#羅家聰： #23條生效了 殘了 謝了 被廢武功了 香港何去何從 共產黨不惜一切摧毀李澤鉅話保金融中心！保命咩？緊張！2啱啱生效即時威脅！調查指7成想走佬 點解咁急立法老共有難言之隱 #Lucy連線

Hello, Dr. Wu. Article 23 has been implemented today. First, can you tell us if it can be used as a firecracker, not as a firecracker, not as a firecracker, not as a firecracker? In fact, he just put this out. He won't do something scary right away. You can see that his attitude is cooling down. There are always some people who come out to refute. You said it was scary, he said it was nothing. He is trying to cool down. He won't do something scary right away. But this thing has always been a threat. You don't know when he will use it. One day, for example, he moved to Dragon Gate. He moved to Dragon Gate because he wanted to use it. He moved to Dragon Gate because he thought it was useful. Then he will use it. For example, if you look back at the past few years, when the National Security Law was first introduced, he said that very few people were affected. The only thing that affected was a small number of people. In fact, now you can see that he has been put on trial. He was accused of using the National Security Law. In fact, it's not a small number. In fact, there is a number here. So if you look back at what he said, you can't believe it. This is for sure. But usually there are such laws. He has a purpose behind it, which is to borrow the ambiguity of these laws, borrow the ambiguity of these laws, to do what he wants to do. It depends on how many things he wants to do at that moment. For example, he may want to cover up the newspaper and the media. For example, he may want to clear up the political parties. For example, he may want to arrest the black people. At different stages, he has a group of people or organizations that he wants to deal with. He will cover them up. He will naturally take those things. At this stage, he has not yet initiated anything to do this. So for the time being, it's not easy. But why is he so anxious to put these things out? It's also very simple. Because in fact, when the economy is getting worse, when the state is getting worse, more and more people have nothing to do. It's already the case in the mainland. When so many people have nothing to do, when there is nothing to do, naturally someone will come out and make trouble. Naturally someone will resist. He should see that the mainland is starting to have these problems, these symptoms. When you have these symptoms, of course, the whole country has to suppress these things. If the whole country suppresses these things, Hong Kong will have to do one thing after another. In fact, Hong Kong has not yet initiated anything to use these things. But if you look back, for example, at the end of 2014, at the end of 2019, even in the middle of the mainland, there are some activities. In fact, there may not be much in advance. Suddenly, because too many people are in a difficult or dissatisfied state, if there is any movement, suddenly there may be action. Suddenly, when there is action, he may not be able to respond. Then he has to have a bunch of such bad laws to be used. He can arrest you at any time, and then use these laws as packaging, and then go to work. In fact, that's it. So how do you feel now? Is Hong Kong still one country, two systems? I saw Li Ka-siu say that Hong Kong is now... I have always said no. I don't think so. He said it. Let him say it. I saw a survey that said 70% of Hong Kong people want to leave within two years. I saw that everyone's annual salary is 300,000 yuan, multiplied by 100,000 yuan. Is this atmosphere too tense now? Everyone is afraid to leave. I think these investigations sometimes... It depends on who does it. If you ask the Communist Party to do it, ask the People's Congress to do it, it will definitely produce the opposite result, right? If you are clearly intending to do an investigation, and you want such a result, you can definitely do it. But we are talking about scientific research, it's not like that. For example, if you ask how many people want to leave, try asking how many people want to develop. 100%, 110% want to develop. Is it really necessary to leave? In the past few years, you can see that there are actually tens of thousands of people who want to leave. But if you add up the past few years, there are still tens of thousands. I don't think so. If you add up the past few years, there are still tens of thousands. How is it possible that there are more than 7 million people? If you multiply it by 7, it's 4-5 million people. How is it possible that there are millions of people who want to leave? I don't really believe it will happen. If you say you want to, a lot of people want to. For example, a reasonable investigation, if you ask how many people want to leave, you can still ask 7 million people. But if you ask objectively, if you have these things behind you, there will always be people who want to leave. But the number of people who want to is a spectrum. How many people want to leave? 0-10, how many people want to leave? If you want to leave 1, a small number of people want to leave. Then you have to count down. That's a lot, a large proportion. If you want to leave 0-10, you count to 5 or more, I think the whole investigation has to be as detailed as possible. You have to be very clear about the distribution. Then after you ask, how many people really want to leave? It's really important to leave. Now a lot of places are closing their doors. You see those in the UK have started to open their doors. Those in Australia don't want to temporarily emigrate. Canada also says there are too many immigrants. If you really want to leave, in the past few years, people have already opened their doors. If you close your doors, it will be even harder to leave. So in reality, I believe whether you want to leave or not, but how many people really want to leave and how many people actually want to leave is another matter. So you are saying that the government's idea is after the 23rd of September, you can start a good economy. The economy is not everyone's problem. It's not that they say it's good. If they say it's good, then why do they have to say so much? If the economy is good, then there's no need to say it. Why do you have to point to the moneyless? If you clearly have no money, then there's no need to say it. So does the tourism of the foreign companies have any impact on the regulation? You shouldn't understand it like that. Companies don't say because you have 23 more, so how much investment will they reduce? It's not like that. To be honest, in the past few years, the whole regime, etc., that kind of change has made everyone see the situation, the environment, and whether it is suitable for business. If you look at the whole system, the foreign companies or the interest in investment, the degree of inflation, etc., you will slowly see a decrease in statistics. Of course, the more you do these things, the tighter it is. Of course, foreign investments or companies, no matter the number of investors, will reduce. But I don't think there will be a sudden decrease in the release of such a law. It's not like that. It's not until now that you know that 23 more will be implemented. It has been said for a long time. It's been said for a long time. You know. If you are investing or leaving, your deployment will continue. So I believe this has been a progressive development. If you say money is gone, people are gone, you should be able to observe a progressive phenomenon This is a fact. Maybe after a period of time, you will see that it has decreased a lot. It's true. After a period of time, you will see that there are a lot of people in Hong Kong. I don't think so. What do you think of Li Ka-shing's son saying that he must keep the position of Hong Kong's financial center? Are you worried that the position of the financial center will not be secured? Don't say such nonsense. It must be secured. Everyone has to keep their lives. If it's secured, it's secured. The point is how to do it. If you are under such a big premise, you have already made Hong Kong like this. It's not that you want to secure it, but the international financial center is not like you say. If you say it's international, it's international. You can come if people are willing to come, if money, people, and business are willing to come. Then you are international. What if you don't want to come? There is no problem with a financial center. Any place has a financial center. Even in Macau, you can build one. It's not up to you how big the international scale is. Actually, you just talked about foreign capital. In fact, the cost of risk in Hong Kong may also increase. In fact, the 23rd has become an obstacle for attracting foreign capital and talents to Hong Kong. Isn't it, Boris? I would think so. If you say to most people who do business or are willing to make money, it may not have a big impact. If it doesn't affect you, to be honest, even if you are arrested by the National Security Law, the number of arrests may be thousands. I don't know if there are tens of thousands of arrests. If you count the number of arrests of tens of thousands of people, or tens of thousands of people, you are only 1%. If you ask yourself that you are not 1%, you are another 99%. In fact, it's nothing. But it depends on what you do. If you are in the so-called sensitive position, for example, you are in high-tech, you may be sanctioned, or you may be sanctioned by the United States, or not sanctioned by the mainland, or you may be in trouble, you may be in the media, and so on, you may not dare to come. If you are in other positions, I don't think it will have a big impact. In fact, you don't have to arrest Tsai Ing-wen. Many media often arrest Tsai Ing-wen, thinking that Article 23 will drive away foreign investors. In fact, foreign investors, for example, look at those big companies, they have no time to leave, they have an office. To be honest, even in Beijing, they are afraid of Article 23. If they were afraid, they would have been taken away by Beijing. They are not really afraid of Article 23. However, there are many people who are silent. Ordinary people, ordinary people, ordinary citizens, they will feel uncomfortable, uncomfortable. They are used to being in Hong Kong, but now they have changed. It's not the same thing. The people here feel uncomfortable, and leave. In fact, this is the biggest impact. The biggest impact is the ordinary people. Ordinary people, those people will leave, those funds will leave. At that moment, people here are not very willing to have a lot of activities. No matter what you say, consumption is good, investment is good, everything is good. In a nutshell, you see that business is getting worse. I can say that Article 23 may not affect the business environment, but it will affect the environment of everyone's life. When your life is uncomfortable, some people may not be here. For example, you come to work to earn money. In fact, it's okay to earn money. You won't be affected by Article 23. But if you live here, you feel uncomfortable, you feel uncomfortable, you will think about whether you can earn money elsewhere. If you can earn money elsewhere, you may not be here. In fact, the impact is relatively indirect. In fact, they want you to become a slave like the mainlanders. Because you listen to everything they say. You are absolutely obedient. The problem is that most people don't like this. Especially if you are used to living in Hong Kong, you are more reluctant to go back. It doesn't matter if it's bad in the British era. You have to go back to that era. People don't want to. In fact, this is a reversal of the quality of life. Of course, the reversal of the quality of life if your life is only for money, of course you have no problem. It doesn't matter how you put your shoes on. If you can earn money, it's okay. The problem now is that the first environment is much worse. It's a matter of whether you can earn money. In the past, if you could earn money, it would be more difficult. If you went to Africa to earn money, you would leave. But now it's not like that. The prospects of making money are not good. The risk is higher. And the overall life is uncomfortable. People in Hong Kong have money. If you talk about foreign investment, they will come only if they have money. The cost here is not cheap. People who have money can choose. They don't have to come here. When they come here, they don't have to bother to come here to be a slave. Now I see that the United Nations has criticized Article 23. There is some protest. I don't know what the Western countries will do to Hong Kong. Will they implement some policies? I don't think so. Hong Kong has been destroyed to such an extent. A few years ago, when Hong Kong was not destroyed, the West would see that Hong Kong is still valuable. They think the Communist Party is a scapegoat. When the Communist Party destroyed Hong Kong, Hong Kong has been destroyed. Hong Kong has been abolished. People don't value Hong Kong. Hong Kong is not valuable. If Hong Kong is not valuable, they won't impose sanctions on Hong Kong. Of course, if Hong Kong has an action, people will criticize Hong Kong. That's the reason. Maybe the U.S. should close the office of the Trade and Industry Office. No. Hong Kong says it will close itself. It will close itself. It has nothing to do with you or him. It's a matter of face. In fact, it doesn't matter whether you have an office or not. Some people say that Hong Kong and the international community will break up. Some people care about the SWIFT system, etc. It's all about these topics. Hong Kong has not taken any action so far. The U.S. does not dare to act. Because even the mainland needs U.S. dollars. Hong Kong can't avoid U.S. dollars. Think about how many U.S. dollars Hong Kong holds. Hong Kong can't reduce the U.S. dollars. Hong Kong can't reduce the U.S. dollars