Indonesia's ambitious plan to create a new capital city named Nusantara in Borneo is facing significant challenges. Initially envisioned as a modern "smart forest city" with a budget of US$28.5 billion, the project has become associated with various illegal activities, including prostitution and gambling. Local officials have expressed concerns that these issues are growing, which raises doubts about the city's future under President Prabowo Subianto.

During recent discussions in parliament, lawmaker Muhammad Khozin highlighted that negative news about illicit activities could lead to anxiety among families of civil servants working in the area. He pointed out that even those in high positions could face personal troubles due to these developments. The governing authority of Nusantara is reportedly trying to downplay the extent of these problems, but skepticism remains widespread regarding the project's viability moving forward.

Original article

Here is an analysis of the article's value to the reader:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide any immediate actions or steps that readers can take. It mainly discusses the challenges and concerns surrounding the Nusantara project, which are beyond the control of the average person. There are no clear instructions, tools, or resources mentioned that readers can utilize to address the issues raised.

Educational Depth: While the article offers some insights into the project's vision and the problems it faces, it does not delve deeply into the educational aspects. It provides a basic overview of the situation but lacks detailed explanations of the causes, historical context, or underlying systems that could enhance understanding. The educational value is limited to a surface-level description of the issues.

Personal Relevance: The topic of the article may have some relevance to individuals who are directly involved in the Nusantara project or those who have family members working in the area. For them, the concerns raised could impact their personal lives and well-being. However, for the general public, the personal relevance is relatively low. It does not directly affect their daily lives, spending habits, or immediate plans.

Public Service Function: The article does not serve a public service purpose in the sense of providing official warnings, safety guidelines, or emergency contacts. It primarily focuses on discussing the negative aspects of the project and the concerns expressed by lawmakers. While it brings attention to potential issues, it does not offer practical solutions or resources to address them.

Practicality of Advice: Since the article does not provide any specific advice or recommendations, the practicality of its content is not applicable. It merely presents the concerns and doubts surrounding the project without offering actionable guidance.

Long-Term Impact: The article's focus on the challenges and doubts associated with the Nusantara project suggests a potential long-term impact. If the issues persist and the project faces further obstacles, it could influence future urban development plans and raise questions about similar initiatives. However, the article itself does not propose any long-term solutions or strategies to mitigate these impacts.

Emotional or Psychological Impact: The article may evoke emotions such as concern, skepticism, or even anxiety among readers, especially those with personal connections to the project. However, it does not offer any psychological support or strategies to cope with these emotions. The emotional impact is largely negative, leaving readers with a sense of uncertainty and doubt.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not employ excessive clickbait tactics or sensational language. It presents the information in a relatively straightforward manner, focusing on the facts and concerns surrounding the Nusantara project. While it may capture attention with its headline, the content itself is not overly dramatic or misleading.

In summary, the article provides a snapshot of the challenges faced by the Nusantara project but falls short in offering practical solutions, educational depth, or actionable steps for readers. It primarily serves to inform and raise awareness about the issues, leaving readers with a sense of uncertainty and the need for further exploration and discussion.

It is clear that the described situation poses a grave threat to the very foundation of family and community bonds. The association of the new city project with illicit activities, such as prostitution and gambling, directly undermines the moral fabric that holds families together. These vices not only bring shame and anxiety to families but also create an environment where personal troubles and conflicts can easily arise, disrupting the peaceful resolution of issues within the community.

The reported attempts to downplay these problems by the governing authority further erode trust. When those in positions of responsibility fail to address such issues, it sends a message that the well-being and protection of the community's members, especially the vulnerable, are not priorities. This lack of accountability and transparency breaks the social contract that binds people together and fosters a sense of collective responsibility.

The impact of these actions extends beyond the immediate concerns of families. If such behaviors and attitudes spread unchecked, they will weaken the social cohesion that is vital for the survival and prosperity of the people. The birth rate may decline as the environment becomes less conducive to raising children, and the care of elders will be compromised as the community's moral and protective instincts are eroded.

The solution lies in personal accountability and a return to the fundamental values that have sustained communities for generations. Those involved in these activities must recognize the harm they cause and take steps to make amends. Restitution, public apologies, and a commitment to uphold the duties of kinship are necessary to restore trust and rebuild the community's moral strength.

It is imperative that individuals take responsibility for their actions and the impact they have on the collective. Only through such personal accountability and a renewed focus on family and community can the people ensure their survival, protect their land, and preserve the balance of life for future generations.

This critique is limited in its scope, as it primarily addresses the impact on local social dynamics and does not delve into the broader political or ideological implications. Nonetheless, the consequences for families, communities, and the land are clear: without a return to moral bonds and a sense of collective responsibility, the very fabric of society will unravel, leading to a future where the people are divided, vulnerable, and unable to thrive.

The text has a negative tone and focuses on the challenges and problems associated with the new capital city project. It uses words like "significant challenges," "various illegal activities," and "negative news" to describe the situation, creating a sense of concern and skepticism. This language choice emphasizes the difficulties and potential risks, which may influence readers' perceptions.

The phrase "smart forest city" is a positive description, but it is followed by the revelation of illegal activities, creating a contrast and potentially misleading readers into thinking the city's concept is flawed. This trick suggests the entire project is problematic, ignoring other potential benefits.

Lawmaker Muhammad Khozin's statement about families of civil servants is a form of virtue signaling. He expresses concern for their anxiety, implying he cares about their well-being, but this may be a strategic move to gain support for his argument against the project.

The text mentions that the governing authority is "downplaying" the issues, suggesting they are trying to minimize or hide the extent of the problems. This passive construction hides the authority's active role in managing the situation, potentially misleading readers into believing they are not taking responsibility.

The use of the word "even" in "even those in high positions" creates a sense of surprise and emphasizes the potential impact on all levels of society, including those with power. This strategy draws attention to the far-reaching consequences, which may be a rhetorical device to gain support for addressing the issues.

The text expresses a range of emotions, primarily conveying a sense of concern and skepticism towards Indonesia's new capital city project, Nusantara. These emotions are evident through the use of descriptive language and the tone of the narrative.

The initial vision of a modern, smart forest city is described with a positive tone, suggesting excitement and ambition. However, as the text progresses, the focus shifts to the negative aspects associated with the project, such as illegal activities like prostitution and gambling. This shift in tone creates a sense of unease and worry, as these illicit activities are portrayed as growing concerns. The strength of these emotions intensifies with the mention of potential personal troubles for those in high positions, implying a sense of fear and anxiety.

The lawmaker's statement further emphasizes these emotions by highlighting the impact on families and civil servants. The use of the word "anxiety" here is powerful, as it suggests a deep and pervasive feeling of worry that could potentially affect a large number of people. This emotional appeal is designed to create a sense of sympathy and shared concern among readers, drawing attention to the potential human cost of the project's issues.

The governing authority's attempt to downplay these problems adds a layer of distrust and skepticism to the narrative. The text implies that the authorities are not being transparent, which can evoke feelings of anger and frustration in readers who may perceive this as a lack of accountability. This emotional manipulation is a strategic move to question the credibility of the project and its leadership.

The writer's choice of words and phrases, such as "illicit activities," "personal troubles," and "downplay the extent," are emotionally charged and create a sense of drama. By repeating the idea of negative news and its potential impact, the writer emphasizes the seriousness of the situation and guides the reader's focus towards the potential consequences. The comparison between the initial vision and the current reality also serves to highlight the contrast and evoke a sense of disappointment or even outrage.

In summary, the text employs emotional language to persuade readers to question the viability of the Nusantara project. By evoking feelings of concern, anxiety, and distrust, the writer aims to shape public opinion and potentially influence decision-making processes regarding the future of the new capital city.