 We are going to start our discussion with Mr. Leung Chung-ying. I hope you understand my pronunciation of your name. Mr. Leung Chung-ying is very distinguished, inhabitant, if I may say so, from Hong Kong. And as you will see, maybe many of you know him already because I think this is the third time you are attending the World Policy Conference. But as you will see, he speaks English with the Oxfordian accent, which is quite impressive. You are not yet Sir Chung-ying, you know? Not yet. You are not Sir. You were not knighted. No, we are not part of the UK now. No, but you could have been before knighted. But anyway, so we have half an hour for the conversation. We will speak a little bit of Hong Kong, of course. But I think Mr. Leung would be also pleased to say a few words about China itself. But let me start with Hong Kong because after all, you were the chief executive of Hong Kong relatively recently. I mean, since you, there were two more. And the coming one, Mr. John Lee Kattu, is the successor of the successor. So let me start by asking you what there were strange declarations in the past few months about Hong Kong. For instance, your current chief executive said recently that the exiled, I quote, exiled dissidents should live in fear, he said. I told you. So you have never heard? No. But you heard from me because I told you that on the phone. But even if you don't know this word of your successor, it seems that the since especially the last four or five years, Hong Kong has changed a lot and probably much faster than anyone abroad expected. So could you comment on those changes as if the slogan, you know, one country, two systems was already finished, left aside. So is there a future in Hong Kong for the concept of one party, two systems? One country, two systems. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. The first recommendation that I always make to our friends in the international community who cares about Hong Kong, China, one country, two systems is that please come and see us. See it for yourself. You walk the streets in Hong Kong and talk to shopkeepers and taxi drivers and whatnot and sort of find out your own view on things in Hong Kong. One country, two systems is no longer a broad concept. Ever since 1990, when the basic law was promulgated, we had five years of drafting. Since China and the UK signed the joint declaration on the question of future of Hong Kong. And in that five years, I was Secretary General of the Basic Law, a constitutive committee and we had 180 members from all walks of life including British civil servants. So anyone who's interested in the actual implementation of one country, two systems, people ruling Hong Kong with a high degree of autonomy and a promise of 50 years of no change should actually get a copy of the Basic Law. And one could very easily with your handphone now when you could sort of Google it. Is that the Chinese version, English version and read the Basic Law from Article 1 to Article 160. So whenever foreign governments including British government claim that China is going back on the promise of one country, two systems, etc. I would say and openly say, tell me which article, which article you think the Chinese government and the Hong Kong government, Hong Kong SNL government are not sort of implementing. I should also mention that the Basic Law, which is the constitution of Hong Kong is subject to and has been subjected to judicial review in the course of Hong Kong. And the course of Hong Kong have handed down decisions against in some cases the Hong Kong government. So I don't think it's a question of anyone's interpretation of these broad words and one country, two systems. It's a question of whether the law has been followed and the law was promulgated 23 years ago, 33 years ago. Thank you very much. But on this question, one country, two systems, of course it used to be mentioned for Hong Kong and for Taiwan. A big issue now on the international scene is Taiwan. And many commentators from China consider that the evolution in Hong Kong, the repression of the political movements of the last few years, would be a very bad example from their viewpoint about the possible evolution of Taiwan. So could you comment a little bit on your own interpretation, your own view of Taiwan as compared to Hong Kong? So of course you will start by saying, I suppose, that it is a totally different situation. So could you elaborate further on that? Yes, I will. Thank you very much for bringing up Taiwan, which is an important subject. So far this morning, we had very little discussions on the changing world order, world economic order, Sino-U.S. relations. But so far until now, Taiwan has not been mentioned. Taiwan is important because China has been saying this all along that Taiwan is a core of core Chinese national interest. And that's what the Chinese side said in the Bali Accord, which the Chinese Foreign Minister, Mr. Wang Yi, made reference to. When he met, I believe it was last week, 27th of October, President Biden. So no one should ignore Taiwan. Anyone who's interested in the current order, the new world order, should ignore Taiwan. It is a crucial issue for China and therefore in any bilateral or multilateral relations where you find China. The history of Taiwan, of course, is different from the history of Hong Kong. Taiwan was ceded under the Treaty of Shumotaseki. Hong Kong was ceded to the British under the Treaty of Nanking and Taiwan to the Japanese in 1894. And China was made to pay 7.5 million kilograms, 20 million tails of silver as well as reparation to Japan. And Taiwan was ceded to Japan. And no one has ever disputed that Taiwan was part of China. Alongside Taiwan, a learning peninsula was also ceded to Japan. And a learning peninsula is now part of China. So why is it in Taiwan? A learning peninsula is now a learning province of China. China took Hong Kong back from British, under the Sino-British John Declaration in 1984. Japan lost the Second World War. The Kuomintang Party lost the Civil War with the communists and retreated to Taiwan. So there's no question of anyone in China is not just the ruling party of China ever allowing Taiwan to go independent. Much in the same way as Deng Xiaoping said to Margaret Thatcher in 1982, that the people of China will not allow China to agree the ongoing rule of Hong Kong by the British. Equally today, as ever, the 1.4 billion people in China will never allow the ruling party, the Chinese government, to let go of Taiwan. So it is an important issue for the international community to understand. And China should not be out of Taiwan, should not be encouraged in any way to ever think about independence. Now that's a very important part of any equation in the world order involving China. And I haven't answered the question about one country, two systems. I say the same thing to our friends in Taiwan. Now take out a copy of the Hong Kong Basic Law and again go from Article 1 to Article 160. And let's go through these articles one by one and listen to the time of these people, which article is not acceptable and which article is acceptable. For example, Hong Kong is allowed to remain as a member of WHO, which Taiwan wants to be. Hong Kong is allowed by Beijing to be a member of WTO, which Taiwan wants to be. Would they object to these clauses? Probably no. Hong Kong under the Basic Law has its own passports. We have our own currency which is really convertible for the Hong Kong dollar. Would the Taiwanese disagree with this? I don't think so. So let's find out what articles they are in the Hong Kong Basic Law that the Taiwanese find not acceptable. Let's talk about them. Let us remain a few more minutes on Taiwan. Don't you think that everything would be much simpler if the population of Taiwan was massively in favor of quick reunification with mainland China? But this is not the case. So how do you explain that and how do you in China, if I take your mainland China hat, how do you see the legal principle of self-determination? Because after all, from a classical democratic standpoint, if population in a certain territory wants to become independent, after all, it is up to the population to make up its mind to decide. So obviously this is not the point of view of China. So what is your argument about that? To your last point, my experience is that that point has not been allowed to the people in Northern Ireland nor in the Scottish devolution process. So it isn't just the people in one part of the country saying, hey, we have voted. There's a referendum or pen and poll. We want to be independent and bye-bye. I don't think it ever works like that. I've been reading two Taiwanese daily newspapers every day for 30-something years. It is important for the two sides to communicate and for the Taiwanese people, the 26 million people who live on the island to understand the mainland's position, the Chinese government's position, and real life on the mainland. And I think we could use a lot more people-to-people dialogue between the two sides, which is something that I've been facilitating myself. Again, people need to see for themselves what lives about political, social, economic lives about on the mainland. And that's something that I think we're not doing enough. But if we stay one minute at the example of Scotland, in the case of Scotland, there was a referendum a few years ago that was authorised by London. And of course the Independent Party lost the referendum. But there never was any action from London to suppress opposition to independence in Scotland. Whereas in the case of if we go back to Hong Kong, our understanding, we may be wrong, but if we are wrong, please correct, is that it's extremely difficult today in Hong Kong to demonstrate or to develop an opposition party. As you said, the referendum on Scotland was authorised by London. Beijing is not authorising a referendum on Taiwan. Secondly, Scotland has a very different history compared to Taiwan. The United Kingdom is called the United Kingdom for good reason, for historical reason. So I don't think it was a direct comparison between the two. But anyway, I think the world agrees that Taiwan is part of China. Interestingly, or revealingly, the official airline of Taiwan is called, surprise, surprise, China Airlines. So there's no question of independence. There's no question of self-determination. And I think the townspeople should know and the international community should know the determination of China to keep Taiwan as part of China. So my last question on this issue, but you understand very well that it is an extremely important issue for China, of course. But it's also an extremely important issue for the future of international relations. In our understanding, when I say our understanding, I think from outside, is that President Xi Jinping, in various declarations over time, has given the impression that he would like the issue to be resolved sooner rather than later. And perhaps as early or at the latest, maybe, in 2049, that is the 30th, the 100th anniversary of Mao's victory. 2049 is tomorrow, politically speaking. It is 25 years from now. So how should we understand that there is a time limit for the ultimate solution of the problem? Or could we interpret the situation as possibly lasting for another 50 years or so? The ruling party in Taiwan may not have that patience. The inclination to declare independence has become more and more obvious. Now, saying that Taiwan is part of China and at the same time dragging one's feet, trying to maintain the status quo for another decade, for another two decades, and more or less forever, is basically committing a contradiction in terms. So the two sides have to come together. And to your earlier question, the central government of China has always paid a great deal of attention to public opinion on Taiwan, much in the same way as they paid importance to, or pay attention to public opinion in Hong Kong when we drafted the Hong Kong Basic Law. It took five years. It was a big committee of 180 of a secretary of a 30-something people worked on it for five years. So I think these are the processes that will probably take place. And obviously China has never given up the option of using force to reunify the country if necessary. Well, you know, the WPC, which now you know a little bit is a place where we can discuss friendly issues which are complicated and where it's not always easy to agree. So in that spirit, I would like to ask you the following question. Clearly, the regime in China has become more and more authoritarian since President Xi Jinping came in power, and he seems now to concentrate all powers in an unprecedented way since Mao Zedong, and perhaps even more successfully than Mao because Mao was in serious domestic difficulties during part of his term. So I have a simple question because you deal a lot also with economic issue yourself, you know, in the Hong Kong area and beyond. My question is the following. So it seems to somebody like me that part of the economic success of China has been related to the relatively liberal approach of Presidency's predecessors. Now the regime is more and more authoritarian. So this authoritarianism is also expressed vis-à-vis business people. Now it's very difficult if you're a businessman, especially if you run big companies to be constantly under political pressure with the possibility someday just to disappear and reappear after six months or never reappear at all. So our perception is that it may create some serious difficulties for the future of Chinese capitalism. So the question is don't you believe, or some people believe, even the good loyal Communist members with the Communist Party that excessive political pressure on the business community could be detrimental to the future of economic growth. And if such is the case that in the competition between China and the United States and more generally with the West, this tendency could slow down the pace of economic development in China with some very serious consequences. I've been reading reports and commentaries that are very similar to what I just mentioned in Western media and also in Japanese media too. But that's not my experience. In the past six years since I left the position of Chief Secretary of Hong Kong as our government, I spent more time on the mainland of China, not just as some promises but also outlying regions, promises such as Xinjiang, Heilongjiang, Ningqia and so on. I spent more time on the mainland than in Hong Kong. And that's not my experience. That's not what I see and that's not what I hear. I'm one of the vice-chairmen of the National Committee of the CPPCC. It's quite multiple. The Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, which is one of four organs in the Chinese political structure. You have the Communist Party, you have the government, you have the National People's Congress which is a legislature and then you have the CPPCC. The composition of the Chinese political structure in this way is very different from anyone else you can find in the world in other governments. In my position as one of the vice-chairmen of the CPPCC National Committee, I do not feel that the last ten years has been more authoritarian. I just came down from Beijing arriving early in the morning today in Abu Dhabi. And in Beijing we had two and a half days of very full and very intensive discussion on green development. The government people were there, they were asked questions. We had 300 people at the plane recessions and then we had nine subgroup discussions. I think it's a manifestation of retinineism at all. And in terms of business investments, we're still seeing a thriving private sector. The private sector now comes for more than half of the country's GDP. Okay, you're big state-owned enterprises that have been partially privatised by listing on the Shanghai exchange, the Shenzhen exchange and Hong Kong exchange. You also see a lot of Hong Kong money going into the mainland China, particularly the Greater Bay Area which covers nine cities in the Guangdong province, Hong Kong and Macau. Thank you very much. Last question. What lessons do China take from the Ukraine war? Of course my question is related to the strategic thinking about Taiwan. China is not Russia, Taiwan is not Ukraine. China's position on this conflict has been clearly spelled out. I don't even think the ruling party which is pro-independence in Taiwan would themselves compare the cross-strait relations and the possibility of an armed conflict if it happens to the situation in Europe between Russia and Ukraine. I don't think they would ever think it in those terms themselves. So we have 58 seconds left. If someone would like to ask one concise question, I was absolutely sure that there would be, well, I take the question from an expert of the region, Mr Cabestan. Well, good morning. I'm maybe the only one in the room who share with you the fact that I'm a permanent resident of Hong Kong. I've been in Hong Kong for 25 years. And I have a very simple question. After the protest movement of 2019, don't you think that the Hong Kong government has not made enough effort to foster reconciliation within the society? I feel that the Hong Kong community is very divided today. So do you think the Hong Kong government could have done more to foster reconciliation among the various segments of the Hong Kong society? There were protests, but there were very serious riots as well, inflicting bodily harm on fellow civilian citizens and, of course, policemen. These people were apprehended, they were brought to justice, and they were sentenced by the law courts. There was no question of the administration saying that we could turn a blind eye to people who broke the law under those circumstances, and they were very, as we could all see on TV footage, very serious offenses, maiming and killing, and destruction of properties. Oh no, one sentence, one sentence, big role, are we? So my question, sir, in one sentence is that why China, which is so willing to preserve the international order and the international institutions like UMWU and so on, or the international institutions, why China does not recognize the authority of the permanent arbitrary criminal of the egg, which is, as you know, older than the United Nations, from the 19th century, which said that the separation of the islands in the South China Sea between China and Filipinos. So how is it that a government which wants to protect international order and international institutions does not recognize the ruling of the permanent arbitrary criminal of leg? China did not take part in the arbitration. Okay, so that was a long question of the short answer. Okay, so thank you very much, Mr. Long. I think the conclusion of this relatively short discussion is that next year also we should take six hours discussion to cover all the facets of that most important issue for the future of the world. Thank you very much, and it's now a time, I think, for lunch. Thank you.