“Rag and Flag is an annual charity project that is part of the university’s Orientation Programme. The first part of the project – Flag, will see undergraduates from the university asking for donations all around the island for various beneficiaries. In return, the school puts up a spectacular show – Rag, to thank the kind generosity exemplified by the donors.”
The debate on Rag and Flag in the university is a longstanding one. Proponents – mostly participants of the project – point to the bonds forged, the tradition of the endeavour, and the remarkable pride associated with float-construction, the performances, or the collection of donations. Opponents, on the other hand, are highly critical of the massive expenditures, the purported wastage generated, or the unhealthy competition amongst participating bodies (PB). Here it is important to note that PBs are not necessarily constituent clubs of NUSSU. For example, Pharmacy participates in Rag, but it is not a Faculty Constituent Club.
Recently, decisions have been made by the National University of Singapore Students’ Union (NUSSU) Council regarding the conduct of Rag and Flag. Yet, how many people are aware of the decisions and, more importantly, should we still expect more from our student representatives regarding the issue?
The answer, I believe, is an unequivocal, yes. I believe that while Rag and Flag should continue to feature in the school’s annual Orientation calendar, proposals to further improve the status quo must be considered.
After having conversations with key student representatives in NUS, and conducting brief research on the background of Rag and Flag, I hope that this article will enrich discourse – one that, it appears, has been blighted by misinformation and hearsay – about the conduct of the events. For such a controversial topic, it is tempting to make snap judgements. However, as far as possible, for each question I pose, I first provide the facts and figures for the reader to form his or her own opinions. In particular, the info-graphics on the history and expenditure of Rag and Flag should prove to be interesting and compelling. Thereafter, I suggest specific solutions that, I argue, should be the way forward for Rag and Flag.
Before, I launch into the discussion, I must emphasise that I bear full responsibility for the perspectives articulated in this commentary.
Rag and Flag: Genesis and Development
When The Straits Times penned that the 2012 version of Rag and Flag had “gone back to its roots”, what exactly are these “roots” (beyond the cursory reminder that the event was held in the school’s campus)? Understanding the genesis and progress of Rag and Flag through the years is crucial, because the NUSSU Exco has consistently emphasised “tradition and heritage of NUS” as a primary justification for the continuation of the event (the other two objectives are “giving back to the community” and “student involvement and bonding”).
And one would certainly find it hard to disagree with the original intentions. The first Welfare Week – according to the Secretary of the 1957 Committee, Mr. Donald Hyatt, who spoke to the filmmakers of the 2011 “Rags to Riches” documentary – was planned for college students to “work for the people”. While the undergraduates did collect donations through the sale of “flags” (little sticker badges given to individuals who donate to charity appeals), fund-raising was by no means the sole focus. Under the theme “help us to help our people”, the Students’ Union of the University of Malaya arranged community activities with an emphasis on “social welfare duties”, such as blood donation drives and community centre “adoptions”.
Rag emerged two years later in 1959, as students took to the streets in procession-like fashion with floats and costumes, to encourage passers-by to make donations for various beneficiaries. University Rag societies are ubiquitous in Ireland and the United Kingdom, and although the charitable strategies and methodologies differ, fund-raising features consistently. Therefore, “ragging” in NUS could refer to the historical practice of highlighting the school’s Flag Day to the public, or the act of tailoring creative costumes and beautiful floats from rags.
Rag and Flag through the Years
| 1960 | The Flag and Rag procession went along Nassim Road, Orchard Road, Stamford Road, Cantonment Road, Neil Road, Hospital Road, and King Edward VII Hall. The floats and costumed students were also accompanied by flag-sellers. |
| 1966 | The police required six of twenty-four floats to be modified or removed. The float constructed by the University Socialist Club carried a picture of a Vietnamese fighter, with a “stop the war in Vietnam” caption. The float designed by the university’s Democratic Socialist Club, on another note, expressed the desirability of Singapore’s reunification with Malaysia. Mr. Tommy Koh, then Legal Advisor for the University of Singapore Students’ Union, stated that the explanations for the ban were “unacceptable”.The prize-winning float “depicted the theme of over-population in Singapore”. |
| 1978 | One of the most prominent floats was one “depicting the dragon of inflation in combat with the consumer”. |
| 1989 | Some freshmen expressed dissatisfaction with the culture of “ragging” (with its associations of bullying and making life difficult for new students). There are calls for references to “rag” to be removed.Concerns over competition also emerged, when the losers lodged official protests following Temasek Hall’s victory. The NUSSU Exco stated that there was a $6,000-cap for each float, and its President estimated that each hostel spent between $2,400 and $6,300 on expenses for the event. The executive committee, helmed by Mr. Anand Arumugam, makes the decision that the competitive element will be scrapped the next year. In its place, there will be a two-week charity drive, for students to engage in chores in ten welfare homes.The decision drew praise from the then Minister for Community Development and Foreign Affairs, Mr. Wong Kan Seng.However, Mr. Arumugam was ousted in a vote of no-confidence, even though he had agreed to withdraw the proposed amendments. This then sparked mass resignations of the executive committee. Representatives of the Council of Halls of Residences had disagreed with Mr. Arumugam’s changes, and contended that the expenses were “reasonable” compared to the overall takings and returns. |
| 1990 | The NUS Rag and Flag Day float procession was non-competitive. The most expensive float cost $2,000, and the event also yielded combined efforts by two hostels – a first in Rag and Flag’s history.A $7 float in the parade also drew applause and praise from the audience. |
| 1991 | A new limit was introduced for the construction of each float: $3,000 will be in the form of cash, with $7,000 of sponsored gifts. To encourage fund-raising, the floats will be judged in conjunction with the total flag sums raised by students.Having expressed the desire for the “rag” component to have equal weightage as the “flag” part of the event, the six student hostels announced they would withdraw from the Rag and Flag competition, “in the hope of reducing inter-hall rivalry and increasing unity among themselves”. |
| 1999 | In the past, flag-sellers would accompany the procession of floats, cajoling and soliciting donations from passers-by for a good cause. However, with worries over road safety and general public order, this practice has been discouraged. The link between the rag and flag elements appears more “tenuous”.Environmental friendliness and cost savings featured in the judging criteria for the competition, with an award for the cheapest constructed float. The $3,000 cash-limit for sponsorship will now include materials too. |
| 2000 | Four out of nine faculties opted out of the float parade, but some went ahead with the performances without the float. Money intended for the construction of the float was invested in different community projects and initiatives. |
| 2011 | Rag Day was held at The Promontory at Marina Bay.A documentary, titled “Rags to Riches” was produced by a team of students. It raised questions on the wastage and expenditures, and whether participants were aware of the history and objectives associated with Rag and Flag. |
**This article is a multi-page article, please use the links at the bottom and at the top of the article to navigate**