So here it is. You can check: I am short, I'm French, I have a pretty strong French accent, so that's going to be clear in a moment.
各位,看到了嗎?我個子矮小,是個法國人 加上一口非常重的法國口音 很容易就能看出來吧!
Maybe a sobering thought and something you all know about. And I suspect many of you gave something to the people of Haiti this year. And there is something else I believe in the back of your mind you also know. That is, every day, 25,000 children die of entirely preventable causes. That's a Haiti earthquake every eight days. And I suspect many of you probably gave something towards that problem as well, but somehow it doesn't happen with the same intensity.
很怵目驚心吧! 有些事你們早就知道 而且我相信你們之中有很多人 今年度捐了些東西給海地 還有 我相信,在內心深處 你們也都知道 那就是每天 有25,000名孩童不幸喪生 而且死於完全可事先預防的原因 這數字相當於每8天就發生一次海地地震 同樣地,我相信你們之中有很多人 也想對這不幸貢獻心力 但災難發生的強度 和帶給人的震撼通常不成正比
So why is that? Well, here is a thought experiment for you. Imagine you have a few million dollars that you've raised -- maybe you're a politician in a developing country and you have a budget to spend. You want to spend it on the poor: How do you go about it? Do you believe the people who tell you that all we need to do is to spend money? That we know how to eradicate poverty, we just need to do more? Or do you believe the people who tell you that aid is not going to help, on the contrary it might hurt, it might exacerbate corruption, dependence, etc.? Or maybe you turn to the past. After all, we have spent billions of dollars on aid. Maybe you look at the past and see. Has it done any good?
為什麼呢? 看一下這樣一個實驗 假設你募得幾百萬美金 你是個開發中國家的官員 為了幫助窮人,編列了相關預算 你會從何著手呢? 是相信你所聽到的 只要花錢 就能幫助窮人脫離貧窮 現在只是做得還不夠? 或是相信另外一種說法 援助根本無法解決問題,相反地,還會造成傷害 像是助長貪污及依賴 回顧過去 已有幾十億美金花在援助上 或許你會想知道 這些援助究竟有沒有用?
And, sadly, we don't know. And worst of all, we will never know. And the reason is that -- take Africa for example. Africans have already got a lot of aid. These are the blue bars. And the GDP in Africa is not making much progress. Okay, fine. How do you know what would have happened without the aid? Maybe it would have been much worse, or maybe it would have been better. We have no idea. We don't know what the counterfactual is. There's only one Africa.
很遺撼,我們不知道 更糟的是,我們永遠不會知道 為什麼會這樣呢?舉非洲的例子 非洲人得到很多援助 看看這些藍色長條圖 然而非洲的GDP始終沒有任何改善 那又怎樣?你怎麼知道 如果沒有援助又會是怎樣呢? 也許GDP比現在更糟 或是更好也不一定 我們不知道,我們無法知道這不存在的事實 只有一個非洲無從驗證起
So what do you do? To give the aid, and hope and pray that something comes out of it? Or do you focus on your everyday life and let the earthquake every eight days continue to happen? The thing is, if we don't know whether we are doing any good, we are not any better than the Medieval doctors and their leeches. Sometimes the patient gets better, sometimes the patient dies. Is it the leeches? Is it something else? We don't know.
那該怎麼辦呢? 繼續給予援助,滿懷希望地祈禱著問題能夠解決? 或是繼續過日子 無視於每8天 持續發生的地震? 事實上,如果我們不知道 自己所做的事是對的 我們甚至不如 中世紀的醫生和那些水蛭 有時病人的病好轉了,有時卻回天乏術 到底是因為水蛭或是其他原因? 誰知道
So here are some other questions. They're smaller questions, but they are not that small. Immunization, that's the cheapest way to save a child's life. And the world has spent a lot of money on it: The GAVI and the Gates Foundations are each pledging a lot of money towards it, and developing countries themselves have been doing a lot of effort. And yet, every year at least 25 million children do not get the immunization they should get. So this is what you call a "last mile problem." The technology is there, the infrastructure is there, and yet it doesn't happen. So you have your million. How do you use your million to solve this last mile problem?
在這我提出幾個問題 只是小問題 但並非全然不重要 疫苗接種,現今最便宜的方法 拯救孩童寶貴的生命 我們也已為此花費龐大金錢 全球疫苗免疫聯盟和比爾蓋茲基金會 也分別砸下很多的資源 開發中國家自身也投入相當多的心力 然而,毎年 至少2500萬名孩童 卻得不到應該接種的疫苗 這就是所謂的"最後一哩難題" 明明技術已經純熟 基礎設施也有 結果卻仍不如預期 所以縱使資金充裕 問題是你該怎麼使用 才能解決這最後一哩的難題
And here's another question: Malaria. Malaria kills almost 900,000 people every year, most of them in Sub-Saharan Africa, most of them under five. In fact, that is the leading cause of under-five mortality. We already know how to kill malaria, but some people come to you and say, "You have your millions. How about bed nets?" Bed nets are very cheap. For 10 dollars, you can manufacture and ship an insecticide treated bed net and you can teach someone to use them. And, not only do they protect the people who sleep under them, but they have these great contagion benefits. If half of a community sleeps under a net, the other half also benefits because the contagion of the disease spread. And yet, only a quarter of kids at risk sleep under a net. Societies should be willing to go out and subsidize the net, give them for free, or, for that matter, pay people to use them because of those contagion benefits. "Not so fast," say other people. "If you give the nets for free, people are not going to value them. They're not going to use them, or at least they're not going to use them as bed nets, maybe as fishing nets." So, what do you do? Do you give the nets for free to maximize coverage, or do you make people pay in order to make sure that they really value them? How do you know?
還有個問題 瘧疾,瘧疾每年至少奪走 90萬條人命 大部份都發生在撒哈拉以南非洲 而且是5歲以下孩童 事實上這也是造成5歲以下孩童死亡的首要原因 我們早就知道對抗瘧疾的方法 但有人跑來告訴你 你有那麼多錢,拿來買蚊帳如何? 蚊帳很便宜 10塊錢,包含製造加運送 還加防蟲劑處理過 你可以教導當地居民如何使用 這樣,不只睡在蚊帳內的人得到保護 還能產生連鎖效應 如果一半居民使用蚊帳 另一半人跟著受惠 就是因為防疫效果的擴散 然而,瘧疾高危險群的孩童僅有1/4睡在蚊帳內 很多人應該會願意 免費捐贈蚊帳 或是,提供補貼 因為這樣,防疫效果會更好 有些人則認為,太快了吧 如果你免費送蚊帳 他們不會珍惜 也不會好好用 也許拿去做別的用途 被當成魚網也說不定 所以你該如何做呢? 免費送,擴大防疫效果 或是他們必須付點錢 確保他們會善加利用? 你又怎麼知道結果呢?
And a third question: Education. Maybe that's the solution, maybe we should send kids to school. But how do you do that? Do you hire teachers? Do you build more schools? Do you provide school lunch? How do you know?
第三個問題:教育 也許這是個方法,讓孩童接受教育 但該怎麼做呢? 聘請老師?加蓋學校? 要不要供應午餐? 你又怎麼知道那種方法更好?
So here is the thing. I cannot answer the big question, whether aid did any good or not. But these three questions, I can answer them. It's not the Middle Ages anymore, it's the 21st century. And in the 20th century, randomized, controlled trials have revolutionized medicine by allowing us to distinguish between drugs that work and drugs that don't work. And you can do the same randomized, controlled trial for social policy. You can put social innovation to the same rigorous, scientific tests that we use for drugs. And in this way, you can take the guesswork out of policy-making by knowing what works, what doesn't work and why. And I'll give you some examples with those three questions.
這就是問題所在 我也不知道 援助究竟是好是壞 但以下這三個問題,我可以回答 現在不是中世紀 現在是21世紀 20世紀時 隨機對照試驗 引發醫藥革命 也讓我們有能力區分 這些藥 究竟有沒有效果 現在你可以用同樣的方法 把隨機對照試驗用在社會政策上 你可以在社會政策上,進行相同的 嚴謹的科學測試 如同我們對藥物一般 減少用猜測的方式 來制定政策 而是清楚知道那些政策可行 那些不可行,還有原因是什麼 再舉幾個例子
So I start with immunization. Here's Udaipur District, Rajasthan. Beautiful. Well, when I started working there, about one percent of children were fully immunized. That's bad, but there are places like that. Now, it's not because the vaccines are not there -- they are there and they are free -- and it's not because parents do not care about their kids. The same child that is not immunized against measles, if they do get measles, parents will spend thousands of rupees to help them. So you get these empty village subcenters and crowded hospitals. So what is the problem? Well, part of the problem, surely, is people do not fully understand. After all, in this country as well, all sorts of myths and misconceptions go around immunization. So if that's the case, that's difficult, because persuasion is really difficult. But maybe there is another problem as well. It's going from intention to action. Imagine you are a mother in Udaipur District, Rajasthan. You have to walk a few kilometers to get your kids immunized. And maybe when you get there, what you find is this: The subcenter is closed. Ao you have to come back, and you are so busy and you have so many other things to do, you will always tend to postpone and postpone, and eventually it gets too late. Well, if that's the problem, then that's much easier. Because A, we can make it easy, and B, we can maybe give people a reason to act today, rather than wait till tomorrow.
就從疫苗開始 這裡是印度的拉賈斯坦烏代布爾區,很美吧 當我開始在那工作時 只有百分之一的孩童 對麻疹有免疫 很糟的數字,但很多地方都是這樣 原因並非因為沒有疫苗 不但有,而且免費 也並非父母親不關心自己的小孩 沒有免疫的小孩 如果真得了麻疹,父母親會花 大把鈔票來救自己的孩子 所以,如你所看到的,疫苗注射中心是空的 醫院卻擠滿了人 這問題到底在哪? 部份原因,當然,是當地居民對麻疹並不了解 畢竟,在這偏僻地方 對於麻疹 充滿謎團和誤解 如果真是這樣,很糟糕 因為人很難被說服 即使讓他們接受了,到實際付諸行動 中間還是會發生很多問題 假設你是個母親 在拉賈斯坦烏代布爾區這樣一個偏遠地方 為了讓孩子接種疫苗,首先必須走好幾公里的路 好不容易走到了,在你眼前的卻是 關了門的注射中心,你只好打道回府 但你真的很忙,有太多其他的事要做了 你只好一直拖著...拖著 直到一切都太遲了 好吧,如果問題如此,還好解決 因為第一,想辦法讓它簡單些 第二,我們可以 給個立即採取行動的誘因 而不是拖到明天
So these are simple ideas, but we didn't know. So let's try them. So what we did is we did a randomized, controlled trial in 134 villages in Udaipur Districts. So the blue dots are selected randomly. We made it easy -- I'll tell you how in a moment. In the red dots, we made it easy and gave people a reason to act now. The white dots are comparisons, nothing changed. So we make it easy by organizing this monthly camp where people can get their kids immunized. And then you make it easy and give a reason to act now by adding a kilo of lentils for each immunization. Now, a kilo of lentils is tiny. It's never going to convince anybody to do something that they don't want to do. On the other hand, if your problem is you tend to postpone, then it might give you a reason to act today rather than later.
就這麼簡單的想法,但不知可不可行 所以試試看囉 怎麼做呢?用隨機對照試驗 在烏代布爾區的134個村落 這些藍色的點 都是隨機挑選的 方法很簡單,待會你就知道 這些紅點,也很簡單 給個激勵,誘使他們付諸行動 白色的點是參考值,不加任何變數 重新整理 每個月的營地 這裡是人們可以孩童接種疫苗的地方 加上簡單的方法 給他們付諸行動的理由 例如每接種一次,就給一公斤的扁豆 一公斤扁豆根本微不足道 不可能說服得了任何人 去做他們不想做的事 另一方面,如果問題是你想拖延 那就給一個理由讓你現在就去做 而不是等到以後
So what do we find? Well, beforehand, everything is the same. That's the beauty of randomization. Afterwards, the camp -- just having the camp -- increases immunization from six percent to 17 percent. That's full immunization. That's not bad, that's a good improvement. Add the lentils and you reach to 38 percent. So here you've got your answer. Make it easy and give a kilo of lentils, you multiply immunization rate by six. Now, you might say, "Well, but it's not sustainable. We cannot keep giving lentils to people." Well, it turns out it's wrong economics, because it is cheaper to give lentils than not to give them. Since you have to pay for the nurse anyway, the cost per immunization ends up being cheaper if you give incentives than if you don't.
那有何發現呢? 嗯,一開始,所有事情都一樣 這是隨機採樣的好處 然而,之後 營地,光是營地 接種疫苗的比例由6%增加至17% 這是免疫力數據 不錯吧,進步很多 加上扁豆後,這比例又增加至38% 所以結論是 做法很簡單,只要給一公斤的扁豆 免疫力可以提高6倍 不過,你也許會說"這方法無法持續" "我們不能一直給扁豆" 很顯然,這是錯誤的經濟學 事實上,比起什麼都沒有 給扁豆其實便宜多了 反正無論如何,這些醫護人員的薪水都得付 每一注射劑的成本 加上扁豆最終還是便宜多了
How about bed nets? Should you give them for free, or should you ask people to pay for them? So the answer hinges on the answer to three simple questions. One is: If people must pay for a bed net, are they going to purchase them? The second one is: If I give bed nets for free, are people going to use them? And the third one is: Do free bed nets discourage future purchase? The third one is important because if we think people get used to handouts, it might destroy markets to distribute free bed nets. Now this is a debate that has generated a lot of emotion and angry rhetoric. It's more ideological than practical, but it turns out it's an easy question. We can know the answer to this question. We can just run an experiment. And many experiments have been run, and they all have the same results, so I'm just going to talk to you about one.
那麼蚊帳呢? 免費捐贈?還是收費呢? 這問題的答案 和三個簡單的問題有關 第一,如果蚊帳要收費 當地居民會買嗎? 第二 如果免費 他們會用嗎? 第三個問題 習慣免費的蚊帳,以後會不會不願花錢買呢? 第三個問題很重要 因為,如果我們認為人們一旦習慣了接受施捨 可能會破壞市場機制 這議題已引起爭論 很多是情緒性,憤怒的言論 很理想但不切實際 其實只不過是個簡單問題 只要一個實驗 就可以得到答案 而且經由很多實驗,都產生相同的結果 我來告訴你們其中一個
And this one that was in Kenya, they went around and distributed to people vouchers, discount vouchers. So people with their voucher could get the bed net in the local pharmacy. And some people get 100 percent discount, and some people get 20 percent discounts, and some people get 50 percent discount, etc. And now we can see what happens. So, how about the purchasing? Well, what you can see is that when people have to pay for their bed nets, the coverage rate really falls down a lot. So even with partial subsidy, three dollars is still not the full cost of a bed net, and now you only have 20 percent of the people with the bed nets, you lose the health immunity, that's not great. Second thing is, how about the use? Well, the good news is, people, if they have the bed nets, will use the bed nets regardless of how they got it. If they get it for free, they use it. If they have to pay for it, they use it. How about the long term? In the long term, people who got the free bed nets, one year later, were offered the option to purchase a bed net at two dollars. And people who got the free one were actually more likely to purchase the second one than people who didn't get a free one. So people do not get used to handouts; they get used to nets. Maybe we need to give them a little bit more credit.
這個發生在肯亞 他們到每個地方分發給人們 兌換券,折扣券等 拿著這些兌換券 就可以在當地藥局得到蚊帳 有些券是100%免費兌換 有些20%折扣 有些則是50%的折扣 現在我們來看看結果 結果呢? 你可以看到 當人們必須花錢買蚊帳時 買的人真得少很多 即便給予部份補貼 蚊帳總成本絕不只3塊錢 因為只剩20%的人有蚊帳 失去蚊帳覆蓋率等於失去免疫力,這可不是好事 第二件事,他們怎麼用呢? 好消息是,只要是有蚊帳的人 都會使用,不管是如何得到的 免費得到的也好 付費的也好 長期來看呢? 長期而言 人們拿到免費的蚊帳 一年以後 可以用2元買到新的蚊帳 而且一開始拿到免費蚊帳的人 大部份都會去買第二個 相較那些沒有拿過免費蚊帳的人 所以人們並沒有習慣接受施捨,他們習慣的是蚊帳 也許我們應該更相信他們
So, that's for bed nets. So you will think, "That's great. You know how to immunize kids, you know how to give bed nets." But what politicians need is a range of options. They need to know: Out of all the things I could do, what is the best way to achieve my goals? So suppose your goal is to get kids into school. There are so many things you could do. You could pay for uniforms, you could eliminate fees, you could build latrines, you could give girls sanitary pads, etc., etc. So what's the best? Well, at some level, we think all of these things should work. So, is that sufficient? If we think they should work intuitively, should we go for them? Well, in business, that's certainly not the way we would go about it.
這是蚊帳的實驗。你一定想說,那太好了 現在你知道如何防疫,如何給蚊帳 但政治人物需要的是一連串的選擇 他們要知道,在這些一連串我能做的事中 什麼是達成目標最好的方法? 所以假設你的目的是讓小孩上學 太多的事你能做。你可以買制服 免除學雜費,蓋廁所 你還可以發送女孩衛生棉...等等 但做什麼最好? 嗯,就某種程度來說,我們認為 所有這些事都該做 那麼,做這些就夠嗎?如果這些我們直覺認為都是該做的 就應該直接去做嗎? 就事論事,當然不該這麼衝動
Consider for example transporting goods. Before the canals were invented in Britain before the Industrial Revolution, goods used to go on horse carts. And then canals were built, and with the same horseman and the same horse, you could carry ten times as much cargo. So should they have continued to carry the goods on the horse carts, on the ground, that they would eventually get there? Well, if that had been the case, there would have been no Industrial Revolution. So why shouldn't we do the same with social policy? In technology, we spend so much time experimenting, fine-tuning, getting the absolute cheapest way to do something, so why aren't we doing that with social policy?
考慮一種情況 運送物資 在運河尚未發明 在英國工業革命以前 馬車是主要的運輸工具 直到運河出現 相較於馬車 運輸量比起以前多了10倍 所以是該繼續 用馬車代步,運送貨物 反正這種方式終究也會抵達目的地 假如是這樣 也就不會有英國工業革命了 所以為何不把革命用在社會政策呢 對於科技,我們花了如此多的時間 做實驗,做微調 試圖找出最省成本方法來解決事情 為什麼不能用在社會政策上呢?
Well, with experiments, what you can do is answer a simple question. Suppose you have 100 dollars to spend on various interventions. How many extra years of education do you get for your hundred dollars? Now I'm going to show you what we get with various education interventions. So the first ones are if you want the usual suspects, hire teachers, school meals, school uniforms, scholarships. And that's not bad. For your hundred dollars, you get between one and three extra years of education. Things that don't work so well is bribing parents, just because so many kids are already going to school that you end up spending a lot of money. And here are the most surprising results. Tell people the benefits of education, that's very cheap to do. So for every hundred dollars you spend doing that, you get 40 extra years of education. And, in places where there are worms, intestinal worms, cure the kids of their worms. And for every hundred dollars, you get almost 30 extra years of education. So this is not your intuition, this is not what people would have gone for, and yet, these are the programs that work. We need that kind of information, we need more of it, and then we need to guide policy.
藉由實驗,你可以 找到一個簡單問題的答案 假設你有100元的預算 來推行各種措施 例如增加額外教育年限 準備好你的經費了嗎? 現在讓我來告訴你 我們是如何干預教育政策的 一開始你一定會想 請老師,供應營養午餐 提供制服,獎學金 很好啊!幾百元就能做到 結果你多得了1至3年的額外教育 但父母親可不是這麼好騙的 因為已經有很多小孩上學了 結果你只是白花了很多錢 然而,最讓人訝異的是 只要告訴人們受教育的好處 很便宜的方法 但平均每花一百元用在推廣受教育的好處 結果多了40年額外教育 另外,在那些有寄生蟲的地方 例如蛔蟲 只要治好這問題 每一百元 可以多將近30年的額外教育 這不是直覺 也不是原本想做的事 但卻可以解決問題 我們需要這類訊息,更多的訊息 做為政策依據
So now, I started from the big problem, and I couldn't answer it. And I cut it into smaller questions, and I have the answer to these smaller questions. And they are good, scientific, robust answers.
回到演講一開始,我提的這個大問題,我還是沒有答案 但我可以把它們分成不同的小問題 對於這些小問題,我能回答 而且是正確的,科學的,強而有力的答案
So let's go back to Haiti for a moment. In Haiti, about 200,000 people died -- actually, a bit more by the latest estimate. And the response of the world was great: Two billion dollars got pledged just last month, so that's about 10,000 dollars per death. That doesn't sound like that much when you think about it. But if we were willing to spend 10,000 dollars for every child under five who dies, that would be 90 billion per year just for that problem. And yet it doesn't happen. So, why is that? Well, I think what part of the problem is that, in Haiti, although the problem is huge, somehow we understand it, it's localized. You give your money to Doctors Without Borders, you give your money to Partners In Health, and they'll send in the doctors, and they'll send in the lumber, and they'll helicopter things out and in. And the problem of poverty is not like that. So, first, it's mostly invisible; second, it's huge; and third, we don't know whether we are doing the right thing. There's no silver bullet. You cannot helicopter people out of poverty. And that's very frustrating.
先回到海地 海地地震造成20萬人不幸喪生 事實上,根據最新估計,死亡人數還更多些 來自全世界的援助也很可觀 光上個月募集了20億美金 大約是,每一死亡1萬美金 仔細想想好像也沒多少 但如果我們願意將1萬美金 救助五歲以下的孩童,免受死亡威脅 光就這單一問題 一年就有900億 然而這從沒發生過 為什麼呢? 我認為部份原因是 海地地震,雖然災情慘重 但受災區集中,很容易估計 你可以捐錢給"無國界醫生" 你也可以捐給"健康伙伴" 他們會派醫療團隊,會運送很多建材木料 甚至派出直升機展開救援行動 但貧窮這問題完全不是這麼回事 首先,它可以說是無形的 再來,範圍廣大 第三,我們根本不知道我們所做所為是對的 目前沒有打擊貧窮的妙方 你不能用直升機把貧窮載走 多麼令人沮喪!
But look what we just did today. I gave you three simple answers to three questions: Give lentils to immunize people, provide free bed nets, deworm children. With immunization or bed nets, you can save a life for 300 dollars per life saved. With deworming, you can get an extra year of education for three dollars. So we cannot eradicate poverty just yet, but we can get started. And maybe we can get started small with things that we know are effective.
但看看我們所做的 也許給你們三個簡單的回答 送扁豆激勵接種疫苗的人 提供免費蚊帳,清除孩童體內的蛔蟲 無論是疫苗或蚊帳 300元就足以拯救一條寶貴的生命 藉由清除體內蛔蟲 3元就可以增加一年的額外教育 雖然還是無法擺脫貧窮 但至少我們開始了 也許只是一小步 但我們已掌握很多有效的方法
Here's an example of how this can be powerful. Deworming. Worms have a little bit of a problem grabbing the headlines. They are not beautiful and don't kill anybody. And yet, when the young global leader in Davos showed the numbers I gave you, they started Deworm the World. And thanks to Deworm the World, and the effort of many country governments and foundations, 20 million school-aged children got dewormed in 2009. So this evidence is powerful. It can prompt action.
一個例子告訴我們,這些方法可能產生很大的效果 清除蛔蟲 蟲子難登大雅之堂 很醜陋,但還不至於致人於死 然而,當"年輕的全球領導人"在瑞士達沃斯 告訴全世界這些數字時 "世界除蟲組織" 成立了 多虧了這個組織成立 也多虧了各國政府及基金會的努力 2009年有2仟萬名學齡孩童得到幫助 強而有力的證據 是可以引發具體的行動
So we should get started now. It's not going to be easy. It's a very slow process. You have to keep experimenting, and sometimes ideology has to be trumped by practicality. And sometimes what works somewhere doesn't work elsewhere. So it's a slow process, but there is no other way. These economics I'm proposing, it's like 20th century medicine. It's a slow, deliberative process of discovery. There is no miracle cure, but modern medicine is saving millions of lives every year, and we can do the same thing.
我們應該立即著手進行 這當然不容易 過程相當漫長 除了不斷的實驗,有時理想 很容易被現實打敗 有時這方法在這地方成功,換別的地方又不一定 很緩慢,很冗長 卻沒有更好的方法 我所提出的經濟學理論 就像20世紀的醫藥革命 得經過漫長,嚴謹的 實證發現 沒有神奇藥方 但現代醫藥 每年能拯救數百萬條生命 我們可以複製這成功經驗
And now, maybe, we can go back to the bigger question that I started with at the beginning. I cannot tell you whether the aid we have spent in the past has made a difference, but can we come back here in 30 years and say, "What we have done, it really prompted a change for the better." I believe we can and I hope we will.
現在,又回到這大問題 演講一開始我提出的問題 我還是沒辦法告訴你 過去這些援助究竟有沒有效果 但30年後 我們可以說"我們所做的, 真的讓未來變得更好" 我相信我們可以做到,我希望我們可以做到
Thank you.
謝謝大家
(Applause)
(掌聲)