I initially predicted in my business forecast for 2008 that nothing will happen politically that will affect the economy. But once again, time has proven me wrong.
The Philippines is at it again! Calls for the President to step down have once again gained momentum on charges of alleged corruption as a result of the ZTE-NBN broadband deal.
The ZTE-NBN broadband deal controversy brought a new name to Philippine politics, the name “Jun Lozada” became so popular.
By now most webmasters and bloggers are exploiting the key word “Jun Lozada” considering it’s being high-trend, low-dense keyword.
This is not an article on optimizing the “Jun Lozada” keyword. This article seeks to answers only this question that is, whether Jun Lozada is a Hero or a hypocrite.
Jun Lozada’s actions and what he says will reveal why he decided to testify against the administration. As can be inferred from his word and actions, these are his reasons:
1.) Jun Lozada has become so guilty by the anomalous transactions that he helped facilitate so he repented of his ways because he could not take it anymore. 2.) Jun Lozada became patriotic, his deep love for his country was awakened.
On the other hand the administration and other people paint Jun Lozada as somebody who is a hypocrite because of the following reasons and circumstances:
1.) Jun Lozada’s testimony show that he was part in committing the alleged crime before he blew the whistle. 2.)Jun Lozada never had the intention to testify in the Senate. The fact that he went to Hongkong to evade Senate inquiry proves this. But since he was preassured by the Senate, he decided to say what he knew. In short his agoing gainst the administration is not because patriotism or guilt but because he was pressured to give his testimony.
So which is which? Is Jun Lozada a hero or a hypocrite?
When presented with two strong opposing theories or hypothesis scientist have a way of coming up with a simple conclusion. This simple logical principle is known as “Occam’s razor.” Wikipedia says that the principle of Occam’s razor simply states that “the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.” In simple terms what it is saying is that “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.”
Using this simple principle, all things being equal, did Lozada testify because he was guilt stricken and moved with loved for his country or did he testify because of surmounting pressure? Take note, the simplest explanation is the best. Jun Lozada - Hero or hypocrite? Decide for yourself!
Leave a Reply