 Dr. Bayu, now I turn to Indonesia, which is really in some ways the leader and representative of the ASEAN, which is very, very important and a sizable economic bloc. As we all know, the terrestrial belt and the sea row is quite different in the sense that the terrestrial belt go through very large countries such as Kazakhstan. The less developed rule of law is not that strong, and hence a lot of infrastructure projects are needed. For that, I don't think private sector will be that easy to do, and hence perhaps some of the stable enterprises from China might have to be involved. But it's always the case, human civilization always develop around water, whether there's a sea or river or lake. The sea row, all the way from China, which is an old silk row by sea, which is stronger actually in the old days than the terrestrial silk row. And that's the area where a lot of people, highly populated, rather develop, more wealthy in general. So the belt and the row are really two very different concepts on my mind. How does Indonesia as a leader in your part of the world, how do you see the belt and row initiative? Are there opportunities? Are there dangers? What's your concern? Dr. Bayu. Thank you, Ronnie, for inviting me here, and of course, congratulations, Teri and WPC with an excellent conference. I think we need to see this on the very core that the BRI or the OB, OBOR, the O-B-O-R initiative, is basically an infrastructure development initiative. Whether or not we use land or sea, this is the first initiative, I think, in the coherent manners in this size on infrastructure development. So that's why we, many countries, 60 countries already and including Indonesia, welcome the initiative because we are trying to develop our own. And within Indonesian development plan, we already put out about 350 billion US dollars of plan of infrastructure development for the next seven to eight years. And I think I believe about 200 billion of it already been in discussion with the BRI. And probably about 56 billion is, you know, try to materialize on the investments. So in Indonesia, they call it the maritime corridor developments. And that is part of developing infrastructures within Indonesia as an archipelagic countries. So again, we welcome the infrastructure developments. But I think the question is to whom it serves, to whom the infrastructure serves. And I do believe that the BRI needs to serve the achievement of sustainable development goals. All right? Poverty reductions, food securities, energy securities, employment creation and so forth. And I would like to underline that, you already mentioned it, food and energy and maybe water securities. Many of the countries who are involving in the BRI are in the big needs to have that on their survival. We face climate change. We also, at least in Indonesian experience, the last few months, if you look at the media, we also need to have disaster preparedness, put it out as a part of infrastructure developments and post-disaster rehabilitations or orcaic tsunami and so forth. And I think this is make Indonesia approach the BRI initiative rather carefully because many are asking China to open up their markets. But I think in our experience, please be careful because China is such big countries to put on context something like this. Indonesia is number four in terms of population in the world. We import about two to three million tons of soybean. China import 60 million tons of soybean. So you can imagine if China use the infrastructures to fulfill their needs, maybe there will no other soybean left for countries like Indonesia, for example. So I mean, this is something that, you know, we put this in a very cost, we do totally understand about the reason of the Chinese government and Chinese people, of course. We're not blaming them about that, but that is the situation. So that I think that one point that we need to understand of this initiative. Second is the process of development. You mentioned about the investment, investment related to loan, loan related to debt. That is one aspect. Within the, much of the project, I think that is the case of Malaysia, you mentioned about Malaysia, that's a concern Prime Minister Mahathir is not only about the investment, but also the labor market as well as the product markets. Because the investment comes also with a package. And that package is a product that they've been used in the project as well as the worker who are also being used there. The other point I think is very important that BRI, I'm not against it, you know, just to put this on the context, that we need to have a short-term and long-term result on that BRI. Why? Because political decision in our democratic country is short-term. It's a five years process, you know. One years is honeymoon after that work, and the next two years is campaign-ready. So it's very short, actually. So we need to have a result. So the government, the current government and the next government, whoever, will support the sustainability of the project because infrastructure is a long-term project. The last point that I would like to share on this very distinguished conference is that if the BRI can be put on the land as it been dreams by China and also other countries, I think from the last two days we talk about multilateralism, I think this will create new set-up of multilateralism. Not only deal with agreement or diplomacy or negotiation bound by infrastructure, physical infrastructures, and that will create a different ballgame in terms of multilateralism. Thank you. Thank you. Very good point. I wonder, take for example, Dr. Bayu, the rail link that Mr. Leung mentioned between Kazakhstan, well, all the way, I suppose, Kalina's grant, all the way to southern port of China, passing through Kazakhstan. Obviously, it benefits China. Whenever you pass through goods and capital and people, it benefits China. But it also benefits Kazakhstan as well because it links it, given the seaport, and then also the high-speed rail that goes both east and west, or south and west. So would you consider that as mutually beneficial? Yes. I think that is something that we can see as a mutual, but again, size does matter. Size matters, right? Yes. China is big. And let me put it this way, China compared to Malaysia. I think certainly both will take the benefit, but the size that they will take by China and Malaysia will be different. So that is something not easy to understand, not easy to comprehend, especially in the political these are making. I think that Malaysia is an interesting case. Yes. I just held a seminar in Hong Kong on the IMBD, MBD, sorry, I just held a seminar on that and the two Wall Street journalists who discovered that were the two speakers, the only two speakers. And I suppose there's a lot of things behind the scene there that a lot of people don't want to touch and hence that perhaps might have forced the hand of Dr. Mahatir to back off from that. So it is really domestic corruption related rather than necessarily geopolitically related. On this matter of size, I think you brought up a very good point about you. You know, 10 years ago the government of Israel asked me to help them develop economic relationship with China. So I brought a lot of Chinese business leaders to Israel. But in the last one year, I began to tell my Israeli friends, don't be very careful because China is so crazily big and Israel is rather small that it can overwhelm and then have a bad lash. That is something that I tell my Chinese friends as well that you should be careful not to do that. Moreover, I think from Israel or any other countries perspective, which is part of the BRI, it is important to pick on quality rather than quantity in order not to have a bad lash.