Catch-22

The term ‘catch-22’ has been quoted by many to indicate a ‘no-win’ situation. To be more precise, this term illustrates a self-contradictory circular logic or a paradoxical situation. This term dates back to 1961, based on the title of a novel written by Joseph Heller. The novel is set in the later stages of World War II and it depicts several bureaucratic catches that involves illogical reasoning. Particularly, ‘Catch-22’ is a military rule that is used to prevent anyone from avoiding combat mission. The paragraph below is extracted from the novel to illustrate the point:

There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.

The best way to understand this term is to look at a few more examples.

1. Recently I watched a movie called ‘A Civil Action’, starring John Travolta. He was a personal injury attorney that got himself entangled in a legal battle. In order to win this lawsuit, he has to fork out a hefty sum of money even at the expense of his personal savings, career and reputation. The only way for him to recover his losses is to win the suit, but how can he win unless he has the money?

2. Many fresh graduates find it frustrating during job applications because a lot of companies require them to have experience first. How could they have experience unless they are given a chance to start somewhere?

3. “NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE”. Is this true? Now this phrase is bias in nature. The only logical answer is a ‘no’, that is to say that something must be absolute. If we answer ‘yes’ and agree to the fact that nothing is absolute, then the next question to ask is ‘Is this phrase absolutely true?’ In order for ‘NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE’ to be true, the phrase ‘NOTHING IS ABSOLUTE’ has to be absolutely true, thus indicating that one thing has to be absolute (that is the phrase itself) even if everything else is not absolute….think again!

I guess by now you should have gotten the drift on what catch-22 mean. Lets take a look at the electoral system in Malaysia. How come the coalition party (Barisan National) can sustain a 50-year ruling while the oppositions (combined together) fail to win even a one third majority? Countries like America, Australia and even Japan have seen a change of government. One would question whether BN is really doing so well in keeping its citizens satisfied when we have recently witnessed the Hindraf demonstration. If not, are we practicing real democracy? Is there something really wrong with our current electoral system? Are we stuck in a Catch-22 situation?

I have recently been introduced to two interesting terms called “mal-apportionment” and “gerrymandering” from reading my brother’s blog. He pointed out that our electoral system is inherently flawed, such that the voting always favours the BN party. I do not profess to be an expert in these areas, but from the little that I understand; “mal-apportionment” means the unequal allocation of seats to the various constituencies. By right, the number of seats allocated to each constituency should be proportional to its population size; instead the government has under-represented the number of seats in the opposition-dominated areas while over-represented the number of seats in the BN strongholds. For instance, Chin Huat posted in his blog that in the 2004 election, Putrajaya returned a parliamentary seat with only 5079 voters while Kapar (about 100km away) did so with 104,185 voters. “Gerrymandering”, on the other hand means redrawing the boundaries of a constituency so that the new constituency favours a particular party or candidate, typically the one in power. For more details, you can refer to this article.

Because of these systemic flaws, it is no wonder that opposition party leader (DAP), Lim Kit Siang kept emphasizing the need to destroy political hegemony in this coming general election. The phrase ‘makkal sakti’ has been coined to emphasize that the country’s ruling should be based on people’s power, not by the manipulation of the democratic system to gain majority votes. Unless these flaws are rectified, our voting will always be skewed towards the BN party, making it a lot harder for the oppositions to win over.

Are we in a catch-22 situation? You decide for yourself.