In a recent article in Zaobao, I stressed the importance of maintaining Singapore as a secular state and the separation of politics and religion. Having pondered over the issue of religion again, I will now go a step further to suggest that for Singapore, a small and multi-religious country, to ensure religious and racial harmony, an additional condition needs to be emphasised - national interest should take precedence over religion.
What I'm saying is that the priority should be national interest and loyalty to the country. A common understanding to place the nation and society above everything else will stand us in good stead in the face of external influence.
To achieve this, we should first be absolutely clear that religious belief is a personal matter while national loyalty is the duty of every citizen. They should not get mixed up.
In other words, one's religion should not undermine one's loyalty to the country. We can have freedom of religion but should pledge our loyalty only to our nation.
Only with this consensus as the foundation can the different religions and religious communities step up conscious efforts to get to know one another better.
This, of course, hinges on religious leaders agreeing on a common view and working towards the same purpose. If the different religious groups can indeed uphold the idea of nation before religion, they will be able to share the following common traits：
Firstly, tolerance. The state treats the various religions equally and they in turn make clear their commitment to the nation. As the emphasis is on national interest and cohesion, they will be able to practise tolerance and become more resistant to any effort to define any religion narrowly.
Secondly, involvement in society. As a small country, Singapore's survival depends on a people with the drive to constantly improve and upgrade their knowledge and skills. Religion can meet the spiritual needs of our people and is in the interests of the nation as well. A good example is religious organisations participating actively in educational, charitable and welfare activities.
Thirdly, relevance to life. A religion should be able to keep up with the changing times and not advise its followers to shun changes and become more religious. The call for followers to become more devout should not be an over-reaction or even an attempt to turn back the clock in response to the onslaught of modernisation and westernisation.
Only recently, a religious court in Nigeria found a widow guilty of adultery for having a baby outside wedlock and sentenced her to death by stoning. This is clearly a case of turning back the wheel of history.
Singapore is a forward-looking society and Singaporeans are urged to acquire the latest know-how. It is necessary for the various religions to do away with practices that are negative and archaic, bear in mind the survival needs of the nation and keep abreast with developments.
In a multi-racial and cosmopolitan society like Singapore, it is impractical for any religion to ask its followers to revolve their life around the religion. Such a call will also set back efforts to promote racial harmony.
We should find ways to facilitate communications and exchanges between the different ethnic groups in the housing estates, schools, society or workplaces. This means removing all racial and religious barriers and restrictions that are outdated and do not conform to reality in our society. This will also help expand the so-called common space between the different races.
But if Singaporeans of different faiths cannot dine together, men and women cannot shake hands at social functions, or children cannot carry joss sticks to pay their last respects to a deceased parent, enlarging the common space will be easier said than done.
For national interest to take priority over religion and for religion to be relevant to life, we need religious leaders who are enlightened, aware of the demands of changing times, and who possess great courage and wisdom to play a leading role.
（The writer is a former MP. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
不久前,筆者曾撰文強(qiáng)調(diào)政治和宗教分開,以及新加坡政體繼續(xù)保持世俗化（secular）的重要性。對(duì)我國宗教問題的進(jìn)一步思考,使筆者覺得,作為一個(gè)多元宗教的新興小國,要確保宗教和種族和諧,還有一點(diǎn)是必須格外強(qiáng)調(diào)的,那就是,宗教必須都能做到以國家為主體。
這里,以國家為主體的意思,就是把國家利益和對(duì)國家的效忠擺在首位,確認(rèn)大家的共同主體是國家,凡事以社稷為重,在面對(duì)外來的影響時(shí),能夠發(fā)揮自主性、獨(dú)立性。
要做到這一點(diǎn),首先必須厘清宗教信仰和國家效忠這兩個(gè)概念。宗教信仰是個(gè)人的事,國家效忠則是每個(gè)公民的事。信仰和效忠不能混淆。
換言之,不能因個(gè)人的宗教信仰而模糊了效忠的對(duì)象；信仰可以自由,但是效忠對(duì)象必須一致,就是國家。
有了以國家為主體的共同基礎(chǔ),各不同宗教和信仰不同宗教的社會(huì)群體,才能在主觀上有意識(shí)地進(jìn)行加強(qiáng)了解、交流與契合的努力。
不必說,要做到這點(diǎn),就有賴宗教領(lǐng)袖取得共識(shí),朝一致的方向前進(jìn)。各宗教若能切實(shí)做到明確地以國家為主體,就能具備以下的共同性：
第一,是寬容。國家平等對(duì)待各宗教,各宗教明確地效忠國家,以國家利益為重,以和合為重,必能互相寬容,這一來就能提高抗拒狹隘的宗教主義的力量。
第二,是入世的。新加坡是個(gè)小國,必須努力求存,因此,人民必須具備向上和進(jìn)取的及進(jìn)取的精神。宗教能夠滿足人們精神上的需要,也配合國家的需要。宗教團(tuán)體積極參與教育、慈善、福利事業(yè),就是一個(gè)很好的例子。
第三,是生活化。配合時(shí)代的進(jìn)步,宗教必須能生活化,而不是倒過來要求信眾的生活宗教化。面對(duì)現(xiàn)代化和西方化的沖擊,宗教要求信眾虔誠,但是不能矯枉過正,甚或開歷史的倒車。
不久前,尼日利亞的宗教法庭判處一名婚外產(chǎn)子的離婚婦通*罪名成立,必須受擲石死刑。這是和生活化背道而馳、開歷史倒車的做法。
新加坡是個(gè)前瞻性的社會(huì),它要求人民趕在世界發(fā)展的前端,各宗教也必須能革除各種消極和過時(shí)的做法,配合國家主體生存的需要,與時(shí)俱進(jìn)。
在我們這樣一個(gè)多元種族的國際性大都會(huì)里,任何宗教要求信徒生活宗教化都是不實(shí)際的,也會(huì)阻撓各族融合的進(jìn)程。不管是在組屋區(qū)、學(xué)校、社區(qū)、工作場(chǎng)合,我們都應(yīng)該設(shè)法促進(jìn)各族之間的交流互通。
要做到這點(diǎn),就得把各種各樣的種族和宗教的藩籬和不合時(shí)代與國情的條條框框拆除、移走。也只有這么做,才能擴(kuò)大所謂的各族之間的共同空間。
如果在我們這樣一個(gè)現(xiàn)代社會(huì)里,不同宗教信仰的公民連在一起用餐都不行,在各種社交場(chǎng)合男女握手都不行,或者連父母去世,在靈堂上香都不行,那要擴(kuò)大共同空間,談何容易。
宗教要以國家為主體,要生活化,肯定需要有開明的、趕上時(shí)代和大智大勇的宗教領(lǐng)袖來主導(dǎo)。
What I'm saying is that the priority should be national interest and loyalty to the country. A common understanding to place the nation and society above everything else will stand us in good stead in the face of external influence.
To achieve this, we should first be absolutely clear that religious belief is a personal matter while national loyalty is the duty of every citizen. They should not get mixed up.
In other words, one's religion should not undermine one's loyalty to the country. We can have freedom of religion but should pledge our loyalty only to our nation.
Only with this consensus as the foundation can the different religions and religious communities step up conscious efforts to get to know one another better.
This, of course, hinges on religious leaders agreeing on a common view and working towards the same purpose. If the different religious groups can indeed uphold the idea of nation before religion, they will be able to share the following common traits：
Firstly, tolerance. The state treats the various religions equally and they in turn make clear their commitment to the nation. As the emphasis is on national interest and cohesion, they will be able to practise tolerance and become more resistant to any effort to define any religion narrowly.
Secondly, involvement in society. As a small country, Singapore's survival depends on a people with the drive to constantly improve and upgrade their knowledge and skills. Religion can meet the spiritual needs of our people and is in the interests of the nation as well. A good example is religious organisations participating actively in educational, charitable and welfare activities.
Thirdly, relevance to life. A religion should be able to keep up with the changing times and not advise its followers to shun changes and become more religious. The call for followers to become more devout should not be an over-reaction or even an attempt to turn back the clock in response to the onslaught of modernisation and westernisation.
Only recently, a religious court in Nigeria found a widow guilty of adultery for having a baby outside wedlock and sentenced her to death by stoning. This is clearly a case of turning back the wheel of history.
Singapore is a forward-looking society and Singaporeans are urged to acquire the latest know-how. It is necessary for the various religions to do away with practices that are negative and archaic, bear in mind the survival needs of the nation and keep abreast with developments.
In a multi-racial and cosmopolitan society like Singapore, it is impractical for any religion to ask its followers to revolve their life around the religion. Such a call will also set back efforts to promote racial harmony.
We should find ways to facilitate communications and exchanges between the different ethnic groups in the housing estates, schools, society or workplaces. This means removing all racial and religious barriers and restrictions that are outdated and do not conform to reality in our society. This will also help expand the so-called common space between the different races.
But if Singaporeans of different faiths cannot dine together, men and women cannot shake hands at social functions, or children cannot carry joss sticks to pay their last respects to a deceased parent, enlarging the common space will be easier said than done.
For national interest to take priority over religion and for religion to be relevant to life, we need religious leaders who are enlightened, aware of the demands of changing times, and who possess great courage and wisdom to play a leading role.
（The writer is a former MP. Translated by Yap Gee Poh.）
不久前,筆者曾撰文強(qiáng)調(diào)政治和宗教分開,以及新加坡政體繼續(xù)保持世俗化（secular）的重要性。對(duì)我國宗教問題的進(jìn)一步思考,使筆者覺得,作為一個(gè)多元宗教的新興小國,要確保宗教和種族和諧,還有一點(diǎn)是必須格外強(qiáng)調(diào)的,那就是,宗教必須都能做到以國家為主體。
這里,以國家為主體的意思,就是把國家利益和對(duì)國家的效忠擺在首位,確認(rèn)大家的共同主體是國家,凡事以社稷為重,在面對(duì)外來的影響時(shí),能夠發(fā)揮自主性、獨(dú)立性。
要做到這一點(diǎn),首先必須厘清宗教信仰和國家效忠這兩個(gè)概念。宗教信仰是個(gè)人的事,國家效忠則是每個(gè)公民的事。信仰和效忠不能混淆。
換言之,不能因個(gè)人的宗教信仰而模糊了效忠的對(duì)象；信仰可以自由,但是效忠對(duì)象必須一致,就是國家。
有了以國家為主體的共同基礎(chǔ),各不同宗教和信仰不同宗教的社會(huì)群體,才能在主觀上有意識(shí)地進(jìn)行加強(qiáng)了解、交流與契合的努力。
不必說,要做到這點(diǎn),就有賴宗教領(lǐng)袖取得共識(shí),朝一致的方向前進(jìn)。各宗教若能切實(shí)做到明確地以國家為主體,就能具備以下的共同性：
第一,是寬容。國家平等對(duì)待各宗教,各宗教明確地效忠國家,以國家利益為重,以和合為重,必能互相寬容,這一來就能提高抗拒狹隘的宗教主義的力量。
第二,是入世的。新加坡是個(gè)小國,必須努力求存,因此,人民必須具備向上和進(jìn)取的及進(jìn)取的精神。宗教能夠滿足人們精神上的需要,也配合國家的需要。宗教團(tuán)體積極參與教育、慈善、福利事業(yè),就是一個(gè)很好的例子。
第三,是生活化。配合時(shí)代的進(jìn)步,宗教必須能生活化,而不是倒過來要求信眾的生活宗教化。面對(duì)現(xiàn)代化和西方化的沖擊,宗教要求信眾虔誠,但是不能矯枉過正,甚或開歷史的倒車。
不久前,尼日利亞的宗教法庭判處一名婚外產(chǎn)子的離婚婦通*罪名成立,必須受擲石死刑。這是和生活化背道而馳、開歷史倒車的做法。
新加坡是個(gè)前瞻性的社會(huì),它要求人民趕在世界發(fā)展的前端,各宗教也必須能革除各種消極和過時(shí)的做法,配合國家主體生存的需要,與時(shí)俱進(jìn)。
在我們這樣一個(gè)多元種族的國際性大都會(huì)里,任何宗教要求信徒生活宗教化都是不實(shí)際的,也會(huì)阻撓各族融合的進(jìn)程。不管是在組屋區(qū)、學(xué)校、社區(qū)、工作場(chǎng)合,我們都應(yīng)該設(shè)法促進(jìn)各族之間的交流互通。
要做到這點(diǎn),就得把各種各樣的種族和宗教的藩籬和不合時(shí)代與國情的條條框框拆除、移走。也只有這么做,才能擴(kuò)大所謂的各族之間的共同空間。
如果在我們這樣一個(gè)現(xiàn)代社會(huì)里,不同宗教信仰的公民連在一起用餐都不行,在各種社交場(chǎng)合男女握手都不行,或者連父母去世,在靈堂上香都不行,那要擴(kuò)大共同空間,談何容易。
宗教要以國家為主體,要生活化,肯定需要有開明的、趕上時(shí)代和大智大勇的宗教領(lǐng)袖來主導(dǎo)。