Recycled Promises, Unanswered Questions: Will This MoF Election Change Anything?

Sri City: Last night our seminar hall 2 witnessed an evening of enthusiastic, well-rehearsed campaign lines as the candidates for the Ministry of Finance (MoF) took the stage. Each candidate put forth their vision for the Ministry, touching on financial transparency, reimbursements, and administrative accountability. Here’s a breakdown of what they promised, followed by the questions that remain unanswered.

Harshitha: Financial Transparency and Budgeting Software?

Harshitha (SIASUG24-28), a double major in Economics and Data Science, emphasized financial transparency as her key promise. She shared her concerns about Krea’s fee structure and the lack of clarity on where student fees go. To address this, she proposed a financial planning and analysis software, arguing that this would help streamline budgeting and provide transparency.

However, when asked by Leher how she planned to convince an administration that “avoids financial transparency and doesn’t even fund election buddy money” to invest in an expensive tool, she admitted:

“True, they don’t fund for election money, but this is not just about the student body. It includes efficiency even for the administration itself… After more research, we can definitely find something that’s more compatible.”

Beyond this, she proposed a financial literacy initiative for underprivileged groups, which does not fall under MoF’s constitutional mandate. When questioned about whether this would require creating a new governing body, she responded:

“It wouldn’t be a separate jurisdiction, it would just be something additional, something that’s my very own initiative that I would really like to implement.”

With no constitutional backing for this initiative and no clarity on how she would secure funding for an expensive corporate software, her plans raise more questions than they answer.

Apeksha: Running again, but really what’s new?

Apeksha (SIASUG23-27), a second-year student who previously served as MoF, admitted that the MoF lacks influence in financial decision-making and has little access to financial transparency. She proposed standardizing reimbursement timelines and ensuring that students have a clear process to follow for reimbursements.

However, when asked about students who graduated two years ago and are still awaiting reimbursements, she acknowledged:

“The financial year is over, and they are refusing to process reimbursements. That’s why I propose a fixed timeline, so this doesn’t happen again.”

This does not address the immediate issue: if the administration is already ignoring reimbursement requests, what mechanism will force them to comply with a new timeline?

She also promised to push for transparency in financial aid. When Leher pointed out that this has been a goal of every past MoF and is ultimately under administrative control, she conceded:

“Obviously, 100% transparency won’t be possible, but at least something better, we will get a better position than we are at right now and that’s my main aim.”

How will this better position be achieved? If past Student Governments failed to secure this transparency, what will make this term any different?

Arnav: Real-Time Expense Tracking or an Illusion of Control?

Arnav (SIASUG23-27), an outgoing Information Coordinator, promised a real-time expense tracker to ensure clubs and organizations have updated information on their pending reimbursements. He also proposed working closely with the new CFO to address financial concerns.

However, when questioned about how this tracker would function if the administration refuses to disclose financial data, his response was:

“With the software, there will be a record of all the bills and transactions that OSL has approved but not yet paid back.”

This means that the tool does not actually track all expenses—only what OSL has already approved. If OSL chooses not to approve certain reimbursements or withholds information, this tracker does nothing to increase transparency.

When asked about whether he would publish a list of unresolved financial complaints and hold the administration accountable, his response was:

“In regards to the complaints which don't get addressed, I would work with the different teams, so it's not the same administration which is working from the start of Krea till date. there are administrative changes, there are new people who enter, older people who leave. So there can be better coordination within the Ministry of Finance and the administration which would help the older complaints which haven't been resolved to get resolved and also get more inputs for that.”

This is optimistic, but administrative turnover does not guarantee that financial transparency will improve.

Harigovind: A Manifesto Lost in Mail

Harigovind (SIASUG24-28), the other candidate with prior MoF experience, was blunt in stating that the Ministry “just exists on paper” and does not play an active role in financial decision-making. He promised to build stronger ties with the SIAS finance team and roll out the reimbursement portal created by a previous MoF.

However, his speech lacked details on what the MoF’s actual role should be. When asked to clarify what MoF is supposed to do, he struggled to articulate a clear response:

“To be fair, we really didn't have any sort of a communication with the fee centre. For example, the fee centre on late fee payment. We have the rule on the constitution, but the actual application is not there. The fee centre clearly does not actually go and make us as the point of contact or give us any sort of information. So basically starting to make sure that this gets implemented would be my first stage. Because if we go on assuming that there is not much of a role for the MOF, then it will be pretty pointless..”

When pressed on what this new role entailed, his answer was vague. Would the MoF just be assisting clubs in securing sponsorships? If so, does that really constitute expanding its mandate?

Additionally, his manifesto was not shared prior to his speech. When questioned on this, his response was:

“I thought I would send it on the day which I’m speaking so that people can get to know that I’m coming and doing the MoF speech on that day.”

This raises concerns—how can students make an informed choice without reviewing a candidate’s full platform in advance?

Final Thoughts: Promises vs. Reality

Each candidate brought ideas to the table, but many of these ideas lacked clarity, feasibility, or constitutional backing. From a software solution with no administrative approval, to reimbursement policies that past MoFs have failed to enforce. 

If financial transparency and reimbursement processes remain entirely under administrative control, then what power does the MoF truly have? What mechanisms do these candidates propose to hold the administration accountable? Let’s hope we get these questions answered. Of the 6 candidates contesting, only 4 spoke yesterday. We hope to see what the other two candidates have in store, until then Leher will make sure to keep you in loop.

Written by - Moksha M Munoth