 But today, this session, the emphasis is not just China, but really China in the context of globalization. As we all know, globalization is nothing new in the world. Historically, it goes up and down. Sometimes it is stronger, other times weaker. I'm reminded that 2000 years ago at the Silk Road, which is today, if you want, the Chinese called them Belt and Road Initiative. I don't know what's the difference about the same. The Silk Road 2000 years ago was when there's a lot of trade interactions between China and the other East Asian countries, as well as a lot of Middle East and even all the way to Europe. Historically, 2000 years ago, globalization was with us. Over time, it absent flow. The next event I will mention is perhaps 1401. What happened in 1401? A Chinese Admiral who, by the way, is of Islam background. He went all the way to East Africa and to the Gulf States. That was 1401 something. So that was another sign of the globalization of this world. 1453, when the Ottoman Empire took over Istanbul or Constantinople, the land link was somewhat cut, and hence the sea route began to flow again. And in 1492, when Columbus went to the New World, there was another step in the globalization, except that the ship that Columbus has was only about 20% that of Admiral Zheng He's from China 90 years before that. While the West of the world was globalizing, China decided to go the opposite direction. And that was perhaps the beginning of the waning of the Chinese Empire. It caused me to think, I cannot help but think, today who is the most anti-globalized world, country in the world? It is no longer China. China, after being part of globalization, close up itself and now finally globalize again. China is today very much full globalization. It was only 2001 when they joined WTO, the rest of the world welcomed China to the globalized world. So this less than 20 years ago, little did we expect at that time that today, the West, in particular, the United States, which was for sure the leader of the globalized world, at least starting with the end of World War II, should be today perhaps the one that is the least open to globalization. So these are all factors that are affecting us today and I find it very, very amusing. Here, let me just say one other point, two other points. The first one is, a lot of people assume that America is for multilateralism, America is for globalization, America is a country that is for internationalization. Not so. Read American history. America, for the first hundred years, if not 200 years, was close to 200 years, was very much an isolationist. It was really World War II that brought the United States to become the leader of the so-called globalization world. And so today, what we are seeing America, America first, as somebody mentioned earlier in that last session, what they are doing with the trade war, is America in some way going back to its old habit of isolationism rather than open to the rest of the world. So these are all issues that are confronting us today. And what will the world be like if America indeed moves more and more toward isolationism? What will happen to Europe? What role will China play? And that is the topic of our discussion here today. Will China, together with EU, perhaps also India, maybe Japan, become leaders in the globalization process? These are very interesting issues for us to address. So with that, I will first, I have two very distinguished guests here. You all know Mr. Sibai Leng. He is a professional in his earlier life. And then he was very much involved in the drafting of the Basic Law that governed the return of Hong Kong to her motherland China. And eventually he became the chief executive of Hong Kong for five years, ending about two and a half years ago. And to my far left is Eric. Some of you may know Eric, but I doubt. If you watch Ted Talks, you will see Eric because Eric is a pretty hot Ted Talk guy, educated in UC Berkeley and then MBA from Stanford and finally, his talk trip from Fudan University in Shanghai. He is a venture capitalist. He also is the founder and chairman of the biggest internet platform, a media platform in China called Guancha Syndicate. So we have some very interesting persons here. So with that, can I first invite Eric? Eric, you have a background in the West, you have a background in China. Tell us, what does that mean in today's day and age for China to be part of the globalized world? Okay, well, thank you, Ronnie. I'll be brief. It shouldn't take me to tell you that globalization is in deep trouble. It's not going anywhere. In fact, we may be, I think we're also going to face the globalization as Professor Blanchard pointed out this morning. And globalization in the last two or three decades has had great successes and many beneficiaries. China obviously is one of the greatest beneficiaries, but so are the U.S. and much of the developed world. And that's obvious if you just look at the data and how people live. So why is it in trouble? I think globalization, this round of it, has also had many great failures. In fact, most of the developing countries in the last 20, 30 years of globalization had not really benefited that much, not as much as they should. At least the peoples of the many developing countries have not benefited. Poverty persists and inequality is increasing. China succeeded in lifting 700, 800 million people out of poverty in the last 30 years. But if you take China's number out, the world had gone backwards on poverty alleviation. There's even more poor people after this round of globalization. And the same is in developed countries. In America and Europe, inequality is increasing tremendously. That's why there's a backlash. Interestingly, China joined the WTO in 2002. From 2002 to 2018, Chinese GDP went from 1.4 trillion to 13 trillion, so huge increase. But the U.S. made just as much money, if you will, in terms of absolute dollar amount. U.S. GDP went from 10 trillion to 20 trillion, obviously from a higher base. So absolute dollar amount increases are close. Yet, Chinese medium income in the same period went up 7x. The U.S. stagnant had declined. So why is that? What's the problem? And also globalization in the last 20, 30 years have shattered many communities. If you go to most developed countries in America, people are opiates. They've lost hope in Europe. 20, 30-year-olds are getting on the streets to fight for their pensions. So globalization has had many failures. And why had globalization failed in so many respects? I'd like to suggest that this last round of globalization has been run on a universal vision of neoliberal doctrines. Which essentially has consisted of political liberalization with endless elections that don't produce good leaders, total marketization, privatization of businesses, a retreat of the state. In fact, I'll let Mr. Liang speak to Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is a separate economic entity. In China, had very much suffered from neoliberal approach to economic development in the last 20, 30 years. They have left, they have enriched the elites, but left so many people behind. That's probably, you know, I see the current situation in Hong Kong is very much a Chinese version of Zhezhen in Hong Kong. So what do we do? Do we turn back and say no more globalization, or do we find a new approach? And I think the Chinese proposition is that we need to find a new approach to revitalize globalization, but we have to abandon what we've been doing in the last 30 years. And the Chinese proposition includes a few main aspects. One is to dramatically increase interconnectivity among the countries and economies that have been left behind in globalization. And in concrete form is in BRI, the Belt and Road Initiative, where China has been investing a tremendous amount of money and resources into building infrastructure to connect previously disconnected economies, improving interconnectivity. Second is to reject ideological imposition. I always say that, you know, China has engaged globalization in the last 30 years on its own terms. That's why it's being successful. It's important to point out what China said no to the last round of globalization. It's just as important to what China said yes to. China said yes to rely on market to allocate resources, but China said no to giving up national sovereignty to political liberalization, to total marketization and the retreat of state power. China said no to many things. And therefore China's proposition for a new round of globalization would be a reliance, a revitalization of national sovereignty to give different countries their own room and space to pursue their own paths, to choose their own models. And on that basis, third, is that we create a more networked world. So it's a networked way of networked pluralism as opposed to a hegemonically led universalism. And that is, I think, what China's proposition will be. And it's still a nascent stage. And I think the world should be open to it and work with China with this. Thank you. Thank you, Ari. Mr. Leung, there's been some questions about Hong Kong today. So you can talk about both. I suppose we should answer part of that question raised by several people in the earlier session. So you can say a word about globalization if you like. Or you can talk about Hong Kong. He being the one who is perhaps most qualified to address the issue of Hong Kong today. I'll stand up. Just in case I might fall asleep. I had prepared something to address the theme of this session, which is China's Chinese position on globalization. I'm throwing this away now because I heard a theory in this opening remarks mentioning Hong Kong a couple of times. And so did Eric just now. We have had four months of nonstop troubles in Hong Kong. And it's going on. As far as the violence is concerned, it's turning down. The number of rioters and peaceful demonstrators have been going down together. In this trending down motion, we might, if we are not careful or lucky, see some spikes in the degree of violence or the scale of casualties. The police and other authorities in Hong Kong have exercised a maximum restraint. And that's why I listen to you. And that's why we are not seeing the kind of casualties in the streets of Hong Kong as we have seen in other parts of the world. Democracy. Hong Kong is not a sovereign state. Hong Kong is part of China. When we look at democracy or the process of democratization in Hong Kong, we shouldn't compare Hong Kong to a sovereign state. We should and could only compare democracy and democratization in Hong Kong to those in cities, Paris, London, New York, Tokyo, Washington, D.C. But Hong Kong is not an ordinary city because under the basic law and under the terms of Hong Kong's return to China, and this was propagated in 1990, after five years of intensive and large-scale consultation in Hong Kong and also in the rest of the country, the basic law was propagated in 1990. Under the basic law, Hong Kong was given not just one country, two systems. It was given one country, two systems, Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong, with a high degree of autonomy. Not complete autonomy, but a high degree of autonomy. And this high degree of autonomy is well defined in the basic law. And they are all together 160 articles in the basic law, the second white, which has been practiced for 22 years now. So when we talk about one country, two systems, when we talk about democracy, these are no longer abstract concepts for Hong Kong. They are part of our constitutional and legal arrangements. Now, China, if I have to make a guess, could straight away say to the people in Hong Kong that you could have your way of electing your chief secretary, the head of Hong Kong government, if the result of the election is to produce a chief secretary that has the same degree of autonomy and the same scale of authority as the mayors of London, Washington, DC, Tokyo, New York, Paris. But speaking as a former chief secretary, I can tell you, and you can look at basic law, basic law is available in both languages, English and Chinese. It's on the website. You can do it now. The chief secretary of Hong Kong is given a much high degree of authority and through the exercise of this high degree of... It's given a high degree of authority and through the exercise of this high degree of authority, Hong Kong attains its high degree of autonomy. Local democratic processes do not produce mayors of chief secretary in the case of Hong Kong that has this high degree of authority and local cities do not have this high degree of autonomy. So where does the additional authority come from? It comes from a top-down process. So it's not entirely bottom-up, meaning the delegation of authority by the electorate to this elected person. In addition to this process which we have in Hong Kong, the central authorities in Beijing, through the appointment of the chief secretary, devolves a certain power that normally belongs to central governments to the chief secretary and therefore Hong Kong as a whole. And therefore in our electoral system, and it's in the basic law again, we have so far election company elections, a election committee of 1,200 drawn from different sectors of the Hong Kong community. And at the end of the election process, the person has to be appointed by the central government. And this appointment is neither ceremonial nor nominal. And it's a real authority to appoint, meaning the central government in law can appoint, or not appoint the elected candidate. So that's democracy in Hong Kong. The basic law also says that universal suffrage election is the ultimate goal in the democratic development of Hong Kong. A universally elected chief secretary of candidates still has to be appointed by the central government. And to change from the present system of the election by election committee to universal suffrage election, it is in the NX1 to the basic law. Again, you can look it up. The approval of the standing committee of the National People's Congress of the country, not Hong Kong, of the country in Beijing is required. So these are the constitutional and legal arrangements. As I said, if the chief secretary in a democratic society representing people of Hong Kong, as if like a mayor of Hong Kong, has only that kind of power, Beijing would have said to universal suffrage straight away. And I could look at the flip side of the question. Now, would cities in other democratic countries, including those in the west, have this kind of high degree of autonomy just through the election of the local mayor by the local electorate without the central government or the federal government having any power and say in the process? Question mark. So these are the manifestations of the principle of one country, two systems that have already been enshrined in the basic law. And it's a legal document. The five demands of the protesters and the rioters in Hong Kong include universal suffrage in Hong Kong. And to them, universal suffrage is not universal suffrage according to the basic law. They want Hong Kong to do it by themselves without the involvement of Beijing. So we are stuck. When our chief secretary actually went through a process, a so-called constitutional reform process in 2014 that led to Occupy Central. In the end, the whole movement died down. Beijing actually offered the opportunity of the election of the chief secretary by universal suffrage. But some of the young students in certain quarters of the Hong Kong community will not have it because they did not like what's written in the basic law. And they wanted open nomination of the chief secretary candidates. So it's a complex, complicated issue, technical, but I thought I should seize on this opportunity. I'm sure you have your concerns about the future of Hong Kong. We do, too. But we have to go by the basic law. Hong Kong is a law-based, rule-based society. We have to go through a rule of law. Again, one country, two systems, high degree of autonomy. Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong. Democracy in Hong Kong is no longer an abstract notion. It's all in the constitutional arrangements. Thank you. Okay. I'll open it very quickly, very soon to everybody. You're going to ask anything about globalization or Hong Kong. But let me just say one last thing. And that is, I find it very interesting sitting here in Africa in the presence of many of my European friends. That Europeans, when they went to Asia, when they went to Africa, they plundered those places. And coming from Hong Kong, I should know. And they colonized those places and took natural resources. While the Chinese today, they are paying for natural resources. They are buying them instead of plundering them. I remember 20, some years ago, I bumped into New Gingrich in Davos. And he was the first one that told me that, Ronnie, pay attention to Africa. There's a lot of potential there. So I began to come to Africa. And I cannot help, 23 years later, ask the question, what has American done in Africa? Is that what Eric called hegemonic globalization? Or what is China beginning to do today, what he called something like connected globalization, such that at least to begin with on an economic basis, where all the countries that can begin to share the economic benefit of globalization. So Eric, if you have anything to add now, if not I'll open the floor. We have plenty of time. Five seconds. What I mean by hegemonic universalism is to have one hegemonic leader that applies the same set of standards and rules on everybody, as opposed to what I call network pluralism, is to allow different countries to engage globalization on their own terms. Thank you. I was in London the last few days. Five people told me how that the Hong Kong police was so restrained in the streets, compared to Paris, Barcelona, New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London. So I encourage all of you, I don't want to debate this issue, just watch the full footage rather than the one snapshot picked by the media. Watch the whole thing and then we'll have a discussion on that, okay? There's several people, the two gentlemen here in the front, back there first, and then the gentlemen here, and then finally our friend from Ethiopia. Thank you. First a quick question to Eric Lee. Well, a statement in a way. In the way you described political elections in the West as often tight and complex process. Indeed, and you're right on that. But maybe we prefer tight and difficult elections to no elections at all. Second question actually to the whole panel and the moderator indeed. Don't you believe, dear Chinese friends, that actually the attitude presently in Hong Kong would rather draw most of our countries, I'm French, in more liking towards the US in the evolution of globalization. Globalization could be a multilateral process, as was stated previously in the morning. Europe could stand in a way between China and the US in the idea that there should not be a US domination or Chinese domination. But since we believe that many of our values are presently challenged, maybe we feel more of a community of values with the US and the Western world. I just want to say again, as indeed Mr. Long knows, and his statement was very interesting concerning the basic law, that it is guaranteed by an international treaty and the scrutiny of the UN, and it is not, as indeed you've not stated, and that was very honest from you, sir, it is not a purely internal affair. Thank you. Harry? Well, I mean, if you like elections, by all means have as many as you want. And as often as you want. Maybe every day referendum is better than elections. Eventually you'll produce some good leaders, I'm sure. But don't force other people to have them, or have them in your way. That's my point, that's all. Okay. The Chinese don't force their system on others, right? Okay, thank you. See why? On the question... Can you hear me? Yeah, it's on. Thank you. On the question of the international treaty, I presume you're referring to the treaty known as the John Declaration signed in 1985, or rectified in 1985 between China and the United Kingdom. In so far as the election is concerned, the election chief sector is concerned in the John Declaration, just in case a few of our friends in the audience might buy the allegation that China goes back on its commitment to democratization in Hong Kong, set out in the John Declaration. Let me read this to you. The chief sector of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be selected by election or through consultations held locally and be appointed by the central people's government, period. In other words, if China wanted to do away with election, come to the election which produced me as the last term chief sector and replaced it by consultations, through consultations held locally and then upon the person at the end of the constitution process, China would not have breached the John Declaration. My comment to you, sir, is when you talk about the community of values, that's wonderful. I think the West has really brought some very good value to the world. That is, frankly, common to human nature. And you do it one way, you enshrine them, you codify them, which is very good. But I asked Angela Merkel one time about six, seven years ago in Berlin. I said, Madam Chancellor, you keep talking about shared value. I said, I come from Hong Kong, which is now part of China as an ethnic Chinese. Am I supposed to share your value? By saying so so many times, you draw a line on the sand and say, I am on this side, are you on my side or are you on the other side? I don't know what is the experience of the African friends. They have tried democracy since World War II. I wonder how many of them have been very, very successful. Perhaps there are other ways. Why should we fashion ourselves only after one way of achieving the common value, right? So shall we not allow others to do it their way as well? Mind you that Europeans and Americans only account for about a billion of the world's people. There's another six and a half billion out there that are they supposed to share your value and do it your way? It's just a question to be left for the audience to answer yourself. Let me quickly chop in a tongue-in-cheek. When I was a young child, I had this idealistic view of ultimate democracy for mankind on this planet. And this is let all people in this world elect one leader and one government, a global leader and a global government. We now have 7 billion people on this planet. 1.4 billion Chinese, 1 billion Indians and so on and so forth. Share values, democracy, ultimate democracy, one government, one leader, who that leader would be. What value would that be? Question mark. Now, that was when Xi Jinping was a young child with a rather simplistic view of life, the world. Now, I know the world is more complex than that. I don't hold that view anymore. And I know the realities and the practicalities. Thank you. Sir, the gentleman in the second row. Thank you. I'm coming from Israel. He said in the beginning when you spoke about Hong Kong that something which contradicts the election. You said there will be an election and after somebody had been elected, then the government of China had to appoint him. It's a contradict election, which we know in the West, of course. I admire the possibility and the power of China to control 1.5 billion people. It's unbelievable. I see what happens in most very small countries. We have a lot of problems and not with 1.5 billion. But still, I'm afraid that what happens in Hong Kong today is not good for China because of two reasons. One is the fact that they prove that it is possible to make achievement by protests. It could move. It could be export to China itself, to mainland. Secondly, I'm not sure that this kind of action against the idea of sending the prisoners from Hong Kong to China to be judged is really important for China compared to this riots that you have in Hong Kong. Aren't you afraid about what we call the Maslow Leather, which now in China are coming up? You know, Maslow Leather say that the first stage of people is they want to have security. And then second stage, they want to have food. And only when they have security and food, they want to teach, to study. And after they study, they want to put their opinion. They want to be involved in politics. I said that according when I follow China, I see that people are now standing in the fourth stage, which means the people of China would like in my opinion in the future to see themselves much more with an appointment to bring their opinion to the government, which means in my opinion China will face in the next future a lot of activity of Chinese people which would like very much to be involved in the political process and elect their own people. And maybe you will face in China what you are facing today in Hong Kong. So can you please relate to that? Thank you. The experiences that we have in Hong Kong, internet-based so-called B-Water approach to rally as many people as possible to disrupt normal lives of ordinary people and ordinary businesses big and small in Hong Kong. It's not patented. The first trial is in Hong Kong, whether it's going to be successful or not. And I do not wish this on any country in the world. I do not wish this. But my guess is it will replicate itself in other countries. So Hong Kong is not an island. Other countries are not islands either. No man is an island. If we succumb to these violent and destructive movements for unlawful demands on our basic law, other countries and other governments would suffer. That's point one. Point two, the central government of China, Beijing, has no role at all in the proposed amendment of the fugitive ordinance. It was initiated by the Hong Kong government. Nearly all laws except certain national laws such as nationality, national emblem, national anthem and so on. All laws enacted by the Hong Kong government. That's part of the high degree of autonomy to enjoy. So it wasn't initiated by Beijing. Beijing has no role in that. Point number two. Point number three, this is not the first time Hong Kong annexed a piece of legislation or amended or entered into a treaty with another jurisdiction to send fugitives back. Now it's been withdrawn formally. In the proposed amendment, we have put in more safeguards into the proposed amendment. There are already 22 jurisdictions in different parts of the world. I shouldn't name them. If I wanted to be discourteous to some of these countries, I should so that you know that the record of rule of law in some of these 22 jurisdictions is actually not as good as the mainland of China. And I do ask the question, if people living in Hong Kong are so scared of facing trial on the mainland of China in Shanghai and Beijing and Shenzhen, why would these cities on the mainland host millions of foreign business people living there? So these are the points that I would make. But let me just repeat what I said earlier. I'm beginning to see signs of people. Now we're right or wrong as Chinese people. We don't try to poke our fingers in other people's pies. We are seeing the so-called extinction rebellion movement in parts of Europe copying the Hong Kong protestors, so-called B-Water approach. So be careful. I can't let that one go without two quick comments. One, the situation in Hong Kong happens to be the greatest birthday gift God has given to President Xi Jinping for the 70th anniversary of the People's Republic. Let me explain why. It's completely unified. It's the opposite of what you are predicting. It's completely unified public opinion in mainland China. It's unbelievable. It's showing the Chinese people liberalism's failures and why they shouldn't have it. So it's the opposite. And to your second point, elections all are great and democracy is great when we're all for it. But the fact is liberal democracy is no longer producing governments that respond to the will of the people. Everywhere in the world, almost. I mean, you see that in public opinion poll, after poll, in nine out of 10 liberal democratic countries, the elections don't deliver governments that respond to the interests and the will of the people. So maybe it doesn't work at this time. And all of you have a problem. There's four hands. Two gentlemen from Africa. One gentleman here and then a lady over there. We'll run by five minutes. Yeah, I know. We're already overrunning. So, Terry, tell me what to do. Sir, please. I would like to raise two, three questions. While Hong Kong is important, but I would like this panel to focus on the other important issues also. I represent Africa. I want to know, to listen to them, questions that affect our continent. So if I may ask on the BRI, the Belt and Road Initiative, I believe it's an important project and program. And the way I see it is there has been three infrastructure miracles in this 20th century. The Swiss Canal, which connected Asia and Europe. The Panama Canal, which connected, changed the trade pattern. And the Euro Tunnel, which connected UK and Europe. There might have been some geopolitical impact of this infrastructure. Maybe the British had bigger role benefit on Swiss Canal, the US on the Panama Canal. But ultimately, it was an important forced connect. So my question here on the infrastructure is, as it appears now, the BRI primarily focuses across Asia, Europe, and even the maritime or silk connectors some part of Africa. How can the BRI be designed in a way that it doesn't exclude Africa and Africa benefits from this connection? The second point, we want to see more productive investment to Africa. Ethiopia has benefited from Chinese manufacturing investment. And of all investments in Ethiopia, 67% of companies are investing in manufacturing. We want to see more because we need employment. Africa needs to create 20 million jobs every single year. And that's why the G20 countries developed compact with Africa. We are not seeing sufficient relocation of Chinese investment. They are mainly focused in Asia, which I would say a backyard of China. So how can the private sector, the Chinese government, give special attention to this idea? The last point, there may be differences in political view, but we need to work on the common ground of the United Nations principle. For African countries, we don't want any big powers to intervene in internal affairs. Non-interference is one of the basic principles of the United Nations. And I believe we have always to be reminded of this principle. Thank you, sir. With that, can I ask the gentleman at the back also to ask his question, and then we'll answer it together, where I'm really in trouble. Eight minutes over time, there's still two hands over there and more. Yes, sir. I will give my answer in the form of a question. You have raised the question of human rights. And I ask the following question. Is it human being? The only fact that it is human being, whether it is black, green, yellow, white, red or chocolate, as you wish, is it not common rights with all the entire humanity? That's the question. What are the ways to put it into work? The second question is about democracy. Is the concept of democracy not debunked or not founded on common parameters with all humanity? What are the ways to put it into work? Because in Africa, if we examine the instruments that have been adopted in terms of human rights, in terms of democracy, by the African Union and by the regional economic community, we find something very strong. But when it confronts it with the field, we encounter specificities where we will say that democracy is not made for Africans. We have heard that. Thank you. Thank you. This gentleman, and then the lady at the very back, and then we have to call it quits. We are already in 10 minutes over time. I want to get out of this country tomorrow. I don't want to be detained here. I need to go to work. Yes, sir. Thank you. Always in Africa. The former minister of Algeria. I would like to quickly address a question that seems essential to me on the debate on globalization and development approaches. But before that, I would like to make a link between the session of earlier and the one now. The essential actor of democracy is society. The major actor of the economy is society. What we notice in current crises, Iraq, Libya, Mali, Sudan, are major territorial fractures. Kurdish, Benghazi, northern Mali. That means that the question of territorial fractures and the question of social fractures is an element of major conflict and development and democracy. With regard to globalization approaches, behind the big question of financing and the implementation of infrastructures, the infrastructural development is essential for sustainable development and development of a modernization of territorial societies. But the approaches so far, you said, have been different. For the people, we estimate that it is not profitable. So we don't finance it. And so there is the question of lending, even though the United States, over the last few years, has completely changed their approach and their legislation on the financing of infrastructures in Africa. And so when we say to Africans, attention, such a country is in your summer, we forget to say that the countries in question who raise this question have done lending in the approach of their development is a major issue. Europe is one of the most endangered countries. We have 325% of lending at the global scale and many of the greats, including the Vice President of the Bank, the former Vice President of the British Bank, say that lending threatens Europe. But behind all this, there is not a question of approach. When we see our Chinese friends or our European friends on the big questions, the road to the sea and the road to globalization, for the people, they estimate that they have to structure the periphery to modernize it, to make it reach a certain level to be able to continue in space. And you said it, it's the time, you said there is a billion in front of 6 billion. You estimate that the structuring of the periphery, putting it at a level is a major issue. So in part, the question of the financing of infrastructure is other than the question of lending. So my question, is there no totally divergent approach in this famous debate about globalization, this debate about democratization and this debate about growth? Thank you. Thank you. The last question from the lady at the back there, please. Unfortunately, it's not a lady. I'm sorry, it's fine. No, it's fine. It's a school age. It's better. Your hair is beautiful. And I have hair. Beautiful. Thank you, Chairman. I'm Stephen Erlinger from The New York Times and I was in Hong Kong the night of the actual handover and I tried to follow it. I've been very struck by the defensive tone of all of you mixed with an aggressiveness which I find striking and common now when I hear Hong Kong Chinese and mainland Chinese speak to Western audiences. Actually, I don't think anybody cares whether China has democratic elections or not. No one's forcing you to do it. What I would like to know is do you think Xi Jinping announcing himself as emperor for life and creating Xi Jinping thought as an equivalent to Mao is a good thing for China or a bad thing? Okay. I'll leave it to Eric and Mr. Leung. Well, emperor for life, certainly he didn't pronounce that and that sounds like to me a lot more aggressive and defensive on the part of New York Times than anything that we've ever said. I don't think that deserves a good, you know, a sensible response. Of course he's not emperor for life. We had a constitutional amendment that got rid of term limits for the role of the presidency. The role of general secretary never had term limits but we have retirement customs so they are supposed to be followed so he's not emperor for life. And let me come back to our friend from Ethiopia. Of course Africa is an integral, important part of the BRI vision. The Eurasian mass being united through infrastructure and Africa being linked into the Eurasian mass I think creates tremendous opportunities. Now China is a new kid on the block. We haven't been at it for very long so we're going to make plenty of mistakes. Our companies don't know what to do in these new countries. Our companies don't know how to work with local communities because in China we have county party secretaries like a CEO who helps the company in these different countries and the situation is completely different. So we need help. And what Africa could do and I hope it will do is for African countries to produce great and strong leaders like Mr. Kagami who will be speaking tonight like Mr. Ahmed perhaps is on the way of becoming and only with strong leaders can you take advantage of what China has to offer. So that's that. I've forgotten the questions there. Okay, you're right. Let me just very quickly respond to the Belt and Road questions. If we in Hong Kong or we in the rest of the country, China will do anything to promote better mutual understanding not just of investment opportunities in the various countries in Africa but also what Africa is about. Please let us know. We'll be quite happy to oblige. I founded the Belt and Road Hong Kong Center for example two years ago and this center sponsored young school children and the Hamas and Hamistresses to go and visit excuse the term of the beaten track countries along the Belt and Road and they all come back with new vision of life and so these are the next generation of collaborators. Now if you want to take a shorter term approach if there are certain sectors or industries that you're open to Hong Kong or mainland Chinese investments so you have my name card. Let us know. China and Hong Kong included often gives people the impression that we have unlimited ambitions under the Belt and Road initiative or unlimited appetite under this initiative. Realities are of course not. We do have capacity constraints and one of the constraints that we face at the moment is not so much capital but human resources and that's why it is important for us to send people to your countries to see what opportunities are. Thank you. There's another question about human rights that I want to address briefly. Of course there are universal aspirations for all mankind as part of the human condition but those aspirations don't have to necessarily be liberal and if you ascribe rights to men these rights may be in conflict. If you read the UN Declaration of Universal Rights or whatever the document is called every right in there is in conflict with every other right. So what are our priorities? What we've got to do? So to me equality is a universal aspiration and equality and to me in every country there shouldn't be in today's modern world with this abundance of material wealth we shouldn't have people living under absolute poverty line. We just should not, it's not unconscionable. So to me that's a universal aspiration but liberalism is not delivering on these universal aspirations. In China's socialist system I think it's doing a little better job. We don't make a lot of mistakes, we have a lot of faults but we don't have these liberal elections but we are lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. In fact we're two years away from eradicating poverty below the absolute poverty line. About 20, 30 million people left. That's a universal aspiration. Okay with that I'm going to call it to a quid because I have been told to just, I must cut it. I think being over time I've now come in, Harakiri go outside but last sentence is I think that it will be very important for all of us whether you are from Europe, from Africa, from China to bring America back to become part of the globalized world. I think the best world forward is where one, the US, Europe, China and many other countries should work together rather than having any, especially a major country like the United States moving increasingly toward isolationism and that to me is my biggest worry. So shall we just leave it at that and we'll be happy to talk offline. Thank you.