 Perfect, George. We can see your screen and your video. Thank you so much. So, thank you, Elena. Thanks, Jeff. So, good morning, everyone. Welcome to the first section of today's webinar, COVID-19 Globalization and Philanthropy. And I'm George Ma from MSTS in Hong Kong. And I'm also from the Jockey Club Museum of Climate Change from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. So, before we get started, let me first quickly remind you that you will have the opportunity to submit text questions today's presentation by typing your question in the question pane on the control panel. Then you may send in your question at any time during presentation. And we'll collect this and try to address them during the Q&A section after the presentation. We will hear two presentations today. Now, COVID-19. So, now, today is Earth Day, April 22nd. In Chinese, it is 422. Let me do a little bit of trick before we start the presentation. But let me stretch the four and put the two twos in the four. See what happens. Now, we get a mass, something we are now very familiar with these days. And some people do wear a mass. Some people don't. Does this have anything to do with our culture or social coordination? Some people say, well, controlling the disease has something to do with social coordination. And our next speaker, our first speaker's answer. So, let me introduce Professor C.Y. Chiu, so many professors of psychology and also dean of social science of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. Professor Chiu, please. Hi, good morning. Good afternoon and good evening. So, shall I start now? Hi, can you hear me? Yes. Okay. So, thank you very much for having me here. Today, the title of my presentation today is Illness, Happiness in Global Context. So, next piece. So, what I plan to do is to talk about three seemingly unrelated concepts. Illness, happiness, and globalization. And I shall argue that these three concepts are actually related in some way. So, next slide, please. So, I start with illness. Okay, next slide. Now, this is a graph that depicts the changing infection rate of COVID-19 around the world in the last 88 days. What you can see here is that there are up and downs in the infection rates, but on the whole, we have a rising trend in the infection rates around the world. But fortunately, I think in the past week or two weeks, we see the infection rates start to flatten. But then you can also compare this figure with the next one. So, next slide, please. So, next slide, please. And this is the figure from Hong Kong. So, what you can see here is that there are similarities and differences between the situation in Hong Kong and around the world. I think the biggest differences is that in the past two weeks, you actually see a big draw in the infection rate in Hong Kong. And next slide, please. If you look at the changing infection rate around the world, you will see that some countries of entities are doing better than others. So, this is a figure that shows the different rates of infection around more than 200 entities around the world. Now, most countries are actually doing quite well, but some entities are suffering a lot. So, next slide. So, some countries are actually showing an accelerating rate of infection. So, in fact, most countries are showing an accelerating rate, but there are also some countries or entities showing a decelerating the infection rate. So, our question is, which country or entities is doing better than others and why they are doing better than others? So, this is a graph that depicts the infection rate of the different countries. As a function of how many days they are into the disease. So, for example, from this figure, you can see that, well, some countries, particularly those countries in Italy, Spain, the United States, and France and the UK, they have higher infection rates than other countries, the similar number of days into the disease. So, those countries tend to do better are South Korea and Singapore and also entities like Taiwan and Hong Kong. So, you may wonder, okay, what contributes to this variations in the infection rates across different entities? So, next slide please. So, this takes us to the connection between illness and globalization. So, next slide please. You look at this graph, you will see that on the horizontal axis is the extent of globalization of a entity or country. And then on the vertical axis is the infection rate. What you see here is some positive relationship between these two measures, the infection rate and globalization index. Meaning countries that are more globalized tend to have high infection rates. So, this pandemic is really related to the extent of globalization of countries or entities. But you feel that countries from more globalized would necessarily have high infection rates. You may want to look at the case of Singapore or like a city like Hong Kong. Despite the fact that they are highly globalized country or entity, well, they actually have relatively low infection rates. So, globalization contributes to the increase, the acceleration of the infection rates around the world. But the relationship is not deterministic in the sense that some countries or entities can actually do something to really like contain the spread of the disease despite the great extent of globalization in this country of entity. So, next slide please. So, you may wonder, so what can individuals do to help contain the spread of the virus? So, next slide please. Now, what I would like to share with you is a perspective on behavioral economics and psychology. So, the experts in public health will tell you that the infection is preventable if you do enough precaution, I think enough preventive steps. So, for example, experts would advise us to wash our hands frequently, like wear face masks when you go out, avoid social events, maintain social distancing, and so on and so forth. Now, this advice is very sensible. By the same time, it also creates a dilemma for individuals. Are you telling us that we can no longer go to parties? We can no longer go shopping? No kissing? No hugging? No partying? That sounds terrible from the perspective of like personal freedom and convenience. But at the same time, if everybody can do, can follow this advice, then well, perhaps we have a chance to contain the virus and our individual behavior or action or self restraint can actually contribute to the common good. So, this is the dilemma that we face. Shall we put our personal freedom and convenience before the common good or shall we put the common good before personal freedom and convenience? So, this slide please. So, in this slide, okay, on the left, you see a photo taken in Hong Kong. And this is actually like a wedding picture. So, people here, well, in this picture, well, they wear the mask, even when they're taking photos for their wedding. Now, on the right hand side, you see a clip, a clip from the news report that say, okay, now, even though the government in Italy imposed some measures, some, thinking some steps to contain the virus by asking people to stay home. People, a lot of people refuse to follow the instruction or the law and then they get fined. So, they're even willing to like pay for the fine and exercise the personal freedom. So, next slide please. So, what I want to do is to share with you some research finding from a group of researchers at the University of Cambridge. Well, in mid-March, they surveyed citizens from eight countries that were struggling with the infection, with the COVID-19 infection, and they measured a couple of things that are of interest here. So, next slide here, next slide please. So, one things that they measure, well, is the number of preventive actions that were taken by the citizens. So, they have a long list of preventive actions recommended by experts in public health, and they just measure how many different preventive actions were taken by the citizens. Next slide please. Next slide please. And the second variable that they measure is where the citizens agree that it is okay for the government to interfere in order to protect the common good even at the expenses or constraining the personal freedom of the citizen or the other way around. Whether the personal freedom should be put before the common good and when the government's interference illegitimate. So, the next slide please. And when you look at the data, in all the eight countries, there is a positive relationship between people believing in the importance of putting common good before personal freedom, and the number of preventive behaviors they would take. Now, next slide please. In this study, they also asked the respondent one question, and that is whether or not it is important to do things that would benefit others and society even if they have some cost to the individual citizen. And again, what you see here is that in all eight countries, there is a positive relationship in the belief that it is important to do something to benefit others even at the cost of the individual and the number of preventive behaviors that people would take to stop the infection. So, next slide please. Now, those are the data at the individual level. So, you may wonder, well, how the situation may look at the country level or entity level. So, if you look at the next slide, so you see that there are variations in how people in the individual society respond to the virus. So, in some places like some countries in Asia, people willingly wear face masks and engage in other preventive behavior. Willingly. So, for example, in my hometown in Hong Kong, so almost everybody would wear a face mask if they go out. And you happen to forget your mask, people remind you to wear your mask. If you don't have one, some may give you one. Just to make sure that, well, you are doing something that is good for yourself and good for the community. But then in some other places, well, engaging in this preventive behaviors is contested by some citizens. So, you can say that, well, there are some countries that have like a better social coordination than others. So, next slide please. So, in this figure, what I show you is country differences in a variable called individualism. So, what is individualism? Individualism is the shared belief that we should put personal goals before the common good. So, you can see that across different countries, this shared belief is stronger in some countries than in others. So, for example, the United States have a really strong belief in individualism, followed by some European countries. And then in Asian countries, you see a stronger belief in the collectivism, or which is the opposite of individualism. So, and then on the vertical axis of this graph, you see the infection rate. And what you can see here is that individualist countries or entities tend to have higher infection rates, partly because it would be harder to coordinate the action of individuals if individuals in the countries or entity are reluctant to give up their personal freedom or to give up the pursuit of their personal goal in order to benefit the collective. So, next slide please. So, in short, I think one of the important lessons we learn from this data is that, well, there could be many factors that contributes to the variation across countries in the infection rates. But I think the one important factor that we have discovered from this data is that successful contingent of the virus at the country level actually requires coordination of our interests, our personal interests, and also to the collective interests. And countries with citizens who are willing to really balance their mini-me, the personal goals with the collective goal tend to like bear better in this battle against COVID-19. So, next slide please. Now, let me turn to a second concept, happiness, and its relationship with globalization. Next slide please. So, you may wonder, okay, what is happiness? Well, we should tell us that there are many different ways to have happiness, to achieve happiness. This slide please. And one way we can get happiness, we can achieve happiness is eudaimonic happiness, okay? So, this seems to be a new concept, but this is actually an old concept in philosophy. So, what is eudaimonic happiness? Eudaimonic happiness is you gain happiness by seeing that what you're doing has meaning or has a purpose. Now, let me show you some data, cost-cultural data. So, next slide please. So, in this picture, what you see is that it's the association between post-social spending and happiness of the citizens in the, in that, in different countries. So, what you can see is that, well, there are actually strong positive relationship between post-social spending and the journal level of happiness in the country, meaning that in the countries that have higher level of post-social spending, people there tend to be happier. Now, when you see a country of entity in green color, that means the relationship is really strong. If you see a country is in wet color, that means in this country you actually see a negative relationship between post-social spending and happiness. Now, fortunately for our world, most countries are in green color, a shade in green color, meaning that post-social spending really makes people happy almost everywhere in the world. Next slide please. Now, this actually takes us to a very interesting concept called give and take, proposed by Adam Rand. So, in this book, he actually presents very convincing evidence that if you look at people who are successful in their business or in their profession, you will find out that these people tend to be givers rather than tickers. That means being a giver can actually increase your chance of success. Now, why would that be the case? Next slide please. Well, research tells us that people are constantly searching for meaning. They ask questions like, where am I going? What am I doing? What is the meaning of life? And research shows that while people who find answers to these questions tend to be happier. And next slide please. So, who are the people who tend to see their life to be meaningful? Well, there has been some very good research showing that your people tell you that they are a ticker instead of a giver. They may not feel that their life is very meaningful. However, if they tell you that I'm a giver, there is a much higher chance that they will also tell you that life is meaningful. If they also tell you that I have the leading, then it is also quite likely that they will tell you my life is meaningful. So, now next slide please. Now, let me try to turn to the last connection, that is illness and happiness. Now, next slide please. Some research are now telling us that people who find their life to be meaningful tend to be not only happier, but they are also healthier. So, there are some next slide please. Next slide please. I will not go into details of this, but there are some very good research showing that when people report that their life is meaningful, their email system tends to be stronger. Now, I think in the person context when we are all trying our best to contain the spread of the disease, well, this is actually good news. The good news is when people are doing some social behaviors in order to help the community to contain the virus, not only would the behavior itself stop or snow down the spread of the infection, but the email system also tend to be better because they find meaning in what they are doing. So, next slide please. So, I'm now ready to go to the conclusion of this presentation. I start by introducing three concepts, illness, happiness, and globalization. Now, I hope you see that they are all connected. Now, what I would like to do in this last night is to actually show you how they are related. So, next slide please. Perhaps there's no next slide. Okay. Oh, we do. Okay. So, if we are willing to put the common good ahead of us, we are willing to engage in cooperative behavior at the expense of some physical freedom and convenience at this moment. We are willing to give to the leading. We are willing to do something for the collective good of the society. Research tells us that we'll be more successful, we'll be happier, we'll find our life more meaningful, and we'll have better health as well. So, these are actually personal benefits. This would actually help us personally. So, you would actually like to make us better or healthier and happier individuals. And this positive feelings would also enable us to engage more in activities that would promote the collective good. Now, I think I should end here because I think the next speaker is going to help us more about how we can actually contribute to the collective good at the organizational level and through this organizational effort actually promotes the creation of a positive culture that is good for everybody and the society. In fact, I think the next speaker himself embodies all these concepts that I present today. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you, Professor Chiu. Let me change the slide. So, let me welcome our second speaker, Mr Leon Jern, Executive Director, Majority and Community of the Hong Kong Chocolate Club. Mr Jern is also the Co-Chair of SDSM Hong Kong. He will be sharing with us his vision and his ideas on philanthropy's responses to the COVID-19 crisis. Mr Jern, please. All right. Thank you, George. And thank you, Professor Chiu, for the introduction as well. So, very quickly, some background on the Hong Kong Chocolate Club Charities Trust. We are one of the top 10 largest non-government foundations globally in terms of annual giving. So, with a crisis like that, obviously, there is a lot of expectations that we put on various philanthropic organizations around the world. So, in the next few minutes, I try to share with you what we have done and then also in terms of thinking along the dimensions of happiness and sustainability, what else need to be done. So, George, next slide, please. Right. So, this is coming out from McKinsey Report. This is really a context of what we're talking about today and perhaps for the next couple of months as well. On the left, you can see globally this becoming a humanitarian challenge. It's not just one city, one country, one region, but it is a global challenge right now. But then if you really look in the next granular level of detail, you will see the virus disproportionately have a bigger impact or more negative impact on the elderly population, on people with chronic health conditions. They are at a greater risk. Next slide, please. And similarly, when different governments and community societies thinking about mitigation measures, including social distancing or, I guess, Jeff would prefer physical distancing, but all these measures, closing down schools, quarantines, closing off the public facilities, libraries, recreational areas, or to even extreme lockdown of a city, allowing only selected family members to go out to just buy food items, all these measures, mitigation measures, they have tremendous social economic implications as well. And once again, these measures also disproportionately would affect some people more than others and mostly the vulnerable groups. So think about in a city whereby the ethnic minorities, they may not be able to obtain the first hand information, as some of the information sometimes are only broadcasted in the dominant language. Also think about parents who then now potentially lose their jobs, but then also need to take care of children who are now not going to school and think about domestic violence, think about all these other vulnerable groups, they are disproportionately affected. And I think in the initial stage, I think Hong Kong, we're now, you know, luckily, I think we have come down the curve, we've been able to flatten the curve and come to hopefully, you know, more stable, stabilized situation, although we remain vigilant. But for a lot of the places and countries, I think we all went through this phase of despair, this phase of panic, you know, thinking about the lack of supply on medical side, thinking about lack of hand sanitizers, even if you look at the picture, thinking about supermarkets running out of food. So panic and anxiety, all these things, along with the challenge on the physical side, are all these add to mental health risk. You can, I think virtually, imagine really, think of it almost like a three-way tug of war. So we have on the infectious disease side, we want to control as much as possible to eliminate or reduce the social interactions that it is to protect our physical health. But then on the social emotional side, that creates a huge stress on that side. And then on the third dimension is really then the economic side. So can we sustain a very long term of these sort of measures as an economy? So what does that do to then the rest of the life as well? So next slide, please. So I guess it is in that context, then how do we think about still sort of happiness to society in this very challenging time? And how do we then think even longer term to think about a more sustainable city? And then what the community can learn from this COVID-19 as much as we are dealing with it? Are there any lessons we can already draw and we can already start to build to avoid the next challenge? Now in thinking about these questions, we feel like there are a few dimensions we need to consider. It is not just about recovery. It is not just long term planning, a lot of the economies, a lot of the cities, and even in Hong Kong, we're still facing immediate relief issues. So how do you strike a balance between immediate relief and resources and time are devoted for the longer term planning? How do we think about resilience, physical and mental health? How do we build capacity for the new normal? You know, we are now a lot of us are working from home. A lot of us are learning from home and all these capacities are going forward. They might not just go away after COVID-19. Some of them will stay. So what are the new normals? And then also on the medical and healthcare side, we have learned Hong Kong specifically. We have learned a lot of lessons from SARS 17 years ago in 2003. So we built on that, you know, that helped us to go through this particular challenge. What are the lessons that we learned from today? So that would help us in the next challenge. Next slide please. And that requires, I think, collaborations among different players, different sectors in the community, right? It is not just the government. Government is very, very important, but it's not just the government. It is also businesses, also healthcare sectors, the community, the civil society. So it is all of us, you know, like Professor Chu said, it is the we that counts. So how do we come together, leave beside, you know, our other controversies, but then work together, you know, on this challenge now and also going forward. How do we build the solidarity among different players in the society? So next slide please. So from a philanthropist perspective, this is what we have done and this is what we try to do and like to just take the opportunity a couple of minutes to share with you. By no means, this is all of it. And by no means, we feel this is it. And I think there are different ideas in the world that all contribute to this effort. So here, we're just trying to share what we have done under the Hong Kong context. In a nutshell, we very quickly put about US $25 million to work. These are in fact today is beyond commitment in a very short about eight weeks time, we already deployed most of these resources to the community on on the ground. So put the money to work, you know, very, very critical. And in summary, I would use three words to summarize all of our effort. It is agility. It is empowerment. It is creativity. I mean, agility, extremely important, you know, in situations in the disaster situations like this, speed is a lot more important sometimes than perfection. So for us, we quickly put together about $7 million to purchase items that's that's, you know, in huge demand from the community. So we already distributed out with our hundreds of our partners, close to 15 million surgical masks, and then also other items, hand sanitizers, even food to a lot of the vulnerable groups in Hong Kong. So that's that's agility. You know, put your money to work, be flexible, work with your partners, very, very important. Now, it also leads to second point, empowerment. You can't just dump the money out and hope the money would go, you know, the proper way to find the vulnerable groups in need. Right. So to us, we have a long history of working with various NGOs in Hong Kong in the city. So that really allowed us to very quickly find the right partners. And in this case, in eight weeks time, we already worked with close to 200 partners. We already gave out, you know, out of the $13 million US dollar commitment, we already gave out more than 10 million into the hands of the partners so that they can then go on to help the very specific vulnerable groups in the community. So those include ethnic minorities, those include cross-border students, those include Singleton, so elderly who live alone. So this is very, very important that we empower, you know, our partners who are sometimes very grassroot organizations, but then they really know what's happening on the ground. So that's about empowerment. Last but not least, it is about creativity. It is not just the material side. You know, one big example that we quote here is a commitment of a $5.5 million US dollar. So basically schools are all closed and students, they go home, they learn from home. All of them now go online to learn. Now, of course, even on the content side, I think there is still a lot for many schools to catch up on the curriculum. But even without going to content side, you know, when it comes to assets, a lot of the grassroot students, they don't have broadband at home. They don't really have the Wi-Fi support. And when it comes to data plan, you know, they use their parents' data plan, but their parents' data plan are generally very limited in size. It doesn't support enough for the online learning. So in view of this, the charity stressed very, very quickly. We convened all four mobile carriers in Hong Kong. We call them, we talk to them one by one. And then we also get together two NGOs, and then we have government support, the Education Bureau. You know, I talked to the secretary myself. So all together, we very quickly in two, three weeks' time, we put together a package whereby we offer over 100,000 free data plan, 30 gigs a month, that would be sufficient for the school learning, but insufficient for, you know, gaming for 24 hours. So that has been very, very well received out of the 1,000 primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. Within a week, over 700 of them sign up for the 100,000 K, 100,000 students free data plan. So it is now already in action. So we are facilitating this e-learning for four months all the way until mid-July. So these sort of creativity and proactiveness are beyond money, right? When we think about NGOs, when we think about foundations, we have to think about also, you know, money is one thing, but you have to also think about beyond the money side. So I guess that's sort of what we have done in the last two, three months. Next slide, please. There are six lessons, but I'll try to be very quick on these six lessons. After all, I'm not a professor. So next slide, please, George. So in one slide, we captured four of them. I mentioned some of that already before, you know, speed over perfection, empowerment, empower the grassroots organizations and thinking beyond money, thinking beyond money. And then I think specifically for us and for, I think a lot of hopefully listening in, if you are from business or if you're from institutions, academic institution, whatever, you know, don't forget there is a big corporate expertise and network behind. There is facility management, there's procurement, there's legal and et cetera. There is even human resources. All of these we can bear. We can come, you know, use them, leverage them to help the NGOs or to help the directly vulnerable communities. So do think about not just what you oneself can do, also think about, you know, the corporation or the institution behind. Next slide, please. I guess then we can sort of allow us to have a little bit of luxury to think longer term. Or I would argue, even when we're doing the immediate relief, thinking longer term already help us. You know, we will foresee a prolonged business impact. So what does it mean to the community? And what can we start doing right now? For the nonprofit organizations, a lot of them are losing revenue streams. Schools are closed. Youth centers, elderly centers, they're closed. So the self-financed NGOs find it very difficult these days to generate revenue. Obviously, as business are hit, donors, they're not as eager as before. So how does, how do they, or how does this whole sector survive this storm, like other business? So that's, that we made a challenge. And, and also the extent of school closure that pushes us to thinking about the new normal, the online learning, the content, the curriculum, and even how do we exercise from home? We don't want all of our kids after four months, then lose the interest or, you know, turn the behavior of not exercising. Right. And there's a lot of interrupt interruptions in, in the social services as well, you know, hot meal deliveries. So all of these things, I think, required new thinking. It is beyond just makeshift, you know, let's survive these two months, but require a lot of new thinking. What if the COVID-19 challenge doesn't go away in six to nine months? What if we will be living in an environment where we have to switch on and switch off social distancing, you know, as cases rise or drop? So how do we then build a more robust infrastructure and technically more savvy system to support a very uncertain future? I think those are the challenge to us. Next slide, please. Yeah. And then thinking even longer term, then we need to start thinking about what are the institutions or infrastructures that we should be building now to avoid or to better manage the future shocks? How do we strengthen media literacy? There are a lot of fake news floating around these days, creating unnecessary panic. So how do we build trust, solidarity? How do we build, you know, people to be more savvy in selecting media literacy? And last but not least, how do we invest in big data and technology platforms for good, not for IPOs and not for super wealth in a short time for very, very few stakeholders, but technology for good, for community, for the society. So how do we do that? How do we generate enough motivation and incentive for the brightest and smartest in technology to think about that their technology can actually help human being instead of just making money for few people? Next slide, please. So mental well-being is definitely one of the key areas. And I'd like to just very quickly share two examples with you on what we have been doing and what we'll be doing going forward. So one case on JC Joy-H, this is mostly for elderly population 65 or above, open up. This is for youth. So we try to cover both age groups. So next slide, please. So JC Joy-H, it is a close to 50 million US dollar investment since 2017. We just, in fact, close off our phase one study. So phase one, there are 18 districts in Hong Kong. Phase one, we piloted that in four districts. And then phase two, which we just started, unfortunately, we're experiencing some delay now because of COVID-19. But in the planning, we will try to use the next four years to really expand the pilot success, the successful pilot phase into the other 14 districts in Hong Kong. So all 18 districts in Hong Kong will be covered after this program, which will run for seven years. Next slide, please. And in this program, what we really want to do is this. Now, historically, Hong Kong already has sort of these district-based mental wellness center. These mental wellness centers, they have very professional practitioners. They offer intensive individual therapies. But there's a lack of support at the bottom of the pyramid, which is more community-based, mass-based, but they serve a purpose of prevention. But they also should serve a purpose of recovery from sort of more intensive intervention requirement. But we didn't have that before. So what we had, what we did have was a large base of community centers in the districts, but they are not equipped with capabilities. They don't know how to deal with mental wellness issues. And we have a very limited number of high-quality professional practitioners, but then they're running short of reach, and they can only deal with so many cases. So this program in particular is really to build a bridge between these two. So we try to train the bottom level, the wider community reach, so that they are equipped a little bit better. They can deal with some prevention and some early intervention. And then at the top, on the high-intensity individual therapy side, they also feel more comfortable now that they can then sort of pass the case sometimes to the lower level. And they believe that the lower level is now well equipped to handle those cases. So to build an ecosystem in the community and increase the community's capacity to handle people, elderly people with mental challenge. Next slide, please. So very quickly, I'll just give you the result. We don't have time to go through the whole program, but the result is very significant from phase one. We are seeing very significant clinical outcomes, and we're also seeing very significant SROI, so social return on investment. So just very quickly, we train over 200 young olds. These are aged 55 or 50 to 65. Each of them will join the program for over 100 hours, and then they've been trained as peer supporters, and they have already conducted more than 100,000 outreach and engagement sessions. And directly, the service in the last three years, we serve over 4,300 at risk and depressed elderly. And among these service groups, 82% show reduction on symptoms of depression at this charge. And then also in the meantime, we try to build the capacity of the whole system. So over 2,000 social workers, they receive training, and then also 21 project social workers completed a very intensive 256 hours training. So if we look at the two graph very quickly, these are all clinical results on the left side. Very, very clearly, this particular group 4,300, they perform much better than the control group in the dimensions of depression, anxiety, and loneliness. And also if we think about the money that we put into the program, and then therefore if you calculate the money saved, that the recovery side that they then use less of the hospital authorities, the public resources, the saving, even as of October 2019, is already at 1.43. We expect actually a above two SROI after the whole project completion. So that's in a nutshell what we've been doing, and hopefully can even scale up on the program for elderly side of the mental challenge. Next slide, please. So next one is really my own pet project. It's called Open Up. So it's a funding of close to $8 million. I think this basically caught it the first, I think, online 24-7 platform. And we're on Facebook, we're on WhatsApp, SMS, MMS, WeChat, you name it, we're on multiple channels. So basically the idea came from next slide, please. So the idea came from we saw a huge challenge in Hong Kong even two years ago. I think this is more a global phenomenon now. A lot of the young people, they are facing with a huge challenge on depression and anxiety. Now, back in 2016, I asked about 20 operators on hotline operation coming to my office. And we said, you know, it's a huge challenge. How can we help you? Where a lot of them raise questions about can we add more volunteers? Can we add more hotlines? Can we do more in public education? So we immediately approve for $5 million US dollar, if I remember correctly, to support all of them to increase on those capacities. But then I also asked them this question. I said, well, you know what, are young people still using core services? Then the data is very striking. Because back in the 90s, about 30% of the telephone hotline users are age 25 or below. But in recent years, age 25 or below, young people using hotline, they dropped below 5%. I think we can all understand. People now use social media. They don't really talk to people. They use text. They use social media. But then the question that we had at the time was, there's no operator in the room who operates on social media platform. We're losing touch with the younger generation. You know, the way they seek help or the way they try to express themselves are different from the traditional way of offering help. So next slide, please. So therefore, it took us about two years to develop this platform. We launched in 2018 with the following features. It is 24 seven. And we try to basically be on all the major social media platforms. We try to target both at risk youth and try to also be a gatekeeper, meaning try to do a little bit of prevention. We think about efficient use of staff and management operations. So even from the operation side, we try to make it, you know, a lot more technology, logically enhance than traditional phone lines whereby you have to go to a center, volunteer, attach to a phone. Now we, as much as possible, we can even allow, you know, once you serve enough hours, we can allow people to work from home. To serve as volunteers. But then still with real time coaching from from the professionals. We try to also develop an effective intervention model protocol through this exercise. And very importantly, I think the last one is really because it's all online, it is verbatim record of all the all the counseling sessions, first of its kind globally, I think, even for counseling, we have very robust data, real time. So how do we do data analytic on a daily basis, on a weekly basis, on a monthly basis, and then that would further empower the volunteers and the petitioners to continuously improve our service protocol to help even better than the people who are in need. Next slide please. So the response so far is very, very encouraging. We have since October 2018, we have served close to 35,000 cases. And this includes about 2000 classifiers, high risk and crisis. So I'll give you a quick example, you know, a 14 years old girl, Tai Bin, first line she said, I want to die. So counselor tried to chat her up and then ask her, have you ever heard yourself? This lady, young lady said, yeah, I just cut open my wrist and blood is now dripping everywhere. So the counselor is under tremendous pressure, you had to gain trust, but you want to save life. So in this case, very fortunately, the counselor were able to really open up this young lady, young lady then subsequently, you know, share her address with us, we call ambulance and save that life. And in March, particularly given COVID-19, what we're seeing is we see almost close to 30% increase in the traffic in valley cases in March 2020. So overall, we have offered close to 180,000 online counseling sessions. Each session lasts for about 15 minutes. We also have a post counseling session survey. We asked how help seekers, roughly 5% of them feel out that survey, but out of that 91% said they found it very useful, helpful and 86% are willing to seek help in the future. You know, I think these are the sort of infrastructure and institutions that we need to build in the new normal to help the community with technology. So next slide, please. That will be my last slide. And just, you know, hopefully we all stay safe, stay healthy, and very importantly, stay happy. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chil. We now are going to begin answering the questions submitted during today's presentation. I think we have enough time for one or two questions. Let me go through the list. So Professor Chil, you should rejoin us already. I see that. So the first question addressed to Professor Chil, I've got a few of them asking similar questions. Let me try to summarize it. Sorry, can I hear you? George, I think you sounded fine. Go ahead. Okay. See why you do not hear him? Yeah, okay. Okay, let me try to summarize a question from our audience. Yingwing Zhang said, it's not sure how happiness can be achieved in terms of economic growth, health and spirit seems to be more related. What's your comment on it, Professor Chil? Yes, I think there are now good data showing that money do not buy happiness. So what is more interesting is that as economic growth in the countries increases, well, people are more concerned about meaning in life than happiness. So when people are still like living in subsistency economy, having more money may buy them some happiness. But at a point when we reach a certain point of economic growth, money does not really like to give happiness anymore. And people are now looking for meaning in life, what's purpose in life, and so on. So I agree with this general comment. And that's why I think what we would like to do is to see that while we are building a sustainable culture that will support like happiness, the pursuit of happiness in the economically advanced country. I think I've seen similar research. I'm not an academic myself, but I think I've seen similar research which talks about, like Professor Xu said, the diminishing utility of money in terms of happiness. So there are certain thresholds you need to hit. Before that threshold, I think the basic economic means are still very important. But after that threshold, other factors might come in. Now, in our data from OpenUp that I can share is, if you look at OpenUp and look at how we categorize risk, then you see relationship always being on top of the list. So even today with COVID-19, or a few months ago with quite a bit of social unrest in the society, relationship still counted as number one factor for disturbance, emotional disturbance. The social unrest, the COVID-19, they always come up at those times to maybe top three, top five. But people are generally more disturbed by relationship. So I think that sets a lot about how we then need to build infrastructure to help family relationship, to help self-awareness, to help people be more mindful about who they are, their own identity, and building more confidence in their own life. So I think these things, whatever the external environment might be, the current challenge might be, we need to invest in the very fundamental, these sort of family values, people-to-people relationships. Yeah, Josh, I may add a couple of comments. So what we have shown us is that to really achieve happiness, people need to feel that they're being accepted by others, and they are competent in achieving their goal and they live in a predictable environment. I think this really provides a context for understanding the good works that Hong Kong Dropkick Hub is doing. They're trying to build connectedness amongst youth. They are trying to make our elderly feel that they are competent and they are living in a predictable world, despite the infection that we all have to manage these days. Okay, thanks. I've just got another question. Do you propose a going back on globalization to achieve human well-being? I guess both of you can comment on this or answer this. I can go first. Okay, no. I think we are seeing some very interesting global trends in our economic development. Well, as economic globalization proceeds, we see that we are now dealing with a much more complex world that requires a lot of coordination between nations and between citizens within a nation. But individualism actually helps a lot in economic development. For example, individualism is associated with a higher level of creativity, a higher level of entrepreneurship. So what I think we are moving forward is the development of a kind of model that is more like socially responsible individualism, that is individuals should have the capability to pursue their own goal. But at the same time, there should be, we will also try to like nurture values that would increase social responsibility of nations as well as individuals. So I think this is something that I think a lot of people are doing. And I hope that by building this kind of like socially responsible citizenship, both at the individual level and at the national level, will help us like address the coordination problem better in an increasingly complex world. So I'm not saying that we should go back to the earlier day. In fact, we should try to be more creative. You find ways that will help individuals as well as nations to achieve their goals, national goals and individual goals. But at the same time, think collectively and post-socially. And I think the activities and also the programs that we heard from Mr. Zhang just now are helping us to think into that direction. Right. To me, I think I'm not sure if globalization is sort of the suspect to blame. Although I didn't sense some politicians might think it that way and try to build their own political base in their respective jurisdictions. But if you think about even this COVID-19, do we have that because of globalization? Globalization may in a certain way, you can argue, help it spread faster than, say, 1918, 1919, the Spanish flu. But then in the meantime, globalization helped us share data very quickly. The scientists are now mapping the genomy of the COVID-19 very, very quickly in record time. We are now doing experience sharing very, very quickly around the world. So yes, the virus did spread because of traffic, because of human flow very, very quickly. But knowledge also traveled very, very fast. And mitigation measures and the way we can cope with it and the best practices and the vaccines developments, these are all collaboration among globally different labs and also protective gears, medical supplies, everything. So I think globalization helped us also come to the problem and solve the problem rather quickly as well. And I think there are a few things beyond COVID-19 without globalization, without an entity like UN. It's just impossible. I think about climate change. This is global. We can't say, I live in a bubble of this physical imaginary country-city boundary. Therefore, I can do whatever I want and I dump everything into the ocean. Because whatever you dump into the ocean, even on the other side of the planet, it will have an impact. So I think globalization today, that's what we are living in. It's a reality. I don't personally think it is a reason of this particular challenge or any sort of. But it's just given this reality, we also need to learn to then appreciate each other and respect each other and then learn to work together in this kind of framework. Yeah, okay. So thank you so much. I really want to continue this for another hours or so but we're really running out of time. So thank you everyone for attending today's webinar, COVID-19 Globalization and Philanthropy. Now, we received a lot of questions but unfortunately we cannot answer them one by one. If you do still have other questions and you want the presenter to address them, please feel free to contact us at whitesdsnhonkong at hkjc.org.hk or sdsnhonk.edu.hk. Now once you leave today's webinar, although we really wanted to say we've got a 24 hours program lined it up, you will receive a survey on the entire event and we would really appreciate if you complete that and provide your feedback to us. Now read your recording of today's event will be available on SDSN's YouTube page in the coming days. On behalf of SDSN Hong Kong and our presenter, Mr. Chairman and Professor Chiu, thank you for joining us today and have a great rest of today. I will now pass the time back to Elena. Thank you. Thank you so much George and Leong and CUI. That was a very engaging presentation and we thank you so much for your time and getting us started off strong.