One of the articles I wrote was a business forecast for 2008. I predicted that there will be no huge political events that will have a big impact in the economy, unfortunanately I was 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.
In fact most webmasters and bloggers, would probably start exploiting the key word “Jun Lozada” right now considering that it is a high-trend, low-dense keyword.
But this article is not about optimizing the “Jun Lozada” keyword. Rather this post seeks to present the two sides of the story and seeks to answer whether Jun Lozada is a Hero or a hypocrite.
Jun Lozada’s own words and actions tells his tale on why he testified against the administration. The following are his reasons:
1.) Jun Lozada could not take it anymore. He has become guilt-stricken by the anomalous act that he helped facilitate before he repented of his ways that is why he decided to testify. 2.) Jun Lozada was somewhat moved by patriotism and his deep love for his country.
The administration and other people on the other hand say that Jun Lozada is a hypocrite because of the following:
1.) Jun Lozada admitted that he helped commit the offense before he repented; 2.) Jun Lozada never had the intention to testify in the Senate. The fact that he went to Hongkong to evade Senate inquiry proves such. But because of the pressure that he has been receiving from the Senate, he decided to tell all. In short his testifying is not because he was guilt-stricken or because of his patriotism. He was only forced to do it because he was pressured to.
So which is which? Is Jun Lozada a hero or a hypocrite?
Scientist have a way of choosting as to which theory or hypothesis is correct when they are confronted with two strong opposing theories or hypothesis. We know this to be the principle of “Occam’s razor.” According to Wikipedia this principle simply states “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.” To make it more simple, what 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!