Will the New Colleges Participate in Rag and Flag?
Given that one of Rag and Flag’s aims is to promote “student involvement and bonding”, and to provide a common experience for the school’s freshmen, the immediate question would be whether Tembusu College, the College of Alice and Peter Tan, and Yale-NUS will be part of the Rag and Flag experience? Tembusu College participated in Flag last year, and has expressed that its Flag participation will continue this year. A source also mentioned that last year, the former Angsana College made it compulsory for its Year One students to participate in Flag, and students had to sell flags with the Residential College, not their faculties. Both Residential Colleges were not a part of the Rag experience in 2012.
When it welcomes its first batch of students in August, will Yale-NUS participate in Rag and Flag? Will the NUSSU Exco encourage the colleges to embrace this unique NUS tradition?
This question of whether the new colleges will join in the festivities is therefore important. The Exco finds itself in a curious Catch-22. If it actively seeks to get these new colleges and its students to participate in Rag and Flag, significant investments in resources and manpower would be required for training and guidance. It would not be fair for these new entities to cobble the project together, since they do not have the technical know-how and seniors to tap upon. Last year’s Rag committee also acknowledged that space constraint in University Town is a limitation; if so, what will be the solutions, if the Residential Colleges do decide to build a float? On the other hand, a laissez-faire, passive let-us-see-how-things-eventually-transpire approach would undoubtedly undermine the Exco’s claim of Rag bringing together “a majority of the student population regardless of their discipline”.
In a conversation with Mr. Jeremy Tan, President of the College Students’ Committee in Tembusu, he reveals that Tembusu will not be part of Rag this year, because “[Rag] is not in line with [Tembusu’s] key priorities as a college”. He explains that the six strategic thrusts or priorities include arts, sports, intellectual life, student development and community outreach, innovation and enterprise, as well as lifestyle and international students.
Should the NUSSU Exco reinforce the perspective that the PBs have the right and prerogative to not participate in Rag in any particular year – that is, the decision for involvement is strictly up to them – the faculty clubs and halls of residences should take the call seriously. The major implication is that potential PBs should not feel compelled to feature Rag and Flag in their calendars, when no members are willing to assume key roles and responsibilities.
Of course, if the NUSSU Exco maintains that Rag and Flag are traditional enterprises worth preserving, and that participation should be maximised throughout the institutions, then a pro-active approach must be adopted with the new colleges: to hear their concerns, and seek to address challenges that may be highlighted. Hesitation and lethargy will render future engagement even more improbable. Communication is the first step.
Henceforth, I will propose for the element of competition to be removed from Rag and Flag, for our student-leaders to be more informed about viewpoints from the student body, for tighter controls on float expenditures and caps, and for transparency from the PBs and the NUSSU Exco.
Competition Must Go (in its Entirety)
This is my stand: competition in Rag and Flag must go in its entirety.
Given the Council’s desire to recognise Rag and Flag as a single, cohesive event (unlike the original procession where students travelled with the floats to sell flags, Flag Day is now held separately from the display or procession of the Rag floats), there is a glaring inconsistency in NUSSU Council’s own set of decisions last December, when it decided to keep the Flag Shield despite removing the Rag and Chancellor Shields. Aside from the Shields, the PBs – halls and faculties alike – will still be judged, and awarded Gold, Silver, or Bronze prizes.
Keeping Rag as a non-competitive event is a more straightforward proposition, and the Council’s vote to take the Rag Shield out of the equation (11 for, 19 against, and 17 abstentions for a motion to keep the Rag Shield in the 2013 edition) will, I believe, place more healthy emphasis on the process and the construction of the floats. In 1989, there was tension when the losing PBs lodged official protests, after Temasek Hall had clinched victory. The following year when the competitive element was removed, the school witnessed the first collaborative effort between two NUS hostels. A $7 float also made its fabled appearance during the Rag parade. Certainly, it would not be fair to hastily conclude that a competitive Rag necessarily yields animosities and unhappiness, but it is difficult to oppose the view that a non-competitive event will be equally, if not more, beneficial.
There is, I believe, a common perception that the Business Faculty is too competitive in Rag events. Yet peculiarly, in the recent vote on whether to keep the Rag Shield, four members from the school’s club voted against the motion. The stance maintained by Mr. Foo Shida, President of the Business Students’ Club, is that overly competitive behaviour “would definitely be detrimental to Rag”, and that “there is more to Rag than competition”. He emphasises that “Rag is a tradition, a culture, and a heritage that binds and connects amongst many years of Bizaders”.
While I concede that the motivation to win top honours could strengthen bonding within a faculty or a hostel, it does little to promote cohesiveness amongst students in general. In fact, when rivalries are dealt with poorly, competition can prove to be destructive. Without any form of competition – no Shields, no grading, no awards whatsoever – the NUSSU Rag committee and the PBs can then focus on enriching the participants’ experience, strengthening the concepts and messages brought across by the floats, and bridge the gap between Rag and Flag.
Nevertheless, I disagree with the decision to keep the Flag Shield (31 for, 5 against, 11 abstentions), insofar as the Shield remains a symbol of perpetual contest and competition. The argument goes: without the element of competition, students would lose the incentive and motivation to solicit more donations, because they are not trying to out-raise one another. As a result, the school would collect less money for the beneficiaries.
Intriguingly, Mr. Goh Ren Kai, President of NUSSU, was quoted as saying that “the C-Cube associated the competition in Flag with its ability to collect more donations for the beneficiaries”. The C-Cube, as Mr. Goh shares, comprises of the Presidents from the faculties. Prior to the Council meeting in December, the C-Cube members and the presidents of the respective residential halls got together to define the three objectives of Rag and Flag, and identified the motions to be voted upon subsequently.
Furthermore, last year’s Closing Report on Flag had a separate section expounding on the “Drop in Flag Donation”, which sought to explain the 3.8% drop from $482,500.50 to $464,072.75. In other words, students are assumed to be driven by competition, and that it is imperative for NUS to consistently raise huge sums of money for charitable causes. The end seems to justify the means.
These rationalisations are ludicrous in my opinion. First, I do not comprehend the obsession with absolute figures. Are we assuming that the success of Rag and Flag can – and should – be equated to the total sum of money raised? Certainly, one of the purposes of Rag and Flag is to “give back to the community”, but this does not necessarily mean doing so in monetary form. It is time we expanded the domains of Flag, to go progressively beyond the pedantic sale of flags per se to be more involved in helping out with the beneficiaries. Second, we have – or the C-Cube has – too little faith in our students. They do their best on Flag Day not to win a silly competition, but for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Some will argue that the retention of the Shields and awards would nonetheless appease groups who might be driven by the intensity of a Flag contest, and that this is not incompatible with flaggers who are genuinely inspired.
We need to change the way students perceive Flag, even if it comes at the cost of lower donation and collection amounts. The status quo, one that places disproportionate emphasis upon competition and raising huge sums, is an unsustainable vicious cycle because current students will go on to becomes alumni stuck in this competitive mode of understanding what Flag is and continue to be preferential in their giving. A temporary dip in donations is wholly justified if we can change perceptions with regard to the sale of flags. Doing the right thing is often the harder option.
Let me further the argument by stating that there have also been anecdotal instances when passers-by have quizzed tin can-toting students: “which faculty are you from,” or “have you seen undergraduates donning a particular arm-band” (students from the variety of PBs are differentiated based on their faculties or halls)? Clearly these individuals – mainly alumni of the respective schools – are more interested to donate on account of their past associations, rather than for the true benefit of the charity associations. These are attitudes that we can work to eventually eradicate. Nurturing an NUS student who understands the value of contributing to the community in itself (as opposed to doing so for the sake of winning or helping to win a competition) undoubtedly does more for the community at large.
**This article is a multi-page article, please use the links at the bottom and at the top of the article to navigate**