One of the most fascinating side plots in the Yong Vui Kong story is his conversion to Buddhism in prison. He spoke about how it gave him peace in his heart, and at last, he was ready to accept his fate. His beliefs led to his withdrawal of the appeal, which, however, was subsequently nullified. His lawyer argued that he was not in the right state of mind then, and had confused religious piety with legal reasoning. It was noted that Yong had wanted to accept his fate due to his beliefs, and did not want to lie in an appeal. However, he misunderstood the fact that the appeal was not against his crimes, but rather against capital punishment.
It is interesting to see how many individuals, in times of crisis, seek religion as a means of dealing with their emotional trauma. Yong's predicament represents a rather extreme example, where his own life was at stake.
I can see a little of myself in Yong. For me, religion still very much has a strong grip on me emotionally. The church is a place where I find solace. I still pray, even though my intellect and reasoning protests vehemently against the idea of God. While religion seems to have receded much in my intellect, it still occupies a seat in my mind -- in the realm of emotions.
Someone might accuse me of rampant emotionalism, but I beg to differ. Researchers (Jonathan Haidt and others) have shown that emotions play a crucial part in decision-making. Individuals lacking in an emotional capacity are found to possibly lose the ability to make good decisions that benefit themselves and others.
One crucial element that has been missing in the tussle between religionists and atheists is the role of emotion in decision-making about God, which is often conceptualised as the foundation of our morality. It is therefore not too shabby an idea to say that "God cannot be reasoned, but has to be felt." We should get rid of the idea that just because somebody believes in God through his or her emotions, his beliefs should be rubbished.
Turns out that this is essential human nature.
Nevertheless, the problem of whether God originates in our mind or outside of it is still not solved. But while religion may originate in our emotions, we must not compartmentalise it in a box. Religion must still be guided by reason, and a failure to do so could lead to misguided action. Take for instance much of the fundamentalist church, with their unwavering belief in imposing their faith in politics and the legal system. Is this an instance of flawed reasoning?
The Yong case provides another example. A failure to separate emotionality with legal reasoning led Yong to believe that giving up on his appeal was the best way forward.
But when all is said and done, there is no denying the comfort that religion brings to an individual. Karl Marx said that "Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness."
Not enough emphasis has been put on the sentence before Marx's famous quip. Yong, who rotted in prison awaiting his sentencing, sought solace in Buddhism, which was in fact his only remedy. Defenseless against a cold-hearted bureaucracy, he had to find a way to man up to his impending death. Oppressed by the staid reasoning of the government, Yong had to turn to religion. Cut off from social support by the walls of his prison cell, he had no other choice.
Of course, if Marx were alive today, he would probably say that Buddhism is not the solution to Yong's problem. Rather, true change can only come in the reformation of the justice system, which is designed to favour those in power. Only with the burning down of the judiciary and the creation of a new order from the ashes can the happiness of those like Yong be secured.
Both Max Weber and Emile Durkheim, the founding fathers of Sociology, saw the purpose of religion -- to act as a safeguard against moral degradation in modern society. Weber saw modern society and its dependence on science and rationality as being thoroughly unable to tackle ethical questions. Religion, therefore, sought to impute values and morality in the individual, and his central thesis was that Protestant Christianity provided the moral impetus for the pursuit of wealth, contributing to the rise of capitalism.
Durkheim saw things a little differently. He sees religion as a safeguard against the problems brought about by change. It is a safeguard against anomie -- or the lack of regulation in society. It fosters closer social integration among individuals, providing an effective deterrent against suicide. Durkheim perhaps is more concerned about the social role of religion than the truth of their claims. As such, he advocates "civil religion" as a possible replacement to the traditional faiths as a social glue for a nation-state.
But in Singapore, it seems that we seem to be worshiping rationality rather than civil religion, as brilliantly pointed out by Khairulanwar Zaini on The Online Citizen. Critics against the death penalty campaign deride the humanising of Yong, seeing it as tomfoolery and a ploy to sway the masses. However, they seem to have forgotten the central tenets of our civil religion, enshrined beautifully in our National Pledge: To build a democratic society, based on justice and equality.
The last I heard, "security" did not factor into the Pledge.






