Thursday, February 21, 2008


There have been comparisons between Jun Lozada and Chavit Singson since the beginning, with administration supporters spinning it such that Chavit appears to be more credible, being “in the know,” whilst Lozada’s testimony is mostly hearsay.

There is a big difference between Lozada and Chavit: the former feared for his life only after making a principled stand, Chavit gained a conscience only after fearing for his life.

Chavit’s choice to turn on his boss was perfectly practical; he was to be done away with anyway, better take his new enemies down with him. He got more than he bargained for, gaining immunity. Unlike Lozada, he knew exactly what he was doing.

Lozada’s choice was to be a good soldier, to “moderate the greed,” which he later realized was a futile attempt. (Greed, by its very definition, knows no bounds) He made a stand and got flak for it. Then events overtook him and now he’s a semi-reluctant star witness in a senate hearing. I’ve a feeling he wants all this to just go away but is already in too deep.

Chavit was trying to save his ass; Lozada is trying to do the right thing. That makes all the difference.


EDIT: removed the "senate seat" thing. No excuse for that, but I wonder why I thought he won.

No comments: