We've spent the past year attending governance meetings and observing 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 2025 AMS Elections candidates.
President
/u/sasamats
/u/sasamats’s platform, while specific and detailed — like turning Main Mall into a bowling alley and imprisoning AMS VPs that attempt to leave the society — may not be what students need. The Reddit account did have decent points on wanting to improve food security and promised to donate $400 to the AMS Food Bank as a start. While /u/sasamats did put on quite the show at debates, it also openly admitted to not wanting to engage with students and said it would leave the job after two weeks. This candidate may be funny, but /u/sasamats ultimately doesn’t have students' best interests in mind.
Riley Huntley
Huntley brings a lot of experience to the race as the Nursing Undergraduate Society president and AMS councillor. Huntley was also chair of the Executive Performance and Accountability Committee during the inquiry into then-VP AUA Drédyn Fontana, which resulted in Fontana’s removal. He made many jabs at Fontana across his debates, calling into question Huntley’s ability to collaboratively focus on the future. Huntley has the backing of smaller constituencies and has spoken about wanting to do better engagement with constituencies, clubs and resource groups. While he has an ambitious platform, a lot of it dips into the VPs portfolios. If elected, it may be a challenge for Huntley to manage VPs without stepping on their toes.
Barry "Bee" Buzzword
Buzzword perhaps has one of the most in-depth platforms, which covers 18 themes. He has demonstrated knowledge about how the AMS works and is committed to student engagement in the form of daily nightly newsletters. However, the bee would also want to bring authoritarianism to the AMS and has promised to bully his VPs out of office within the first week. His outspokenness on not wanting to play nice brings into question whether he’d be an effective president, as a lot of the job entails managing the other portfolios.
Nobody
Nobody ran on a campaign that was forgettable. While they acknowledged recent turmoil in the AMS and said they would work on creating a better environment, their platform lacked any specifics on goals. At the debates, Nobody seemed uninformed on policies and issues pertaining to students. Instead, Nobody mainly echoed what their opponents said — and had philosophical crises on stage. While they did say they would be able to handle student criticism the president sometimes faces, Nobody does not appear to be prepared for the position if elected.
Drédyn Fontana
Fontana served as a student senator and AMS VP AUA before being removed from office. His platform centres on decentralizing power in the President’s Office. Fontana was passionate about wanting to change the AMS culture and ensuring VPs felt supported. However, much of his platform also overlapped with the VP AUA’s portfolio, blurring the lines between what he believes the president’s role to be and what he’s campaigning on. During the campaign period, Fontana lacked concrete ideas on how to accomplish certain goals and sometimes appeared to get caught up in the past. If elected, it will remain to be seen whether Fontana would be able to make a healthy working environment, or be unable to let go of previous politics.
VP academic and university affairs
Ananya Gupta
Gupta’s Arts Undergraduate Society experience gives her insight into student governance, and her focus on textbook affordability speaks to a key student concern. She recognizes financial barriers to education and aims to advocate for cost-saving measures. Gupta additionally acknowledged the essentiality of advocacy and student engagement. However, Gupta’s platform lacks specificity — she doesn’t seem to have concrete plans and she seems comparatively less passionate, informed and professional than her opposition. Without a clear plan or a compelling advocacy approach, it’s unclear how she would navigate the VP AUA role.
Zarifa Nawar
Nawar brings the most experience in this race as the incumbent VP AUA. She has successfully delivered on some promises as the incumbent — such as securing additional undergraduate research funding — and she clearly has a solid understanding of the role. She is also aware of the importance of Senate for this portfolio and has detailed a practical approach. Nawar was also adjacently-connected to some of the allegations of poor workplace culture in the AMS this past year, but she has professionally limited most spillover of the conflicts that occurred from her platform. At worst, her platform leans more toward continuity than ambition, with limited new ideas.
VP administration
Dylan Evans
As president of the Forestry Undergraduate Society and the Forestry representative on the AMS Council, Evans has experience representing students’ needs. Evans’s platform champions better supporting clubs and promoting sustainability, but he failed to outline the actionable steps he plans to take, if elected, in order to move toward achieving those goals. Evans also didn’t seem particularly passionate about the job and heavily relied on his computer during his lacklustre debates. Despite these criticisms, Evans is an approachable candidate who seems focused on continuing the work of his predecessor Amy Liao in the VP Admin Office.
VP external
Solomon Yi-Kieran
Yi-Kieran has made it clear they want to steer clear of any internal AMS conflict and prioritize maintaining a positive external image. They have valuable experience doing political work with the BC NDP — which also raises questions around how they will react when forced to lobby against people they helped elect, but Yi-Kieran said that won’t be an issue and that they want to seriously advocate for students. Yi-Kieran maintains a good balance between more ambitious and achievable goals, although they haven’t been very specific about what steps they will be taking to make them happen, and could have done more research on specific facts about their priorities coming into the first debate.
VP finance
Gagan Parmar
Parmar has experience working within the AMS Finance Office and he plans to continue the work of his predecessor. Some of his goals — from wanting to simplify the club reimbursement process, to publishing budget reports more frequently — are neither ambitious nor original, but it may be necessary given the AMS’s financial deficits in previous years and recent statements that the AMS may have to limit some services without more funding. Parmar also uniquely performed at the great debate without using his computer, and he was able to professionally answer all questions. He is an establishment candidate, but that could be what the AMS needs right now.
Senate
Daniel Aminbakhsh
Although he has held leadership roles in the past, Aminbakhsh lacks experience that can be directly applied to being a senator, and would need to spend more time developing the details of his goals. However, he is well-spoken and clearly passionate about wanting to help students become well-informed on how Senate policies impact them. Being a total newcomer, the start of the position would pose a steep learning curve for Aminbakhsh — but he does already seem to have a decent understanding of the Senate's responsibilities.
Keanu Chan
Chan wants to work on outreach to the student body and seems interested in the job. However, he showed significant knowledge gaps and many of his debate answers did not reflect an understanding of Senate structure. He did not appear to recognize that the Senate and AMS are separate entities with different responsibilities. His platform centres on his ability to offer a first-year perspective, but first-years are not exactly a student demographic that needs specific representation as all student senators would have this knowledge.
Drédyn Fontana
As an incumbent, Fontana demonstrated a clear understanding of how the Senate works and passion for some of the specific goals he’d like to continue working on. Fontana additionally seemed comfortable professionally representing student voices even when they clashed with the university’s aims, and his idea to work with clubs to disseminate Senate information was unique and practical. During debates, Fontana could have done more to convey the work he did last year, rather than calling the Senate a slow-moving body. Additionally, other candidates seemed dissatisfied with his inability to present a unified front in the past.
Dianya Gao
Gao wants to better bridge the cultural and language divide between Chinese and domestic students, but in both her interview and debates, it seemed like she did not understand the job she is running for. Gao misunderstood several questions, did not communicate her answers effectively and didn’t provide specifics on how she planned to achieve her goals. On the whole, Gao’s lack of knowledge and comparatively forgettable debate performances make her a less attractive candidate for Senate.
Shorya Goyal
Goyal’s platform focuses on positive goals like academic appeal transparency, compassionate withdrawal and advocating for more mental health resources. As a member of UBC’s Non-Academic Misconduct Committee and as a residence advisor, he also brings experience representing student voices into the role. However, Goyal was not particularly specific on how he would attempt to accomplish his goals, he couldn’t comment on which standing committee he hoped to sit on and he was disturbingly unfamiliar with Senate 2026 — calling into question whether Goyal has the knowledge required for the role. Goyal was also absent for both of his debates, leaving us questioning who he is and what he stands for.
Ananya Gupta
Gupta is the current AUS VP academic and brings three years of AUS working experience to her platform. She has worked on equity initiatives, academic development and club funding before. Her platform prioritizes improving UBC’s exam hardship policy and expanding accessibility supports, but in the debates she failed to clarify the specific steps she would take to complete these goals. Gupta also was one of the more repetitive candidates in her debate answers and seemed to sometimes rely on the answers of the candidates before her. Some of her goals for the Senate also fell outside the scope of the role.
Kareem Hassib
With two years of Senate experience, Hassib is seeking reelection to ensure continuity on past goals. Some of his main priorities include revising UBC’s disability accommodation policy, improving exam hardship policies and increasing financial relief. Hassib had outstanding debate performances where he showcased the breadth of his governing knowledge. From his respectful debate to his regular social media updates on Instagram and Reddit, Hassib seems dedicated and well-suited to this role. Hassib emphasized reopening official channels of communication between student senators and the student body, something he has repeatedly mentioned but hasn’t delivered. Hassib also highlighted the challenge of many long-serving Senate members departing this year, and his experience will be helpful for mentoring new senators and maintaining advocacy efforts.
Jasper Lorien
Lorien brings experience and understands student governance well, showing a nuanced understanding of complex policy during the debates. Despite failing to achieve some of their primary policy goals from the last term, their policy priorities remain the same. Lorien has also demonstrated growth and proposed different approaches which might get their previously failed motion on cutting ties with Israeli universities approved. Their activism through UBC’s Disability United Collective is valuable, but Lorien did not seem interested in actively reaching out to the student body to ensure transparency, despite the Senate being a body students are often uninformed about.
Mohkam Singh Malik (ਮੋਹਕਮ)
Malik is a new voice positioning himself as an outsider and is not afraid to disagree with his opponents — notably he is the only candidate completely opposed to cutting ties with Israeli universities. Despite having some clearly-expressed goals like having all lectures recorded to benefit commuter students, he failed to demonstrate a deep understanding of the structures and did not seem to know that Senate is not accountable to the AMS. Malik spent most of the debates attacking other candidates — rather than proposing policies which would benefit students — raising doubts if he will be able to work well with other student senators.
Bardia Mohammadizadeh
Mohammadizadeh is running for more representation of science students in the Senate, andis passionate about advocating for more student research opportunities and working on shaping a generative AI policy. However, he lacked specifics on how he would accomplish these goals. Mohammadizadeh only attended one of two debates and showed a lack of understanding Senate structures, as well some of the main upcoming policies in the next term. Mohammadizadeh also often agreed with his opponents and did not differentiate himself much from the other candidate, except when he advocated for more science student representation in governance, showing he lacked knowledge of what student needs are.
Zarifa Nawar
While she would be a newcomer to the Senate, Nawar is clearly prepared to take on the role. She demonstrated clear knowledge of the bounds of the Senate and how the body operates, has extensive connections within the AMS and seems passionate about the role and advocating for students. Nawar also has specific policies she’d want to tackle and has advocated for students as the current AMS VP AUA. Additionally, if Nawar wins her VP AUA election, she would have even more sway to support a student senator role.
Veeru Vaidesh Seethanaboyina
As the former science representative for UBCO’s Student Union, Seethanaboyina has clear experience representing student voices in a governance setting. The candidate also seemed knowledgeable during the debates and his goal of fostering more accountability is a good one. However, while Seethanaboyina seemed down-to-earth and approachable, he wasn’t a stand-out candidate at either debate, often not using the entirety of his allotted time, piggy-backing off of other candidates’ answers and not providing much specificity on how he intends to achieve his goals. Of the candidates, it’s unclear whether he is one of the more deserving for the limited seats.
Mankanwar Singh
Singh has good goals of boosting more open educational resources, strengthening mental health supports and fostering better transparency, and his multiple years as an RA shows he has experience supporting students and caring about UBC’s community. Singh however seemed unaware of current existing advocacy tools and lacked concrete knowledge about the bounds of the Senate. His goals also aren’t particularly ambitious or unique. Singh additionally failed to attend both of the Senate-race debates, calling into question his dedication to the role and communicating with students.
Solomon Yi-Kieran
As an incumbent, Yi-Kieran brings experience with navigating the Senate’s daily politics while showing continued passion for the role. Yi-Kieran seems eager to rely on his connections within the university to push for his big plans without elaborating on how they’d be achieved. Also running for VP external, Yi-Kieran seems well-prepared and researched for the challenges of a senator this upcoming year. Though steadfast in his commitments to equity and inclusion, his tendency to agree with his opponents’ comments at debates rather than contribute new angles underscores his character as a policy-broker.
Board of Governors
Yi Chen
Working on her master’s degree, Chen is knowledgeable about issues (such as PhD stipends) relevant to UBC graduate students. Chen additionally has relevant financial experience given her current position as chair of the Graduate Student Society’s House Finance Committee — she additionally might have unique reach in terms of student engagement once on the Board given her multilingualism and promise to translate governance jargon into different languages. Of the seven student governor candidates however, Chen was one of the least qualified on undergraduate issues, didn’t fully understand the purview of a student governor and her debate performance lacked persuasion and specificity.
Cade Desjarlais
Desjarlais is a thoroughly experienced candidate with a focus on financial stability and security. From his time as president of the UBC Okanagan Student Union, he likely already has connections within the board that could prove useful. While his goals are not ambitious, he seemed to be focused on increasing the university’s transparency to students, such as supporting the multi-year tuition framework, allowing students to plan ahead for tuition increases. Being a law student, he is in a unique position of understanding of both undergraduate and graduate student issues. Desjarlais is a well-spoken candidate with a reserved approach, likely to play nice with the university while also working for students.
Jasper Lorien
Lorien is a candidate with a thoroughly researched platform and highly specific goals. Despite extensive student advocacy experience, they have not indicated that they have finance and budget-specific experience beyond sitting on AMS Council. Lorien advocated strongly for improving affordability for students and supporting divestment on ethical grounds. Though they mentioned that they intend to advocate for housing bursaries for students, they did not provide a plan to finance these within a budget they acknowledged is tight. Lorien is a candidate with a comparatively progressive platform and who performed confidently in debate.
Mohkam Singh Malik (ਮੋਹਕਮ)
Although a confident and clear speaker, Malik is a rather abrasive candidate who, given his debate performance, may struggle to play nice with others. Malik has also dedicated a large portion of his platform to scolding the AMS for its poor workplace allegations despite the fact that AMS culture would not be in his jurisdiction as a student governor — this perceived lack of understanding of his potential role has been reinforced by the candidate’s lack of specificity in how he would achieve his goals. Also of note is that Malik was the only debating BoG candidate who actively opposed divestment and ESG-principles for responsible investment of university finances that many students have been extremely vocal about supporting.
Bardia Mohammadizadeh
Mohammadizadeh is approaching the student-governor role passionate about shaping UBC’s AI guidelines, increasing undergraduate research funding and earning more representation for UBC’s Faculty of Science. He seems like a confident and genuine person, however, in his interview, Bardia lacked specifics on how he would achieve his goals, seemed unclear about the difference between BoG and Senate as governing bodies and he did not elaborate much on any of the questions he was asked. The candidate was also absent from his first debate, and in his second he could not speak to any budgetary experience. Mohammadizadeh’s lack of involvement in governance may also make joining UBC’s Board a steep task.
Alexander Wong
Of the BoG candidates, Wong seems the most qualified — the master’s of business administration (and formerly Sauder) student has clear budgetary experience, and given the professionalism of his interview he would be easily respected by the adults of the Board. Wong also had specific, unique goals, from financing a wheelchair audit to better supporting UBC’s Career Centre, which he was able to convincingly articulate. He also seemed very passionate about the job. However, as he was working abroad, Wong was unable to attend either of his debates and he did not appear particularly interested in student outreach, giving students little insight into his platform, goals and desires.
Referenda
Creation of AMS VP Student Life
This referendum proposes a new executive position in the AMS, VP Student Life, to provide direct support for clubs and student groups, expand campus-wide social programming and advocate for student mental health resources. This job description seems to overlap with the current VP admin’s portfolio and could perhaps be better addressed by creating an AVP within the Administration Office.
Amid the AMS’s deficit, it is unclear where the funding for this position will come from. Further, nearly half of all AMS executives in the past three years have left the society, calling on the AMS to address poor workplace concerns, and adding another position without clear steps on addressing executive turnover may create more instability.
Democratic process for new constituency creation
Currently, the AMS bylaws state constituency status can be granted if its membership exceeds one per cent of the total enrolment of UBC Vancouver.
This referendum would require students to submit a formal request to initiate the process. This could avoid redundant constituencies and avoid bloat on AMS Council overtime.
Budget deadline extension for clubs, constituencies and AMS resource groups
This referendum involves a date shift of the AMS budget, extending the deadline from June to July for clubs, constituencies and resource groups. This referendum offers a solution to make the budget more comprehensive and could help the VP Finance Office and club treasurers work toward a more robust relationship.
Fee increase for AMS operations
This referendum proposes a fee increase of $4.95 be allocated toward the AMS General Membership Fee, Clubs Benefit Fund, Capital Projects Fund and Constituency Aid Fund. It also proposes the indexing of the Athletics and Intramural Benefit fee to the BC consumer price index.
The AMS has characterized this fee increase as integral in the continuance of support towards clubs, constituencies and students in general amid inflation. While the AMS fee is already quite high at $626.95, this year, students are continuing to use AMS services at high rates, which is a reason why this funding would be necessary to continue providing students with these resources.
Referendum for the AMS to support a student strike for Palestine
A student-proposed referendum to ask the AMS to support a two-day student strike to demand UBC divest from companies students say are complicit in human rights violations against Palestinians. This referendum is one of the more tangible and realistic steps the AMS can take to show its support for students striking for Palestine, without having to take an explicit stance or promise to advocate to UBC on the issue.
This article is part of our 2025 AMS Elections coverage. Follow us at @UbysseyNews on X (formerly Twitter) and follow our election coverage starting March 3.
See all stories on "ams elections 2025" and be notified with RSS
Share this article
First online
