President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. expressed his thanks to Ramon Ang for his offer to help solve Metro Manila's flooding problems. Ang, a business tycoon, had stated that his company, San Miguel Corp., could address the capital's flooding issues after a meeting with Metro Manila mayors. The President acknowledged that Ang's proposal was not new. He also highlighted that while Ang offered to fix flooding and clear waterways, local government units would still need to manage the garbage problem.

However, Ang's offer has faced criticism. A group called Advocates of Science and Technology for the People pointed to a report suggesting that some of San Miguel Corp.'s projects, like the New Manila International Airport, might have made flooding worse in nearby areas. This group stated that the persistent flooding is due to a lack of foresight in infrastructure projects, damage to watersheds from quarrying and mining, and people living in naturally flood-prone areas. They directly addressed Ramon Ang, saying he is part of the problem.

Original article (flooding) (quarrying) (mining)

Actionable Information: There is no actionable information provided. The article discusses a proposal and criticisms but does not offer any steps or advice for the reader to take.

Educational Depth: The article offers some educational depth by explaining the causes of flooding as cited by a group, including lack of foresight in infrastructure, watershed damage, and development in flood-prone areas. It also highlights the complexity of the issue, noting that even with a proposal to fix waterways, garbage management remains a local government responsibility. However, it does not delve deeply into the specifics of these causes or provide detailed explanations of how infrastructure projects might exacerbate flooding.

Personal Relevance: The topic of flooding in Metro Manila is personally relevant to residents of the area as it directly impacts their daily lives, safety, and property. For those outside the immediate area, it provides context on urban planning and environmental issues that can have broader implications.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service function. It reports on a political and business interaction regarding a public issue but does not offer official warnings, safety advice, or emergency contacts.

Practicality of Advice: No advice or steps are given in the article, so the practicality of advice cannot be assessed.

Long-Term Impact: The article touches upon long-term issues like infrastructure planning and watershed management, which have lasting impacts. However, it does not provide guidance or actions for individuals to contribute to or influence these long-term solutions.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article presents a situation with differing viewpoints and criticisms. It could potentially lead to a sense of concern or frustration regarding the persistent flooding problem and the complexities of finding solutions. However, it does not offer any direct emotional support or coping mechanisms.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not appear to use clickbait or ad-driven words. The language is factual and reports on statements made by individuals and groups.

Missed Chances to Teach or Guide: The article missed a chance to provide more practical information. For instance, it could have included information on how citizens can report illegal dumping of garbage, advocate for better urban planning, or find resources for flood preparedness in their specific localities. A normal person could find better information by researching local government disaster preparedness websites, environmental advocacy groups, or news archives that detail specific flood mitigation projects and their effectiveness.

The text shows bias by presenting one side of the issue more favorably. It highlights Ramon Ang's offer and the President's acknowledgment, framing it as a potential solution. However, it then immediately introduces criticism from a group that directly calls Ang "part of the problem." This structure can make Ang's offer seem less credible by placing the negative feedback right after the positive mention.

The text uses loaded language to describe the criticism. The phrase "pointed to a report suggesting that some of San Miguel Corp.'s projects...might have made flooding worse" uses tentative language like "suggesting" and "might have." This softens the impact of the criticism, making it sound like a possibility rather than a strong accusation. It helps to downplay the severity of the group's concerns.

There is a bias in how the criticism is attributed. The text states, "A group called Advocates of Science and Technology for the People pointed to a report..." This phrasing presents the criticism as coming from a specific group and a report, which can sound more objective. However, the text then directly quotes the group saying Ang is "part of the problem," which is a strong, accusatory statement. This contrast can make the criticism seem more extreme than it might otherwise appear.

The text also shows a bias by omission. It mentions that Ang's proposal was "not new" and that local government units would still need to manage garbage. This information is presented as a factual acknowledgment by the President. However, the text does not provide any details about why the proposal is not new or what specific garbage management issues exist. This lack of detail could be seen as a way to subtly downplay Ang's offer without directly criticizing it.

The text conveys a sense of skepticism and concern regarding Ramon Ang's offer to solve Metro Manila's flooding. This skepticism is evident when President Marcos Jr. notes that Ang's proposal is "not new," suggesting a lack of fresh solutions or a history of similar, perhaps unfulfilled, offers. The concern is amplified by the criticism from the Advocates of Science and Technology for the People, who directly accuse Ang of being "part of the problem." This accusation stems from a report linking San Miguel Corp.'s projects to worsened flooding, creating a feeling of distrust towards Ang's intentions and capabilities.

These emotions are strategically used to guide the reader's reaction by fostering doubt about Ang's offer and highlighting potential negative consequences. The mention of past projects potentially worsening flooding aims to cause worry in the reader, making them question the effectiveness and even the advisability of accepting Ang's help. The criticism from the advocacy group serves to change the reader's opinion by presenting Ang not as a savior, but as a contributor to the very problem he claims he can fix.

The writer persuades the reader by using emotionally charged language and framing. The phrase "pointed to a report suggesting that some of San Miguel Corp.'s projects... might have made flooding worse" uses cautious but impactful language to imply blame. The direct statement that Ang is "part of the problem" is a strong accusation designed to evoke a negative emotional response. The writer also employs a form of contrast by presenting Ang's offer of help alongside evidence suggesting his involvement in the problem. This juxtaposition is a persuasive tool that makes Ang's offer seem less genuine and more self-serving, thereby increasing the emotional impact and steering the reader's attention towards the negative aspects of the situation. The overall effect is to create a narrative where Ang's proposed solution is met with significant doubt and apprehension.