EMERGENCY MEETING. I don’t know when I will finish writing this, even as one of the fastest meetings I have attended, the weight of what just happened lingers longer than the meeting itself. The issue is serious. And the room knew it. 

The announcement travelled fast, through side conversations, and the thin, familiar walls of MUSA spaces. By the time the meeting began, most already knew something had happened. What they didn’t know was how far it would go. This was not a routine council session. It was a formal proceeding, one that would test not just accountability, but judgement, proportionality, and the quiet power dynamics within student leadership.

Every Warning Has Consequences

The motion was brought forward by the Clubs & Societies (C&S) Head, Syed Muhammad Ali Hassan, concerning his role as External Liaison.

Three warning letters had been issued prior to this meeting.

A Vote of No Confidence (VONC) in Syed Muhammad Ali Hassan, in his capacity as C&S External Liaison Officer (ELO), was formally triggered based on the aforementioned breaches of duty, communication, and constitutional obligations.

The first raised concerns regarding professionalism, including the submission of falsified documents and incomplete assigned tasks. The second highlighted repeated absences from MSC and internal C&S meetings. The third pointed to missed deadlines, lack of contribution to the division, and continued unresponsiveness despite multiple attempts at communication.

Additional statements from members within the division reinforced these concerns. Accounts described delays that affected submissions, gaps in coordination, and instances where responsibilities had to be redistributed among other members to maintain workflow. Operational inefficiencies, particularly in external coordination, were also cited.

Taken together, the case presented was not framed as a single mistake, but as a pattern. Maybe a repetitive one too?

A Room That Shifted

Ali was given the opportunity to respond.

The statement was delivered calmly, measured, composed, and read with care. There were moments that suggested reflection, perhaps even regret. But whether it was enough remained a question that lingered quietly in the room. The motion then moved into a Vote of Censure (VOC).

And that was when the atmosphere changed.

What began as documentation and procedure became something heavier—less about policy, more about consequence. The kind of silence that isn’t empty, but filled with people thinking the same thing and not quite saying it. Some members stood firmly in support of the motion, emphasising the need to uphold standards of professionalism, accountability, and responsibility within leadership roles, regardless of rank.

But not everyone was fully convinced.

Representatives from MUISS raised a perspective that cut through the room with a different kind of weight: was the outcome proportionate? Not dismissing the concerns, but questioning whether the severity of a VOC given its long-term implications, aligned with the role and circumstances at hand.

It wasn’t loud. It wasn’t confrontational.

But it lingered, because beneath the formalities, there was something harder to define — an unease, a sense that the situation was not as clear-cut as the motion made it seem.

The Decision That Echoed

As stipulated under Part V, Section 19 (viii) of the MUSA Constitution, a two-thirds majority vote from the MSC was required for the motion to pass. No raised voices. No dramatic exits. Just a decision, made collectively, that quietly set a precedent.

And yet, as the meeting moved on, the question remained unspoken, but felt:

Was this accountability, or something heavier?

Some meetings pass. Some decisions settle. And some…stay with you a little longer than expected. Until the next MSC, this is MUSA Did What, episode 4.

Design by Giselle