaysian’, how much more are we asking of the public, of the layman who probably does not understand the term ‘Malaysian’?

‘1Malaysia’ does not happen when I tell you that ‘I'm okay with the other races’ or when you tell me that ‘I'm comfortable being a Malay in a Malaysian society.’ We can pretend, we can smile at each other, heck, we can even engage in some pretty good conversations with each other. But at the end of it, nothing is real if racial barriers still exist.

I will always be a Chinese, you will always be a Malay, and he will always be an Indian. ‘Malaysian’ will always play second fiddle to our so-called race.

No matter how high the ratings for the success of ‘1Malaysia’ are, what we, as undergraduates, experience daily in our university life is the ultimate reality. And to be honest, ‘1Malaysia’ is nowhere near reality.