 Thank you very much for coming to this session and to us it's just unbelievable. It's like a bliss that you so generously agreed to talk to our students for three hours. Is it a dream? Yes, three hours. That's right. And that would mean that it's to five plus five, five after five this afternoon. Thank you very much for your generous support for our program. Probably you have already seen the questions on the slide. Yes, about 48, I think. So, because the questions are limited and the students are limited. I wonder what's the best way for you to handle this session. Usually it's a democratic meaning that people should vote for each other's questions on a slider such that the question with the most number of likes will automatically float to the top. Whereas the latest questions will have a chance to be seen at the bottom of the screen. So, if you scan the QR code or manually go to slider.com slash nine one three, you will see the current 53 questions, but none of which have any votes. So, usually I ask the classmates to start voting. And before long, we will have the top few questions floated to the top so that we can have a conversation around the topics that I already know. There's maybe five, maybe 10 people already willing to get an answer from. Wonderful. So students, would you please start voting? Yes. And then let's give them right and vote for your own questions. You should do at least that. Okay, so start voting. And please keep the questions coming. I will always pay attention to this latest question slot. So if you have anything you would like to add to the conversation before I move on, please feel free to post it in the latest questions and in the case that I missed it. I'm sure that all of you have a microphone. So feel free to unmute yourself also and also just add to the conversation. Yes. Thank you very much. And probably as you've seen that most students wrote their names there, which means that you know who asked the question and the person may follow up your. Yeah, that's great. That's great. Yeah. Thank you. And currently, we have two questions tied for the 1st place with 3 votes each. Do you have a preference? Which one should we begin with? It's up to you. You choose whichever you like to answer first. Awesome. All right. So, without further ado, let's just dive to the questions if that's okay with you. Yes, please. And, and, and there's a tiebreaker now we have a clear tough one. I've been waiting for this. So, for people asked, and this question is from you. It's electric voting likely to be introduced in politics in the future. And you possibly have any vision about that in Taiwan. We already use internet for voting for budgets. We call it participatory budgeting or pay bay. And we also use quadratic voting to determine which SDG sustainable development goal to focus on each year through the presidential hackathon. And there's many jurisdictions such as the Taipei municipality that use the eye voting platform to collect petitions from the citizens and the national level also through the joint platform. We also have this electronic signature collecting now. The petitions participatory budgeting presidential hackathon and so on. These have 1 commonality is voting for issues voting for priority is not voting for representatives is not voting for a mayor, for example, or for a president. And with that, we're still using ballots made in paper. And the reason why is in Taiwan, the tallying process is a public festival. There's many people who took their phone, their camera and so on and participate in the counting process. They do not have to belong to any particular party. There could be a civic journalist, for example, but still the tallying process has maximum accountability because each time each vote is counted. There's 3, 5 many cameras in the audience filming everything so people believe the tallying process integrity a lot. And it's also very participatory is like a celebration of democracy. Now, imagine the same thing cast through the mayoral or the presidential ballot, but counted purely electronically. Well, there are still ways to verify that usually mathematical and cryptographic ways to verify that. But until such a day that each individual civic journalists feel that they understand the underlying cryptography. To verify it, people will feel it's a relative loss to a witnessing counting ceremony that they can participate. So, in Taiwan, we do introduce electronic voting, but only on the places where no existing paper ballot exists. So, for example, the referendum act, which of course gets people voting on national level issues. These are not voting for people. There's no risk of 1, uh, raked election getting exponential return because the voted in president or mayor will then install even more changes right to the election process. So, for a referendum, which although there was already a few national referendum still the number is few in Taiwan. So there's still a chance to change the counting norm, but for voting for president or the legislators, the norm is such that people would demand maximum accountability and transparency until such a day where we can include the same sort of participation in the counting process. I do not envision in the short term, our digital voting will replace such means that we may may make for example, the collection of signatures easier online. I hope that answers the question. Right. So, if there's any follow up, please just unmute yourself. Otherwise, I will move onward. So, 3 people along with Kotaro Tanaka. So, we'd like to know what should be the role of private digital platform providers such as Facebook or Twitter in preventing harmful disinformation. So, this is like asking what should be the role of private nightclub or dancing club owners in preventing harmful noise, right? Acoustic pollution. So, it has exactly the same structure. So, of course, it can be answered in 3 different ways. 1 is that the patrons, although of course there is a room of course for the nightlife for making sure entertainment is part of our lives. Still, the patrons, if they visit a place where it costs a lot of noise pollution to the nearby residential area, the patrons can choose which nightclub to go to, right? 1 would likely to go to some place that doesn't meet the protest of the local zoning council. That's the 1st 1. And on the 2nd case, the owner, the operator themselves can invest in, for example, soundproof construction so that even though it's very loud inside, it doesn't pollute the environment outside and so 1, of course, that's also worth investing. But finally, there also need to be a commonly accepted like minimum standard for pollution and anything that exceeds such a pollution level need. There need to be a independent audit and based on the independent audit, it could be fine. For example, by the community council or by the municipal government. Unlikely by the national government, I think in Taiwan, those fines for environmental pollution are mostly handled on the district or city or municipal level. But if it's very serious, if it has a global kind of harm, then of course the national government may at some time step in and say, yeah, simply don't do that. So I think the key here is not to say that they should shut down their business just for polluting the environment. There need to be viable alternatives that let all the patrons see it is actually possible to to have fun without causing pollution. And in Taiwan, there is such a community. What we call the counter this information self regulating body, there is a court and many different operators of social media platform signed on that record. But in addition to the usual suspects, I believe the 1st entity to sign is the PTT, which is sometime referred to as the Taiwanese equivalent of Reddit, except it's not. Not for profit. It's subsidized entirely by national Taiwan University for the past 25 years. It's open source. The code is open. The governing mechanism is entirely participatory. It doesn't have any advertisers nor shareholders. So, there's no perverse interest of pushing more harmful this information just to engage the clicks and the advertisement fees because the PTT doesn't thrive on this sort of things. And so they sign on the court first and contributed meaningfully to many innovative designs within that a court that allows people for example during the election to see that all the paid sponsored. Messages who does that come from it must only come from domestic sources. How many people did it touch and things like that and set a standard and then based on the standard. The social sector, the communities can then turn to Facebook to see, look, obviously it's possible to do so because PTT has done so with a fraction of your operation expense. And if the Facebook does not implement the same radical transparency proposal, for example, during the election on sponsor advertisements, then they will face social sanction. That is to say people will refuse to post advertisements. And which is why in 2019, Taiwan become the first jurisdiction in which that Facebook operated in such a way. And that's thanks to the social sectors pressure, not because we passed any national level laws. And if you look at the tobacco industry, the liquor industry, many other industries with externalities, you will see a very similar shape. Where the social sector took the lead, established the norm and the public sector simply amplifies this need for a norm from a few conscience practitioners, social entrepreneurs that prove that it is actually possible to take care of the purpose while perhaps earning a profit. I hope that answers the question. So, any follow ups, if not, I'll just move on. So, for people would like to know from you, Suki Kumaki song, what it is like to be a minister at that young age. I'm 40 now. I'm not exactly young and middle aged. But is there any at anything advantages and disadvantages about being young in a government? Well, this is a great question. I do think myself as middle aged as in connecting the younger generation and the more senior generation often call myself a digital migrant, a digital immigrants, meaning that I'm not born with the Internet. I'm born with papers and pencils and so on. So, until I was 12, did I discover the Internet and immigrated into the Internet. So, I'm not a digital native, but that means that I have the vocabulary of the senior generation. I have because I'm a young immigrant have a near native grasp of the Internet culture, which is over innovation and so on. So, I believe intergenerational solidarity is the key and it's not particularly about me being especially young. It's just that I can speak the language of both generations. That's probably the advantage. Now that this advantage of being young in the government is that Taiwan, just like Japan, or other is Asian jurisdictions, Korea comes to mind. We very much respects seniority. So, if on the same end of on the same issue, there's a valid point to be raised. A younger person will almost by default, not raise it if the senior person already have a take on it and is feeling, you know, very good about it. It's very unlikely that a junior person will come up and say, I think you're all wrong. But that is part of the many of the Western democracies, they thrive on it. So, how do we make sure that the younger people have a equivalent voice to unmute themselves, so to speak, during this multi-stakeholder conversations? Well, by giving them positions in Japan as well as in Taiwan, we do respect the socially approved official ranks even more than the seniority. So, if someone has the title of the digital minister, or in our cabinet level, use advisory council, they have this mark of being a Qing Nian Zhixun Wei Yuan, a youth advisor, a cabinet advisor. Now, if they are a cabinet advisor, then even if they're just 19 years old or 21 years old, people listen to them because people respect this position more so than people defer to seniority. So, my main suggestion is that to invent titles to your reverse mentors, to your young participants in your high level decision making process, if there's no existing titles, you can invent one like chief innovation officer or something. And then people will feel that, oh, there are our peer and we should speak on a peer to peer fashion, not a senior to junior fashion. I hope that answered the question. Why people would like to know, along with that, that's you. Yes, would you like to, would you like to expand your questions, maybe. Yes, your famous tactics of humor over room work during the second wave. Because we really saw people were panic and the empty shops getting the sense of humor. So, yes. The second wave. Are you referring to may this year. Yes. Right. So, it's really Taiwan's first real wave. Right. Because previously, we did have panic buying and we did have runs for tissue papers and so on. But but the virus didn't really can. It's a wave of panic that if you refer to that as a first wave, but it's not a wave of virus. Now, the humor over rumor is just one tactic within the larger framework of fast fear and fun. And humor over rumor, of course, is an example of fun, like making sure that people can contribute while getting instant gratification, but humor is not the only way to gain instant gratification. In May, just 3 days after we announced national alert level 3. That's to say that for real. Right. For real the first wave, just 3 days afterward we introduced the 192 to SMS contact tracing system. Previously, people have to write their names, their contact numbers on the piece of paper before going into public venues. But now, if you're using an iPhone, you don't even have to unlock the phone. You just swipe left into the camera, scan the QR code and hit send. And that's it. So that's like 2 seconds of work. And soon there's many dedicated QR code scanners like the Bluetooth enable Taiwan social distance app. It's like the cocoa from Japan that's also introduced within May. So, although they're not strictly speaking humor. They are fun. They are there. There's a certain gratification to complete a complex checking method with just 2 seconds and no fees paid. The fee is absorbed by the government, but it's just 0.013 anti dollars. So a very low price to pay for, for each check in from the taxpayers. So, with that into a habit, we did not need to dictate contact tracing fill in forms in any form either QR or paper as a top down national dictate. And indeed, we originally introduced when I do the SMS only to track the high speed rails and the Taiwan rails and other public transportation system, including the taxis. It's the 2 million and counting individual small vendors and venues and their friends just voluntarily printing out those QR code. So, there's a certain humor in it because initially we just designed with a QR code with a CDC the center for disease control logo in the middle. But I remember many individuals made those 3rd party QR code printers that have cute cats on the on that side or cute dogs. Some cute animals and also a lot like don't panic vocabulary around the character and so on. So people can just enter their serial number. They're randomly generated number and get a very cutely printed. I believe the convenience stores family port and 711 also joined before the end of May so that you can just a with a single click from your phone. Transfer into a QR code printed from the kiosk eyeball machines and the family poor machines in the convenience store and that's also a lot of fun. So, I do believe humor over rumor generally works, but for this time for the contact tracing. It's not a single poster, but rather a participatory action that people find gratifying and before long. We shortened the contact tracing from previously requiring almost 24 hours to trace the 28 days contact history. Nowadays, it's real time like within a couple of seconds. A contact tracer can call out that entire contact tracing checking system history. Of course, I was full accountability and audit. Thank you very much. All right, so let's move on. So, 7 people would like to know. Actually, there is a follow up. Let's tackle the follow up. So, obviously, the check in system, the 192 to SMS system requires a lot of trust to manage private information because it's essentially your, your entire whereabouts right to visit and each and every venue. So, is this a positive trait? It should, should they be encouraged even with regime change in the future. So, I need to first explain that the government does not receive the checking messages. The entire point of a contact tracing system is you can choose to place the check in at a place that you already trust the most. So, if you trust a venue instead of your telecom, you can, I don't know, hand them a name card and that counts as a check in or write your contact number. Or if you trust the telecom of your phone more than you trust the government, then you can actually check in to the telecom by sending to the 192 to SMS. That's the default and it's placed in the telecom, not any city government. If the government wants to use that information, you can look up on the SMS that 192 to website. In order contact tracing costs from the each municipalities, health and welfare departments, and you can see exactly how many such costs are there to get your checking information. So it's accountable both ways. Now, if you don't trust the telecom and you don't trust the venue, you can also trust the type of municipality. There is an app called type of pass. If you install type of pass and scan the QR code with type of tone with type of pass, then the private info goes to the type of city, not to telecom or the venue. So by decentralizing in a poly centered way, the storage, we ensure that no single party have the complete picture and indeed cannot piece together your movement in history without a authorized call from the contact tracing. The professional contact tracer and the judicial system keeps us in check as well as the public hearings called by the legislative. So, as long as the other two branches in the government are functioning properly, I don't fear a regime change because this multi party design ensure people do not misplace their trust and store their data to someone that they do not already trust more than the other parties. Now, the legislative, of course, are now looking at the center, the communicable disease act, the CDA, and maybe after the new normal become like in this capability, new normal. We will find the legislative time to put the entire when I do the SMS and everything into the CDA making sure that there is a legislative oversight written in the law. But at the moment, the judicial oversight is working pretty well. There was a judge that act as a whistleblower and posted on the public media saying there is a police that through wiretapping law. You know, look at the SMS as people, some people did, I think also in Korea and Singapore, but instead of discarding that information, the police actually went to those thoughts and to piece together the movement of this suspected criminal. This is obviously outside the intended use of the SMS code. So, as soon as I learned about this, we convened in the CCC and the Ministry of Justice simply ruled the ruling is public now that this is not communication because when you're checking in, there's no other person to communicate with you. This is just data storage data storage is not communication and therefore should not be wiretapped. And so by essentially limiting the administrative power, we are now at a pretty good place of balance where if there's anything called as out of norm by the legislative or the judicial within a week or simply issue an interpretation and say, no, it's not the intended useless not do that. And then eventually all these will hopefully be written into the communicable disease act just as how the CDA was revised substantially after sauce in 2003. This time will also updated for such 2.0 so that even with the regime change people are not coerced into storing private data in any place that they are not already comfortable with and that already existed before the pandemic. All right. So, let's go back to this. 7 people and Kotaro Tanaka, son would like to know how would you involve people who are not tech survey into open innovation. Well, by simply going to them and asking what would they do in my place. So, I think some of you know that I call my grandma every other week and visit her every other week. So, like weekly every Sunday. And she's almost 90 years old now and she has a lot to say to all the innovations that that we're making. For example, back last year when we're doing mass rationing. I had this wonderful idea or so I thought that instead of queuing in the pharmacies to buy some masks. I would rather the elderly use their debit cards in the ATM in the convenience store. So, just insert a debit card and wire, like 52 and the dollars into the CDC account. And with this print out, they can collect the preregistered mask at a counter of the convenience store. I thought is a great idea. However, we always run focus group tests and my grandma, because she didn't queue for the mask herself. She had a lot stockpile before the pandemic, but she noticed someone who actually goes to pharmacy every week and complain loudly about her younger friend, grandma young and her younger friend, because grandma young is 77 years old, not exactly young from my point of view, but certainly young from my grandma's point of view. So her younger friend walked with me and walk together to the family board and try out this entire way of preordering mask and she said, there's no chance to use that. And I'm like, why this is obviously more convenient. And she's like, well, do you see the, the anti fraud 165 stickers on the ATM. If I type my password wrong, then I will wire my entire saving out and I would not have the way to recover from that or what if the people queuing after me. Memorize my password and, you know, defraud me and things like that. So, so she's very afraid of operating the ATM ATM is a place associated with scam. So she's like, if you force me to use the ATM, I will just go back to the pharmacy and queue and complain about the government. Okay, so we change it completely so that she can enact that exactly the same process as they she would in the pharmacy. That is to say, go to a convenience store, use their health card, not the debit card. No password required. Take the print out, but because the has cut health card has no way to pay. So she would go to the counter and count 52 in coins to pay for the counter. And she feels very safe because then there's no way that anyone can scam her out of any money. She counted that in her pocket. Right. So, of course, she can still choose to use electronic payment, but she trust the coin. So we should not force her to use electronic payment. That was the lesson. So, the point here is that if you make it swifter faster from majority of people, but a minority of people, senior people, people with different abilities feels less safe. Then if you force them to use this new design and absolutely the design, then they will be very vocal and their vocal backlash will make everybody else also trust less about the system. And so the digital innovation would not work. Rather, we need to, before rolling it out, just listen to all the sides, taking in all the sides and make sure that all their feedback are promptly acted upon. So, I thank grandma young profusely. I think she made the news with the picture of me filming her operating the chaos machine and low and behold, we got her on board and she helped convincing her younger friends. 66 years old perhaps to adopt this new kiosk based but not debit card based mask pre-ordering system. So just just go to the senior people ask them to participate. And they actually have a lot of wisdom and can help you to convince many of their friends and neighbors. They are key opinion leaders usually in their communities. All right. So, the next one also from Professor Guo, would you like to to expand on that the maintaining this policy? Yes. You know, I record the sunflower movement, which was triggered by the hasty process of trying to pass it to the legislative Yuan. So, definitely there was something not transparent at all. So, you amazingly put this your policy as a radical transparency. And, but because of the current party, which is DPP, right. So I wonder whether you have done something to make sure this is a legacy will continue. But this is transparency will be embedded in the politics of the US government. Yes, this is an excellent political question. Now, in Taiwan, we pride ourselves as valuing human rights. Right. And we have imbued in our domestic legislative the universal accord the universal treaty, even though we're not yet a UN member. But we did make a locally binding domestic law to reflect on the key human right related accords and treaties in the UN system. Now, the regime that did that was the my angel regime. Right. It was not the DPP regime that legislated this, but because this has wide support. So, either DPP or nowadays the Taiwan people's party or the new power party and so on. They need to compete on being even more conscious of human rights than the other parties, rather than going backward because going backward is unimaginable. It's a international treaty and Taiwan, even though it's not a party to the treaty, we have already legislated it. If any presidential candidate say, oh, my platform is just to repeal the human right accord. I'm sure that there will stand no chance of getting elected as the president. So we're already at that point now. The same could be said for the seed all right the elimination of discrimination against women in all the different regards again the gender mainstreaming, which may some people say, oh, it was promoted by a net. Which may be the case indeed in her vice president ship. But again, president or president only continued on the gender mainstreaming. They could not go back on gender mainstreaming again. That's another very similar. Take so for radical transparency for participation and accountability. Taiwan has already published, not just in the administration, but also in the legislative that open governments national action plan. So, if you search for OG and AP or open government national action plan, you will find not just 1, but 2 national action plans 1 from the administration 1 from the legislation. And especially the open parliament pot. It was done with the consultation and co-creation with the civil society and with all the 4 different parties for major parties in the legislature. And I believe led by a nonpartisan member of the parliament, Freddie Lim. Because of that, we can't very safely say for this time, obviously we'll make more contributions to radical transparency, but whomever winning the next legislative election, which party must because that they double down on the open government national action plan. And not going back and eat their words as we say here, it's not possible. So I'm very optimistic about not just maintaining, but furthering this policy. And I look forward actually the head of the parliament. You see Quinn, I believe, did say that he welcomes healthy rotation as long as the next ruling party doubles down on those core principles. Thank you very much for telling us about this because now all our students are more optimistic. What do we heard the several days ago? Okay, thank you. I'm very optimistic myself because I work with the cabinet starting end of 2014. At a time when Mojibo was the premier and Johnson was the vice premier, and they're also remarkably nonpartisan in the open data open government work that they do. Well, I believe Simon John didn't really join the KMT and to his vice president bid, but maybe he's still nonpartisan now right so I believe this is a unique thing in the Taiwanese system in that in the cabinet, people like me the horizontal ministers and even the ministers of ministries. Most of us are nonpartisan. I think there's more nonpartisan members of the cabinets than members of any party. So the independent is actually the largest party in the cabinet and certainly on the ministry at large level. I think only two ministers at large out of nine belongs to political parties. And so that means that we are in a remarkably continuous fashion when we want to push such democratic innovations and international alliances because the open government partnership is the international organization. Right. So, all these are continuous. For example, our current ministry at large for foreign trade trade negotiation. John was the minister of economic affairs in the my angel cabinet. So at this level, this is a remarkably lower level of partisanship as compared to either our legislative Yuan or other parliaments in other countries. Great to know that. Thank you. So the next one. Yeah, please. Again, sorry. Who voted. It's fine. It's fine. You're popular. Thank you. So it's about future leaders, right? What kind of qualities are most important for being a leader like me. I think of leadership as ensuring that there is a space for innovation that is swift and safe. And that means that just like when I visited Germany for a year when I was 11 years old. My, my mom used to drive and take us places and the three way system in Germany is called autobahn and defining characteristic is that the safer you are. It means that you need to drive faster and the faster you drive ensure you're actually safer. And this sounds quite paradoxical to an 11 year old. But my mom explained that the cars were built for this the signs were built for this very strict training to obtain driver license can contribute to this. So you have all the rules and norms and habits of drivers aligned in such a way that maximizes people's alignment. Then this hardware this infrastructure almost magically ensures that there's no speed limit and you're still safer even without the speed limit. And I believe for leaders, it is paramount that we can foster a swift innovation, but instead of saying moving fast and break things. Well, Zuckerberg used to say that, but he doesn't say that anymore right instead of moving fast and break things. We need to move fast and repair things and fix things and make things safe. So that's the safety is a result of a fast cycle of iterative function. It's not just because we delay ourselves or we pass the health inspections safety inspections and things like that. We need to build in within our innovation cycle, a real time feedback so that people like grandma young or like the pharmacist or people like that. They understand if they point out a flaw in the system, a bias in the data and so on and suggest a better way to do it. Well, within the next week, we will change very quickly and do simply that. And once you build in such a sweet feedback system, you will actually roll out things that are less risky for everyone involved and maintaining this will make the alignment issue like making sure people all want this or at least can live with this much easier. And once that is reached, then people maybe don't call you a leader anymore people will think, what's the right thing, right? Naturally, it is the way to do things. And I believe that is one of the pinnacle of leadership because you can then dedicate your time in a much more creative ways instead of babysitting people. Great. Thank you. Alright, so 5 people would like to know, why did I decide to work in the government? Well, it's fun. I'm working in the government for fun. And I kind of invited myself in right by occupying the parliament in 2014. So, like strictly speaking, pedantically speaking, that's working in the parliament, but it's occupied. So, the point here I want to make is that it's not that the government is my only identification. I work with the government, certainly not for the government. So, in the government, my position is that of a Lagrange point, the point between say the moon and the earth where there's equal gravitational pull. So, you don't end up orbiting the movements on one side on the society, but neither the government on the other side, but rather the communication satellite usually are at that place because it can relay the messages. I use highest fidelity without being captured into any particular worldview in that gravitational field. So, I use that metaphor to say that I'm working with the government, but also working with the people, not for the people. We're also working with the international open innovation open source community. I'm indeed taking seven different part time jobs in international NGOs and social innovation organizations while being the digital ministry in Taiwan. That means that my main contribution is not any top down innovation from from myself, but rather I'm connecting innovations from abroad to Taiwan. For example, the quadratic voting did not originate in Taiwan originated in Ethereum. Ethereum is like this virtual country where they are trying out new democratic and governance technologies and once they figure something out, we can because I'm part of radical exchange movement. Take that and then talk to the president saying, hey, let's use this new voting method that was just invented in Ethereum, which we now also use for the presidential culture award and things like that. So I believe this is a really open way to think about my work because then if it works in Taiwan, that's great. It works as a lab as an example. If it doesn't work in Taiwan, then we don't hide it. We publish what didn't work in Taiwan and what did like in open access preprint journals and then people who stumble upon those papers and processes just do their own innovation without having to sign any treaty or to sign any MOUs with Taiwan. So that's my preferred way of working. So, let's move on then. Five people who would like to know, have you faced any difficulties in implementing your ideas? Not my idea. The community's ideas while working with other government officials during the pandemic period. And how do you resolve them? This is a great question. No. One of the most important characteristics of open innovation is it's everyone's business with everyone's help. And with everyone's help necessarily means that different people assigned different priorities, depending on their position. So, obviously, for example, the ministry of economy will prioritize some things, whereas the agency for environmental protection will prioritize something else. This is their nature. And for example, during the pandemic, I talked about the pharmacy, the killing to buy mask in the pharmacies. Now, the pharmacist association and the food and drug administration within the ministry of health and welfare innovated so that when you're killing, they will hand you those numbers. Take a number system. So just store your health card in the pharmacy in the morning and in the afternoon after they process the health card during the lunchtime lunch break. You go back to the pharmacy and collect the mask. Now that is innovation and it's genuinely improving the work quality of the pharmacies because then they still have some time to actually do their original business of drug dispensing. Now, some other innovators from zero said, no, we should visualize the remaining mask on each pharmacy in the real time mob. So once people use their phone or a chatbot, they can just go to the place where is still have some in stock. Now, this also provably save time even before they get endorsed on the national level. But these two innovations together and each have their internal champions in the government. The government clashed like Coca Cola with Mentos, right? They literally exploded because if you hand out numbers in exchange for the health cards during the morning and process them during the lunchtime, then from the mask maps point of view, this pharmacy did not sell any mask until noon. So the entire morning people will look at the mop and just go and visit the pharmacy thinking is to have plenty in stock and the pharmacists have to keep explaining. No, we're already running out. It's just not reflected on the mop so much so that there's a nearby pharmacy near my residence with a very large banner of a for printed paper that said don't trust the app. Explanation mark is his own a for paper. So really shouting. And so, instead of getting discouraged, my way of resolving it is always the same. I just walk into the pharmacy apologized. I think I bought something. But anyway, just to drink just to, you know, make sure that I come across as friendly and then the pharmacist say, yeah, this sucks. He said, but let me figure out how to improve it because you asked so nicely, right? I literally ask if you are the digital minister, what would you do because I don't know how to resolve this and then the next time I visit just after a day. So what this a for paper is gone. And he's like, oh, we figure out something. Look, you didn't check the sign of the number. So we can always, by the time that we handle the last number card, we can just say, oh, we received negative 1000 piece of mask from the CDC. And it will create a negative inventory. And the mop doesn't know how to handle negative inventory. So they will just disappear from the mop problem solved. And they're like, well, it's a hack. I know, but don't let the ministry and our commander know about it because otherwise our life will become difficult again. Well, anyway, so after listening to them and understanding this hack of the system. To the national health insurance administration and say, let's just make a button so that anytime when anyone runs out of the clouds to sign, they just click that button and disappear from the map. No hacking required. And they implement that in a week or so. So I go into this detail because there's literally no way for me to figure out a solution because I'm not a pharmacist. I am not working in the front line. If we don't empower the people closest to the pain. There's literally no way to get them out of the pain because we cannot really describe in this detail. And by simply visiting apologizing buying some health drinks and then saying, yeah, I don't know what to do. Let me know what to do. Well, it engage the entire community. They actually have a association. The association for young pharmacists and they just brainstorm. I guess the entire night and figure out something that actually works. So engage the collective intelligence. Don't presume instead of just ask and then amplify the better ideas. Great. Awesome. So, let's move on then. So, for people would like to know, you key mature us question. Nationwide vaccination program is ongoing, both in Taiwan and in Japan. Yes. How can technology help speed up the process. And do you have any idea. In Taiwan, we're facing a particularly interesting configuration where when I got my 1st job AstraZeneca in April 21st. Nobody in my family want to get vaccinated. So, I had to actually ask my executive secretary saying, hey, we're going abroad later this year. Shouldn't you get vaccinated? I just got vaccinated. And he's like, yeah, maybe later. So, so at that time, we have some AstraZeneca shots, but we had to say anyone who wants to get a shot can get a shot and we arrange some travel clinics and so on. And we need to really convince people because otherwise nobody want to get a job and they could expire actually at the time in April. Now, of course, it's a world of difference right from the May and June's vantage point. It's almost unbelievable that back in April. Anyone in Taiwan would say, oh, maybe later, but that was was the fact. And the same association actually sometime persisted. So, by May, even though people really want to get vaccinated. Some people say, yeah, I refused like, like retro rationalization. I refuse in April because there was AstraZeneca. If this is BNT or Moderna, I would like to get vaccinated but not at all AstraZeneca. A lot of people were saying that back in May. So, unlike many other jurisdictions where people have no choice in getting the particular brand or type of vaccines at the moment in Taiwan, anyone can choose multiple choice. Of course, you can check all of it. It can choose whether you prefer the local Medogen or BNT or AstraZeneca or Moderna or some other maybe Novavax or something that's Taiwan receives from Colax. So, the point here is that because there's widely different willingness to vaccine. If we simply say, okay, if we receive a batch of vaccine, we open up a vaccination spot. We do not know how many people will show up. If it's AstraZeneca sometimes back in late May, early June. There's some municipality that set up everything and then I think less than one half of the expected people show up. On the other hand, if they set up to offer something that's very popular like the Moderna vaccine, well, sometimes people in nearby counties all come and visit and they could not serve all the people and that also lead to complaints. So, there really is no way out and I believe there are some people that said, oh, you should just offer them a lottery or things like that. I believe some region in Japan actually did try that. Main Taiwan people do not like queuing outdoors. So, any lottery that involves queuing outdoors is a is a non-starter. So, it's within this constraint. We devised a system where people very simply just registered their willingness and then we just invite exactly the same amount of people from that type of vaccine according to how many vaccines we receive that particular week. And that solves all the problems of logistics because well for AstraZeneca very quickly, people 38 years old, 27 years old and now 18 years old can receive AstraZeneca because Moderna is very popular and we didn't quite receive enough. So, we're still at, I think around 65 years old or 50 years old with different health conditions for Moderna and in Medigen, well, you can just walk in and get Medigen anytime you want and so on. And BNT is for the young people and people who are above 65 years old because for the younger people, BNT is the only vaccine that they can use and so on. So, what I'm trying to say is that we devise instead of a single unified platform for all types, we have a different schedule for each different type and together ensure that as soon as we receive something a week, we can actually vaccinate that to people who will not give up on us, right? Who will not do a no show? People will show up and indeed people did. So that's how we very quickly get to the vaccine coverage that we have now and we're currently only bounded by the influx of incoming vaccines, but it looks like the BNT is now being a more steady supply at this particular moment. So, this willingness matching system, I believe play a large part in getting people feel less anxious about when exactly would they get a vaccine and that's if you're interested in the design and so on. You can check out digitalminister.tw. That's my website. And there's a couple blocks that talks into more details of the design of the system. Right now we're at a 1 hour mark. Right. So, is there anyone who want to raise a hand and ask a question via voice? If not, I propose that maybe we take a 5 minute break. And, and afterward, we'll be back and we'll still resume in Slido. But if you have anything you'd like to raise a hand that 5 minutes is a great opportunity for you to think about. So, what would you ask? Is that okay with you? Sure, that'd be great. Actually, let's take a 10 minute break. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. And so students, let's come back to 10 past 3. Yes, here. Okay, awesome. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for coming back. Yes, please. Let's continue. Is it okay? Yeah, anyone want to raise a hand or any questions before we dive to Slido? Can I ask you raise a question? Of course. Thank you. So I was really moved by your statement about the need to empower the people to fix bugs in the system or society. And I think the empowerment of the people is the concept that is lacking in Japanese people in that many Japanese people rely on the government to fix everything for them and that is maybe justified by the election system. So my question is, if the government doesn't provide you the platform to empower you, then who else can provide the opportunity for the people to be equally empowered? So let me clarify the question a little bit. Do you mean that the government sees the need, but currently do not provide such a platform for new ideas to be understood by the society? And you're asking how to essentially be a shadow government, right? Do what the government should do in the first place? Is that a question? Yes, that's partly true. And I think that Japanese government tried to involve the people who they need within government. So they don't really try to empower their government. They just try to trust. I see. I see. Okay. So, I believe for things that are obviously the government's job. I'm thinking about ensuring there's electricity. There's communication. There's basic education. There's health coverage. These are kind of natural things that people would expect a government to provide. And if you start to provide similar things by yourself in the civil society, you will gain legitimacy just as the government would do. Basically, anywhere that the government isn't doing well, I'm thinking in Taiwan, we had a really large earthquake, the September 21 earthquake. Now, the earthquake of course necessitates a lot of rebuilt process to build back better. But at the time, most of the actual local need is supplied by either the Buddhist, usually, but also other Buddhist practicing charities or churches that are active, especially in indigenous areas of the protestant ideas and so on. So, so these are religions, right? These are network organizers based on specific set of values. And they're certainly not governments. But because they're participating in the post earthquake building back, but first of all, is that this idea of social sector start to solidify in Taiwan. Previously, those adherents of different religions. Don't talk to each other that much, but because they need to work on such a large disaster recovery project, they have to work very closely together on the working level. And second, still to this day, if we have a large earthquake in eastern Taiwan, which we often do. If the local government publish a number of affected people and she published the number from their Buddhist system, people usually trust the second. They don't trust the first number as much as they do to see and even this round for the counter pandemic. One third of the BNT that came from Germany were purchased by the charity. So, they're already government like in legitimacy. So, I get to this detail because we really need to look at such opportunities where governments are at a legitimacy crisis. And if they do not feel that role, then of course people would nevertheless do do anything everything to to get the situation better. But if you step in then as a organizer as a social innovator and say, okay, let's make it a permanent structure. Let's prepare ourselves. It's like the oldest idea of a credit union right formed by the local people. Then that made a stable organization or that is such an innovation will take root into the local culture. And then before long, you will be able to participate in the municipality because the municipality cannot ignore you. And then you will have a real chance becoming part of the political expectation that other cities people say, hey, I want this too, right? Well, this model obviously works and sometime for the more technical or digital like swift and safe innovations. This is almost immediate. Like I think of the tune vaccination in Taiwan and a lot of city because it's elderly people. They all use the so-called Umi method from you may think it's a place in Japan and we all look at a television reporting where the elders don't move at all. And it's in this kind of moving chair that's the doctor and the nurse follow to each elderly people and vaccinate them in in very quick succession. So, if it's 1 simple innovations like that chances are it will even get international welcome and then become kind of just people would expect the normal thing to do. It will become the new normal and then after that the government really cannot ignore you. They must join you. So, a lot of innovations in gov zero started by career public service usually middle level section chief level going into the gov zero proposing something that works better than their status quo. But still don't immensely not with their original name. And once the solution gets domestic media coverage, then they will get assigned to do whatever that the civil society is already doing. But actually, it's probably proposed by the same person. So, so basically, if you can get some connection to section chief level in the public service. You can also ask them what are your innovations that you never get the political will and budget to realize. Let, let me help you to try out from the academia or from the local community. And before long, if it gets domestic or international coverage that will become their KPI for the next year and then you've successfully hacked the system. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any other questions that people would like to raise. Before we go into slide. Yes, yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Okay. Thank you so much for your talk. And yeah, I was so impressed of your. All words. And I saw your interview and you said that you realize the importance of diversity of different opinions through your educational experiences. And my question is, you know, how can digital technology or AI help us, you know, feel closer feel truly closer. To people from different backgrounds or, you know, totally different opinions and help us more open minded to the different perspectives. So, maybe I believe, you know, face to face communication at school or, you know, many educational environments of life. Time is very important, but I'm very interested in how. I can contribute to that. Realization of the importance of age importance of diversity. Yeah, that's a excellent question. I do believe co presence, that is to say, getting the experience together in the same virtual or real place is is really the only way to build empathy to put put ourselves in other people's shoes, which is what I have to, you know, go to the pharmacy. I have to go in line in the kiosk or in the convenience store with the grandma young and so on, because without such firsthand experience. They can of course, right up whatever they want to petition, but I would not be able to understand what that is that they're petitioning. So, there really is no alternative to experience things together. No. The 5g network and soon beyond 5g liberates us from the offices. I'm looking at, like, probably all of you are in a room of some sort. Of course, it looks beautiful with trees outside and so on, but still we're confined in a room because well for this generation of high speed video conferencing people are in the habit of relying on fiber optic connection on wifi and things like that. But truth to be told, in many places in Taiwan, 5g works as good in the low latency mode as fiber optic. I had people who kind of piggyback on me as I drive from Taipei to Yilan or to some other place and I have this real time conversation with them and there's almost no latency. And once we're freed from the rooms that we are in, we can actually get the glimpse, especially if we have 360 cameras and so on. We get into the kind of first person feeling of the people in that particular place. And sometimes there is really no other viable alternative because if it's deep sea diving or if it's climbing on very high mountains and so on. The cost is prohibitive for any particular ordinary citizens to join but it is very easy compared to actually going there to get the full virtual reality gear is actually much cheaper. Than the actual visit. So, for issues like that where local domain knowledge is needed sometime before we hold a collaboration meeting. We will just have 5 minutes, 10 minutes of a experience session. It may take place through kind of immersive projections, or we actually hand VR glasses to the participants and so on. For example, when we want to talk about climate change, I was in Paris, I think 2015, 16 ish. And then we actually use the gear VR, which was first rolled out to look at the atmosphere from the international space station and then all the, you know, jurisdictional boundaries are gone and you can actually see and feel the earth as a whole, obtaining this observer overview effect. And then this didn't really take long. I think it's just 3 minutes, 5 minutes of kind of impressing the earth on our minds. And then we start having a conversation but we became much better people. We think of global issues, having the earth as a object in our mind, instead of as something abstract. So, I bring this up because I do believe that co presence is what shared reality virtual reality augmented reality techniques are pointing us at if we're trapped in our solo virtual realities, then it is actually a net negative to the kind of empathy building and pro social communication. It probably will hurt democracy if we're all in our own realities. But if we commit ourselves as I do to only visit shared realities, then that helps to build empathy more than the 2 dimensional conversations we're having now. So, I think the technology is the same, but whether to use as a solo virtual thing, or as a co presence shared thing that's up to each designer and each policy maker. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is a really good question. Other questions. So, if not, I will just open Slido again. All right. Yes, please. Right. For people would like to know. Should quote, digital literacy, unquote, be mandated for internet users, just like drivers needing to acquire driver's license. So that you don't hurt people, right? That is that that's the basic idea. So, yes and no, I do think that there need to be digital literacy in basic education and lifelong education, of course. But I don't think that's that's enough though. I believe in competence, not particularly literacy. I believe literacy is just a stage toward competence. Literacy is the ability to comprehend and to appreciate and make criticisms and things like that. But competence is the ability to produce to co produce to make basically a makers education because the internet is not just a fixed thing. When people think about using the internet, they're actually using particular applications, particular protocols on the internet, but internet is vast. There is always new protocols to be discovered. Right. There was the, the Napster protocol that led to the BitTorrent protocol that led to in some way to the Bitcoin protocol that led to the Ethereum protocol and so on. And it's not something that people who only learned about literacy in the 90s could actually be comfortable joining. So the only way to be comfortable when so much new emergent protocol applications are being invented is just to be a co inventor to to make data yourself to contribute to the global climate sensing yourself to contribute to fact checking yourself to contribute to all those meaning making activities and only then can you say, oh, I'm using the internet for this particular purpose, but internet is not the end in itself. I'm not just using the internet to see the difference. I may say I engage in activism. I have experience in activism for human rights, but I don't say I'm a professional activist. This actually means nothing. Right. If you say I'm a professional activist and a fair question is for what. And so the same thing is need to be asked for the internet. Okay, I'm a very literate internet user for what what is that that you want to connect through to the internet. So, I do believe that literacy is important. I also believe within the same education curriculum, especially in basic education, as soon as somebody become literate, we need to put that somebody into a place where they can make actual contributions. It may be small, just fixing typos on Wikipedia, just mapping their neighborhood of open street map. There's a thousand different things to do, but then they realize internet and the digital realm is there to connect people. It's not just to connect person to machine. It's not there just to connect machine to machine. It's not a tool that you just master the tool rather it is a place where new ideas and values and interest are being connected together. That's worldview that competence worldview is part of the education, then I'm all for the literacy education that's part of it. I read in the digital agency, Japan's announcement press conference. The idea of digital competence, which is a lot of syllables is now being shortened to just digital. Right. So, just like Bushido is a way to be kind and contribute to the society through practicing the martial art, which makes someone more, I guess, a better person, a more consensus person. Well, the digital is like a practice of Bushido and that helps the people lives no one behind and contribute in making the common sense together to what this digitally empower society and so on. The thing is, it's a beautiful take to do talk about digital with me in our monthly video conference, even before it got announced in the digital ministry. Then I think it's a good social innovation that I will also use in my future communications like it's not just literacy is the digital need to get into the doll of the digital. Alright, so for people would like to know how should the government guarantee the technology they use to not violate people's privacy. For example, a national ID card and national ID number abstracting people surveillance cameras. There's guarantee as in mathematical currency and there's guarantee as in. There's no use valence that is to say accountability by the people themselves. The first one, the mathematical kind is a necessity. If the designer do not know the mathematical property, then they can make all sort of mistakes and that accidentally not out of my life just out of negligence to to infringe on people's privacy. The design new systems, the cutting edge privacy enhancing technologies such as homomorphic encryption for the security side differential privacy for the client side of sharing the minimal data without identifying the person. Secure multiparty computation as what we did in the 192 to SMS where no single party hold the entire privacy trail as well as many other new mathematical constructs that are currently being explores zero knowledge proofs and many others. These are like the building materials that are fireproof. And if you are architect to build a common building, you need to first understand what are the fireproof materials out there so that you do not subject the citizens down the line to a fire disaster. But this is just a bare minimum. This is by far not enough. Because even if you know that this is safe. This is private things like that the people who use this doesn't necessarily have the same level of mathematical knowledge and they don't necessarily have the same trust as we probably have on the individual vendors and libraries and so on all the components that assemble together to make such a system possible. So, we usually from the citizen's perspective, build this mutual accountability mechanism such that if they are interested or curious about any particular components is either open source, like if people are afraid that the Bluetooth. Cocoa like application in Taiwan, the Taiwan social distancing applications. If they're afraid that the Bluetooth signal will go somewhere else other than what's prescribed by the mathematical model of exposure and notification. Then actually, there is a community. You can go to join that GZ or VW go to the contact tracing channel and whether you want to inspect the iOS or the Android or the code. Whatever code for the Bluetooth. You can just ask real time question there and I think all the 3 leading developers are there. Maybe not 24, 7, but certainly during business hours and then you can engage them in a real conversation. This is opposed to just posting the source code online and say, okay, we've done our job. And if you don't believe the math will do the math. Right. That is doing the first part of transparency, but it's not really accountable unless there's someone giving an account. So, building such a real time forum where people can find the designers and architects and demand and account that is also very important is equally important. And in addition to that, when people want to remix the system to use it for the purpose outside of its original design, for example, I believe Cocoa is just for Bluetooth. But for the Taiwan social distancing up people wanted to also be a QR code scanner to the 192 to SMS. Now, that particular implementation needs architects from both sides feeling comfortable about it and doing this conversation in the open. And then people can inspect what technical tradeoffs are being done. They can inspect the QR code scanner part and so on. And people who do not have the technical capability can simply find any of your friends that has a GitHub account and point to that particular poor request and ask them what's going on here. And that inspires people to try it out themselves. And if they find out something that must be wrong, well, they can tag me on Twitter or they can join us like channel and get the full account again from their new perspective on a potential new application of the underlying this technology. So it's a continuous process. We can't just say, oh, if you use it as the designers originally intended, it would not harm your privacy. We need to say, if you use it in a way that's outside of the developers and designers imagination, here is the place where you can visit to make sure that we do not then compromise these new user and citizens privacy. And that's active part is of course very time consuming, but I believe it is essential in building mutual trust. Right. So, next question. Jun-ko Kiriya and for other people would like to know. After the situation regarding the COVID-19 pandemic has calmed down. What issues would like to tackle in Taiwan as a digital minister. Well, I'm already. Post pandemic for a while now, I have not worked directly on the vaccination or the 1 and 2 to SMS for quite a while. Then now the maintainer, the center for epidemic month center is already perfectly well of us in making future changes to those systems for contact tracing and vaccination. For the past month or so, I'm working on the so-called quintuple vouchers, the stimulus vouchers, where everyone in Taiwan gets $5,000 with a time limit. So either, you know, spend that as part of credit card or QR code scanning mobile payment systems. You spend $5,000. We refund $5,000 to you. If you spend less than $5,000, we refund about every amount you spent until next April, or you can get some tender, right? Some bills like paper like $5,000 and spend it however you want, but you probably cannot spend it for e-commerce. Now, this time around, we're designing the system such that last year, there's, I think, less than 8% of people in Taiwan choosing the digital payment system. They all chose almost everyone chose the paper based system. And that is entirely because last year, there's simply no pandemic in Taiwan. People do not, they're not afraid of touching the paper bills, and they're not afraid in gathering in very large numbers. Of course, all still wearing masks, but they're all fine with going to physical places. Nowadays in Taiwan, even though for a while we're now in local single digits now, two people or three people or something, but they're all delta variants. So people are not that comfortable in gathering in face-to-face settings, and there's far more interest now in getting the digital payments out. So in a sense, we're later than Japan and pretty much all the countries in digital transformation for exactly one year. But the benefit is that we can then learn from across the world how to design our payment systems such that it leaves no one behind. Such that it can include the night markets, the vendors on night market stands, which doesn't have any specific machines for scanning QR code or for processing credit card payments. We can make sure that everyone can settle on a common QR code. We call it a TWQR. So even after next April, the same QR code can still be used, whether you're using Google Pay or Apple Pay or whatever. Anything that can scan a QR code can use this common QR code format for payment purposes. And we also need to make sure that for small and medium enterprise who want to invest in this kind of cloud payment process and system and post systems up to 80%. I think exactly 80% is reimbursed by the government's funding, science and technology funding, and previously they need to file some papers using, well, not exactly a seal. It's a PKI card, right? But nowadays we're simplifying. So, as long as they use a telephone number registered to their name, then a simple SMS is always needed to sign their name virtually on this kind of reimbursement form and so on. So, one simple policy, the quintuple voucher resulted in on the electronic signature on the payment system on the QR code. It's a common wiring system across banks. It resulted in many, many system changes to just to support this policy. But after this policy is passed us after next April, all of its individual components will remain and then we will have a much more digitally savvy agencies in all the different ministries. This time is 10 different ministries involving in the stimulus voucher so that the next time they want to pay people or their citizens need to sign something for them, they can do it with confidence and cybersecurity and privacy in a way that's entirely digital. So that's my current work for the past month or so. All right, so for people would like to know, China is sometimes said to be digital authoritarianism. Do we need some regulation to prevent the abuse of technology by digital authoritarianism? Is that a question? Maybe Yuki would like to expand a little bit because I'm not exactly sure this we. Yeah, Matzula-san, would you please say something a bit more for your question? Yes, so the term we refers to something very ambiguous that I didn't try to specify the answer. For example, if we can think of we as governments such as using great power in the technology and they have many personal information and how should government deal with these information carefully so that they will not fall into digital authoritarianism? I see. So you're talking about the export side, not the import side. Not that we need to work on, you know, embargoing, importing technology that could harm our own citizens' privacy, not banning TikTok, right? But the other form where we're making general purpose computing material, how can we make sure it's not repurposed into something oppressive in the PRC, right? The outbound side. Okay, this is a great question. I do believe in general, AI or technology doesn't hurt people. It's people that hurts other people through technology. So the people who abuse technology, the authoritarian governments who abuse technology, of course, is the party with primary responsibility. And there's only so much we can do in a model of open innovation to prevent unnecessary abuse and things like that to the, you know, authoritarian people using it because as long as it's open innovation, chances are even if they don't get a license, if they know how it works, well, they can code it up themselves, right? Face recognition, for example, is a great example even if we pass all the regulations to confine face identification only between me and my personal equipment and only my face in the chip. This is like the well-agreed boundary, right? Still, anyone who have seen how it works, reverse engineer how it works, can actually code that and use it in concentration camps or something. So I believe journalism, that is to say letting the world know that something out of the norm is currently being used. This is actually the force that is keeping the authoritarians in check. Back in the 80s when I was a kid, Taiwan was a authoritarian place, right? Our jurisdiction had many human right violations, but we didn't learn about it in school. We learned about it thanks to international correspondence, thanks to journalists stationed in Hong Kong. Well, their press are now, of course, moving to Taipei. But anyway, the point is that it's the international watchdogs, and it's the international and many others that kept watch on the authoritarian misuse in Taiwan in the 80s. Later on, of course, the electronic frontier foundation and so on, start to tackle the internet equivalent of it. But by that time, Taiwan is democratized. So we're now on the democracy side. My point is that just making sure that the entire technological community learns that there is abuse, recognize that as abuse, and realize that although we cannot prevent our work to be derived into abuse, we can choose to only work in teams that says no to such abuse. And I believe this is exactly what is happening now. And it's probably the only reasonable expectation for the next few years. It's by choice, not just on individual citizen and consumers, but on technologists. If the technologists all understand there is some ethical norm and refuse to work on innovation teams that pollute or remove those norms, then we can always work on technologies that help the people who are being oppressed, getting through the kind of oppression that they are now facing under digital authoritarianism. I speak with first hand experience working on free net and other technologies when the original grid firewall was being built in the early 2000s. And it's thanks to the cryptographers who want to work on these pro human rights tools vis-à-vis the companies and engineers that work on those counter human right tools that still to the state. There is a way for the human right workers within PRC to talk to international journalists somewhat safely. Great to know that. Thank you. So, any other follow-ups or we'll just go on on slide it. So, this is a related question for people like me. What are your views on so-called digital authoritarianism and where are our democratic societies headed while we're headed to digital democracy? Obviously, digital is a great value amplifier. Whatever social norm you have, if it's coded into something that's convenient to use, then people will probably re-enact those social norms because it's, as I mentioned, provides instant gratification. So, my work in Taiwan mostly is centered around providing instant gratification to pro-social input to group decision-making, that is to say digital democracy. But one can also imagine that authoritarian regime makes it very, very easy and very instantly gratifying to, I don't know, report your neighbor for social credit violations that that's imaginable, right? It's also, I guess gratifying in an almost perverse sense, but it's imaginable. And so, the same principle of instant gratification applies here, but one is more pro-social, it's more liberating, and one is more anti-social and it creates distrust between individual citizens, which is actually what's required for digital authoritarianism to what? But authoritarianism always work on the authority getting the final say on what's to be trusted, and it always works on estimating the trust between civil society groups such that there's no civil society groups large enough to challenge the legitimacy of the authority. So in Taiwan, for example, when Xi, as I mentioned, gained more legitimacy than the government, we're like, of course, that's our civil society, they're our champion. Or when the civil society measured the air quality and prove that environmental protection agencies, pollution detectors didn't quite capture the nuances of PM 2.5, we're like, yeah, of course we can't beat them, we must join them and so on. And that's democracy. That's basically anything that could be innovated in a civil society. The government says, well, more powers to you. But in other authoritarian jurisdictions, people would not wait for 200 people to start setting air boxes. If it's like a dozen people, they will get recruited or they will get silenced indeed for quite a while. I believe the only internet enabled air quality detector in Beijing was one that set up in the US embassy there. So that says something about digital authoritarianism. So I do believe that we're now headed very clearly defined directions and one progress in one axis is, is felt like a threat in the other axis. And in the short term, I believe these different models will continue to evolve almost in parallel. But our job is to make sure that digital democracy parts works. Well, it's a viable model. And just like people in Taiwan in the 80s, just by reading about the model that worked in other international communities in reading clubs and so on, eventually prompted the democratization and the formation of new political parties in Taiwan. Thanks to international support and international watch. And I believe that's exactly what would happen in many authoritarian regimes around the world if we keep digital democracy work. So any follow ups. We'd like to say something. I'm sorry there's some noise. Can you mute your voice please. We can hear your conversation. Okay. Okay, yes, please. Sorry about that. Please continue. So, alright, so let's tackle this one before before we take another break maybe. So, for people would like to know, what do you think is your biggest long term achievement as a digital minister. Great question. So, I do think that the lower case minister is a better description of my work because I mostly just preach. I mostly just think through things and sometimes listen to confessions and sometimes make poetry or choral music. So, and it's not, it's not just a joke because I don't give commands, right. And I don't receive commands. I may minister at large, meaning I'm not telling the public service what to do. I'm simply saying, hey, there seems to be something that works pretty well in a civil society. Would you like to try this model out or the other way around. Hey, the government just released some API's would you in a civil society want to try it out. That's essentially all I what all I do. Right. So, my long term achievement may not be in any particular invention because these are just co invented by the gov tech people and the civic people. My main demonstration is just that it works. Even if a minister do not issue any single command or receive any single single command that is to say a co creative space. The public digital innovation space name of my office a co creative space works as well or even for some cases, even better than a human minister that has the final say. And when people see that this space based leadership actually works better in a norm building way better than any particular single minister. Then I believe this will make government. Something that all sectors can try it out that is to say anyone will implement the same kind of alignment consultation and accountability process can be a government. Of course, we probably don't call it several rain, right, but we may call it a governing entity with overlapping jurisdiction and this kind of co governing toolkit. We already see as I mentioned in the gov zero initiative who are perfectly capable of taking care of emerging issues that the government has no way to to regulate or to to to work to to facilitate. So, once those communities figure out things like the counter disinformation accord with the PDD itself, the government's only role then it's just to amplify this normal and get Facebook and YouTube and Twitter and whatever on board. And that changes the way people think about the government because previously, the government is like the encyclopedia brick Tanica right, you have a professional team of elite editors. You prove read everything and then you publish, but I would like to suggest a co governing agile governance methodology where like Wikipedia, you first publish and sometimes, you know, doesn't really solve anything, but it's a good idea and it's was spreading and it spreads and people in a civil society implements it better. So just like Wikipedia, you first publish a stub and then people start to edit. So, the crowdfunding crowdsourcing community already showed that this kind of very large amount of work can be done and funded quite well orchestrated without any single person giving the command or receiving command. Indeed, Wikipedia itself is a testimony for this co creation attitude. But I believe what I've demonstrated with people in the public digital innovation space is that this also works on the areas that people previously did not think anyone other than government could do the things like the mess rationing map the vaccination registration, the one I to to SMS checking in and now the voucher stuff. So I would like to to inspire but not necessarily achieve. I hope that answer this question. Thank you very much. Yes, let's have a game 10 minutes break. Right. So we'll be back. What, three after four or three after five for you. Yes, here will be five after five. That's right. Yes. See you then. Thank you. Yeah, see you later. And we're back. Thank you for coming before being back and I think we still have quite a lot of questions. One question. There's no way that I can do that in 60 minutes. So, voting is important. So, but before we get to slide out any question you would like to ask through speaking. Yes. Hello, can you hear me? Yes, very clear. So thank you for today's. I think you muted the GOP office need to unmute. We cannot hear you now. Right. Okay, hello. Can you hear me? Okay, thank you. So, I'd like to ask a bit towards social networking services. So, I like your tweets with many energy, but there's also concern that it may lead to the divide in the population. Like, and people might only have access to information that they prefer. So, how we take advantage of this technology? So the question is, how do we prevent this kind of tribe tribe mentality on the social networking services is the question. Yes. Okay. But I mean, trap mentality is just human. So, so we can't, we, we can't absolutely remove it. But on the other hand, on many, what I refer to as anti social social media systems, the more anti social messages, especially based on outrage. Soon turn into discrimination. And also to vengeful messages, like calling for revenge. And once that message gains food hold, because in a sense, in any platform with the number of likes. People will almost unconsciously rate their own posts based on the number of likes that they receive from the social media. And it's invariably, if you post something that's very civilized, as opposed to posting something based on outrage, of course, something based on outrage will get more likes because people want to support you. But then that means that people with some form into a tribe, a group, and that will then cause the future normalization of behavior of, as I mentioned, vengefulness as well as discrimination. Now, the whole idea of humor over rumor is to find something that's even more viral than outrage. That is to say it takes the same route of outrage, but then make fun of it. And then by making fun of it, it's inviting, right? We're not making a joke at expense of particular people or person. We're making a joke because the situation is funny. And that is humor, right? It's not sarcasm. So, based on this, then, just by making fun of ourselves, basically, we invite people who are not quite like us to be part of conversation and get even more likes. And this is my technique of so-called hugging the troll online. There's a few posts about troll hugging. You can search for it on the internet. So that's my personal practice. Now, for many people, of course, being a poetician or a comedian or something is a lot of work. Some of our are not that willing to put in a lot of work into making fun of themselves, right? So, do we simply not use social networks then? I believe we need to then be picky about the kind of social network that we engage in. For example, in a sense, the WebEx we're using now is a social network because we can invite new people as guests here. If anyone want to invite somebody, you can just start a conversation, do a screen share, right? So we can use this synchronous video platform as a social network that brings people in. But we're quite comfortable with the use of Slido plus WebEx because we understand the Slido questions are not posted by people looking for outrage. They're posted by people in the same room, like same virtual room or some of you are in the same physical room. So the use of Slido as an extended SNS with the same functionality of like and everything is safe, feels safe. There's no outrage and everybody, all the questions are pretty civilized. Or if there are uncivilized questions, I haven't scrolled to it yet, right? Because it doesn't get numbers of votes. So the point here is that through a simple voting and through the simple face to face co-president setting, we establish a social network that ostensibly has the same feature as Twitter, like the Slido one. But we use it in a way that's strictly speaking pro-social. So if people are not the kind of person like I am who make fun of myself all the time and troll and counter-troll online, people can begin with your face-to-face relationships and focus only on those platforms like WebEx that connects the people who you already know or people who already are your classmate's acquaintances together. And then once you're in the same room, virtual room, you can say, okay, let's try Slido, let's try Polis, let's try some of those SNS but only with the people that are already somewhat trust. And then that will ensure the pro-socialness of the SNS while connecting it to our face-to-face relationship. I don't think everyone need to use those public SNS, but I do think among friendly people SNS is a pretty good amplifier. Thank you for answering question. Thank you. Any other follow-ups or other questions from the audience? If not, I'll just share a slide again. So four people would like to know, as a politician as well as a technician, do you think conflicts between politicians and scientists like between Mr. Trump and Dr. Fauci may happen in Taiwan? This particular case never happened in Taiwan because our vice presidents were public health experts. And I used a plural form because the vice president, William Lai, is an expert in public health and the previous vice president, Chen Jianren, literally wrote a textbook on epidemiology. So in that sense, if the president want to talk to a public health expert, she just walks next door. And when our leading scientist at a time, Dr. Chen Jianren, want to talk to a vice president, he just looks into the mirror. In this configuration, really, there is no way for this kind of conflict. And at a time last year, our vice premier, currently the mayor of Kaohsiung, Chen Ximai, was also a student of public health under Dr. Chen Jianren, our then vice president. And so with this configuration, basically, the only thing that a president need to say or do is to say that she fully trusts the central epidemic and my son, which already is spiritually led by the vice president anyway. So there's no distance between the presidential office and the CCC. Now, of course, this is a particular advantage in Taiwan, but we do see around the world if the politicians understand the importance of delegating the power and making sure that their top scientists meet the citizens more times than even a president themselves. Right. Our commander Chen Xizhong have met through 2 p.m. daily press conferences. Thousands of times the citizens asking the citizens to do all sort of things whereas the citizens through the journalists and through real time commentary and calling one and two to also ask back the commander and and he pretty much answered everything until the journalists run out of question before ending the press conference of the day. So, through this mutual accountability mechanism, the, the distance between the public health expert and the political leader in this case committed Chen Xizhong and the public health leader, for example, expert professor, there again literally next to each other in the CCC press conference. If there's a journalist question that is very technical, well, the commander just turns and asks the professor or if the question happens to be about the vaccination reservation platform. Well, yours truly does me have also attended for for quite a few times, at least twice right in the 2 p.m. press conference as well as the 10 a.m. press conference. Again, the commander just delegates the technical questions to me. So, so the point is that our relationship is that of a working relationship in the public eye in the public stage. We interact in real time under live stream with all the journalists asking real time questions and in this configuration. Very few conflicts could happen because I'm, if I say, I don't know, what do you think about it? I'm saying this publicly like literally everyone can give me ideas. And when I was attending the press conference in 2 p.m. I was also watching the PTT there is this PTT discussion board called NCOV to a 1 9 so novel coronavirus 2019. And in real time, I was also having a chat with people on the PTT during the live streamed press conference. And this is only possible because it's live stream in real time. Otherwise, people could not give me real time ideas and questions. And so I'm using the PTT in such a way exactly like how we're using Slido now. We're having a real real time conversation, but on the side, people can also post without interrupting me. And again, I'm doing this in the front of the camera and with all the CCC people. Align to write like literally aligned on the same table. And then again, any conflict like that may be based on different interpretation of data or whatever gets resolved very quickly on the spot for that day. Any confusion only lasts for 24 hours and it's bound to be resolved on the next 2 p.m. press conference. So this is through radical transparency and accountability as a way to resolve conflicts as soon as it arrives. So, 4 people would like to ask. I'm so impressed with the words. I'm not a politician. I'm a politician and Rika also believe the power of arts what brought me to this realization. I'm, I take my inspiration specifically, I think, from the Icelandic pirate party. And there are also politicians there in Iceland. And we set up our petition system as a adaptation of battery again from Iceland. And I believe, built for the capital city by the best party, the party name is actually the best party. It's a bunch of people that doesn't quite take themselves seriously. But through the power of comedy and humor and so on, nevertheless wins the popular trust that they could receive the actual constructive ideas from the citizenry from the civil society without actually being themselves. The commander of all things. So, I do believe a politician, or as I mentioned, a lower case minister, right? That that sings chorus and maybe hear confessions that points to a different governing model. And I learned about things to the global occupy community and the party international movements and so on, but specifically from Iceland. All right. So, for people would like to know. What do you think is the future role of a government in a society where digital technology allows all citizens to voice their preferences directly. As I mentioned, a government will cease to be the government and anyone who implements governance protocols will become like the internet engineering task force, like the I can like the internet society. And like in the latest distributed ledger technology circles, they will form governance entities, and even partially autonomous ones, right with the DAOs and such. And these governing entities through protocols that resolve the tensions from overlapping jurisdictions. I would argue is a better configuration compared to the West West valiant metaphor where all the municipalities or the local groups or the charities need to exclusively belong to a West valiant sovereign. And I would argue that for most global issues, things that doesn't know jurisdictional boundaries, like carbon dioxide, like the corona virus, like computer virus for for that matter. Many things that people could not negotiate based on with family and diplomats, the internet itself actually for internet governance. We need to tackle it with a poly center. Some people call it poly lateral or a hybrid multistakeholder multi lateral. I think poly lateral sounds good a poly lateral way where. Where each side is no longer just a sovereign, but rather anyone who can co-govern based on this interdependence protocol that we have already prototyped in internet governance. So if you read the UN high level expert report, I think the name is just digital interdependence. And you can see this kind of co-governing model as envisioned by the United Nations expert groups on the future of governance and I've read recently that the the media believe in Japan also commissioned a study at a second version called agile governance that talks more or less exactly the same ideas. And I believe that many folks are also looking for international collaboration to make this idea of agile governance, not government, more widely seen as the new norm, especially to tackle global structural issues and toward large or encompassing visions such as the society 5.0. If I can follow on that on your answer, I was wondering, so in this case, do you think that this kind of system would also work for local governments? I mean for government of, for example, Taiwan or Japan. So as I understood it, so it's a decentralized system where several several actors kind of cooperate together in solving solving certain issue. So, what would be then the role of the government, for example, of Taiwan or Japan in in in this policy. And it could that actually work for one one concrete state. Yeah, as a minister at large, I'm already treating, for example, in an e-sport case, I'm already treating the Ministry of Economy Affairs, the Ministry of Education, and the Ministry of Culture as three different governing entities. If I'm not a minister at large, I could be saying, you know, the Ministry of Culture takes responsibility and the other ministry need to follow their lead on the e-sport case and e-sport is a culture. So that's the traditional way, right? The West Valley entity, the sovereign, the president appointed the premier who appointed a council that classified e-sport as this and not that. But the multi-state hold away that we did along with people on PDT didn't say anything like that. We said the goal, that's like AlphaGo, right? The game is a e-sport, a term-based one. So for that particular goal-based regulations, real-time e-sports can also follow as a goal that's moving faster. It's basically creating norms first before we create regulations and budgets. The West Valley model works only if people think first about laws and budgets because it is the sovereign, the top-level government's role to get taxation and get the legislative power on the top level and then trickle down again to the devolved local municipalities. But if whatever we're doing is just about protocols, it's about norms and habits and not about budgets and not about laws, then whatever we do is essentially open. This configuration, as I mentioned many configurations this time, can be implemented, for example, in South Korea when they implemented the mask rationing map. They didn't do it as a South Korean thing. I believe some pharmacies in the city of Seoul did that kind of autonomously and working with the civic technologies in Taiwan to provide the first visualization of their mask. And then quickly, of course, the municipal governments took the action but at a time already the private sector like Navi and so on already provided the technological implementation. I believe the Japanese Kokowa was anyway also such a prototype from the private sector from people in Microsoft, if I'm not mistaken, and contribute into open source before it gets adopted by the government as the national standard on contact tracing and so on. So I'm not saying that the government disappear. I'm saying that the government is with the people and with the people first. It's not for the people where the government always need to act before the people does. It's almost always the reverse where the people in different jurisdictions and overlapping governance form ad hoc or see groups and already tackled a situation to some degree. And it's up to the individual cities, municipalities, counties and district to adopt this without getting any budget or approval from the national governments. So the national government, I guess, will simply be there to ensure that there's digital competence that there is broadband as a human right like the infrastructural, the most basic level of things, but the application level of things. I believe more and more will be devolved first into municipal and district level governance and then just across sectors. All right. So, any follow up questions or new questions before we go to slide it. If not, let's share the screen. So, for people would like to know with you. How would how should a society educate or even just treat children who cannot fit in school just because they're extraordinarily talented in a certain field. Well, I do believe that learning is common in all students. And education sometimes fits the learning sometimes doesn't by learning the learner should take the center stage. What I'm trying to say is that school is also being reimagined in Taiwan in our new curriculum. The student do not have to stay in the same school for the entire day. And to take not just advanced placement classes, but also work with the local community builders, the local universities or other educational facilities museums and things like that and curate their own education. Basically, whatever the freedom of choosing the courses that people enjoy on university in Taiwan, thanks to part of our new curriculum people can do so at senior high. So we move university to senior high level and as a result of that also prove that people who are 18 years old are perfectly capable adults. So, like Japan, we shaped two years of our adult age and by finishing senior middle high, they're their adults and able to make decisions for themselves. And so, and this trickles to even younger levels of education in the primary school as well as in the middle high. There's a lot of autonomous education nowadays in Taiwan up to 10% of students can apply to be either homeschooled or experimental school in a group or in a alternate imagined school. And these are not mutually exclusive and they are entitled to all the same benefits, including vaccination as students of the same age in the basic education system. And in some counties like Yilan, the 10% quota is even not enough. So we even had to go back and change the legislation so they can borrow the quota from some nearby counties and so on, as long as the 10% is held on the national level because if it's 50% it's no longer experimental it's the new mainstream right. So the point here is that any students need to have the choice to go to a place where the curriculum no longer bind them and they're not alone anyone who want to provide such a learning facility can do so. And with the latest legislative change, even on the university level, there could be experimental universities that are not bound by the existing university degree act and so on. They can set up a university that only offers postgraduate degrees. I don't know heritage site reconstruction and things like that. And that would also be legal according to the latest experimental education act. Already, I believe in very similar spirits existing universities are looking to do experiments of their own. For example, working with the talent semiconductor company to offer doctor rates degrees in very specific fields of physics that leads directly to angstrom level improvements in semiconductor. Now that we've used up all the nanometers that we're now moving to angstroms and things like that. So, I believe we see education just like health care as both a basic beauty that the government need to entail with affordable cost, but also a place where innovators are welcome. And new innovations that they prove their merits get incorporated like into new treatments into national health care. Every 10 years or so, those new ideas from experimental education have a chance to prove itself and become part of the curriculum for basic education. I hope that answers the question. Alright, so 5 people would like to know. Candy adoption of digital technology in state governance lead to a transfer of power from bureaucrats to technology savvy elites. If it's about the possibility, of course, there is such a possibility. It's called technocracy. But I do believe by enhancing the view of digital as connecting people, not connecting machines and making this somewhat arbitrary distinction, right? The technology savvy elites. IT information technology is about connecting machines more effectively, but digital in the sense of digital is about connecting society more effectively and it costs for the practitioners, not of technology in particular, but of say design of ethnography of the techniques of understanding the society better leading the society to listen to itself better. Of course, you can still call them technologists, but this will be saying, you know, democracy is a technology. Open space technology is a technology dynamic facilitation is a technology, which is probably speaking true. Not all technologies need to work on physical systems. So, thinking about social technology, social innovation, and so on, then it's no longer about elites, right? It's not about people who specialize in a particular field, but about people who have a lot of common experience, just like a professional negotiator, you wouldn't say they're a specialist in peacekeeping technology, right? You would say they have a lot of peacekeeping experience in troubled jurisdictions. And so I'm thinking about social technologies and innovators in that vein. And in that sense, the bureaucrats or the career public service are perfectly capable of getting into that mindset of serving the public and become themselves specialists in social technologies, even though we don't quite say that we just say, oh, they received this design thinking perspective on things. So by using the words such as design interaction design and, you know, participation design and service design and so on. I believe it unites the vocabulary both on the agile, more tech elite world, so the conveyance and the world of facilitators and peacekeepers, which is why we specialize on the design vocabulary in my office because this vocabulary in my own experience is more unifying than seeing it as a zero sum game or a transfer of power using design as a perspective as long as you can provide a fresh perspective you're in. You don't need to hand out power. You simply need to provide your own perspective and be willing to listen to the other sides. I hope that answers the question. Again, it's based on a power theory by Castells called communication power and small power theory is based on now we're making power and not any vertical power within a single structure. If I may, if I may briefly comment or follow on your answer. The question was more motivated like by the danger that this adoption of digital technology can pose to to the state, let's say so I know that you as a programmer and a proficient person you trust the technology and you know what's going on and how it works. And I think that the majority of the population still at this point in time still does not know much about the inner workings of the technology itself and trusting some of the let's say information exchanges or let's say important let's say voting and this kind of thing to technology some people may kind of get worried because they don't understand the system itself. So the people who control the system who the people who designed the system, they may get actually they may, you know, gain by doing this quite huge power because the interpretation of the data would depend on how the system has been designed and how those data has been right interpreted. So I wonder if there are any. So if, for example, government who are adopting this digital technologies, if they also take this into account and what kind of, what kind of measures do they take in order to prohibit, you know, so that the system is kind of hacked or being taken advanced by somebody else. Yeah, but digital is not just about going paper less. As I mentioned, I believe on the very first question. We are not replacing our presidential ballot or our legislative ballot with digits. We're insisting on paper based form of voting and that's precisely because people have a need as you mentioned to check that the system is working as they intended, but it's not that we do not introduce any technology. For example, the real time filming of the talent process. There's a lot of very innovative apps. I believe in the previous presidential election. President candidate saying when and Han Guoyu each has a team of app developers that offers real time telling among other social media like functionalities. The, the, Han Guoyu one is called a Chinese and anyway, but anyway, the app allows people to communicate to like minded people is a way to socially organized, but also because we use paper based ballot counting. It's a way for people to report any anomalies in the counting process, along with the video evidence to to show for it. And if a counting process in any particular station has many different people using their phones using that app. Of Indian Buddha or Chinese yet to witness, then it increased massively. The face in democracy because other people may not trust any particular journalist or media people do trust the trending YouTubers of their prefer political party and what their numbers agree that people could be reasonably sure that we have a fair presidential election. And if we do not have this paper based counting process augmented with this digital overseeing system, then we will end up like the USA. Anyway, so the point here is that we're not sprinkling digital to replace paper. We're saying whenever people care about any part of democracy, but feel that they cannot be at all the counting station at all times or whatever. Then there are open innovations based on digital that can reduce the risk of doing so. And also, while making people safer also reduce the time involved in doing so, but we're never saying, oh, just because I know about technology, you should trust in technology. Like the 192 to SMS QR system. Even though that many people now understand how the SMS works and so on. Some people don't trust the camera. Right of their phone and that's fine, which is why we printed the 15 digit code so you can manually enter and send that SMS to one night to two to verify that it's actually doing whatever the QR code which is not able to be deciphered by human beings. You can try it yourself with a feature phone and for people who don't trust their telecoms at all. Still, we're not asking you to to give up on pen and paper. Many people even had a seal that carries its own ink with their last name and their contact number on it. And whenever they go to a venue, they just stop on the piece of paper in that venue and that completes the checking again. We never said that because we use SMS this become illegal. We said, we use the SMS so that when you're doing the paper based check in this less crowded. So you have a less chance to get, you know, COVID-19 from nearby people doing a paper based registration. So, I get into this detail because I would like to say that the technological savanness is never in Taiwan's counter pandemic ideas is never a cause for transfer of power. It's always a way to empower additionally to the people who want to try out something but as soon as they're uncomfortable with this, we're not replacing anything that existed before the pandemic with shiny new invention. Even today, if you do not want to buy some masks, which are readily available online or in the convenience store, you can still go to the pharmacy and kill in line. If grandma want to do that, she can still do that. And that, I believe is a more, much more a network making theory of power down more zero some like power grabbing take of power. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. Alright, so people basically only put as much trust as what we already trust the people. So to give no trust is to get no trust is what I'm saying. But even after giving the trust, we don't expect everybody to trust back and it's entirely okay. In fact, the people who do not trust back. Keep us honest. Thank you. Okay. If there's any follow ups. No. Okay, so let's move on. Six people would like to know, can you share the efforts done in Taiwan during the pandemic to ensure that a non native that's to say non Mandarin speaking migrant populations are not left behind. So, we talk about a vaccination registration system. So, of course, there's a English version of it. And now here, I believe is very inclusive. So, if you have a national health insurance, you can use that. If you don't have a national health insurance, you can still use your passport number. If you don't even have a passport. You can use the entry exit permit number. And so, just this numbering system itself is maximally inclusive already. And it says that if you don't have, for example, your national health activated. You can just get this ID number online. If you're somebody from Hong Kong or the mainland. But if you just happen to find yourself in Taiwan without any entry or permits, you can still take your passport and to a local immigration office and nevertheless get a unified number. But just by saying this, it's actually a lot of work. I believe this is the first time that all the five different nationality jurisdiction and so on. Incoming populations can register in the same interface. And so we had to continuously update our API interfaces, but it's completely worth it because vaccination works in such a way that it protects not just that person, but everybody near them. If we systematically say immigrant workers are not to be vaccinated, then it could create pockets of vulnerability. That's will lead to public health disasters. The same goes to people who do not enjoy the national health insurance because they just returned to Taiwan and even do not have a household registration. Again, if we do not vaccinate them, then they will because they have their own semi expect community that will become a pocket of vulnerability and so on. So there's a compelling public health reason of doing so. So we do so by of course, taking care of accessibility. If you see three Collins here, it means that it's accessible with screen readers and other accessibility help us. And we also make sure that the translations are readily available from the immigration office. So even if you speak no English nor Mandarin, there are basic instructions that are available in, I believe, most of the new southbound southbound countries. The majority of which are immigration came from for migrant workers. And even if your language is. Not in any of this, because we use web based technology Google translate probably wax, but even if that doesn't work, then the strings and so on the text for like the social distancing happens on their all open source. So there are professional immigrant worker migrant worker helper NGOs like 140 because migrant workers when they were founded were 140 of Taiwanese population. So 140 also commissioned even more translations for the things that are not taken care of by the ministries of health care and labor and interior so it's a level thing where we take care of the two main languages and each ministry take care of even more languages that concerns their primary constituent, but the entire thing is open web HTML and open innovations data so that anyone who want to translate into an even more minor language would not get sued for copyright violation and things like that. So we layer the approach and I'm pretty happy that we've prototyped this because they become a new norm and upon this, the 5000 voucher, those new systems, they will get the same citizens expectation to be maximum only inclusive on day one, instead of in an ad hoc fashion. I believe that answers part of the question, but we were not always like that. 5 years ago, we were not like that. We only did the Mac compatibility for text filing, because a popular petition set is explosively hostile for Mac users. So we've come a long way since 5 years ago. So, four people would like to know, were you confident that Taiwan could prevent COVID-19 at the very beginning of pandemic, say January and February 2020. No, I was not confident at all. I think people in Taiwan, anyone who's above 30 years old remember sauce and sauce was pretty bad and Taiwan did probably the worst among all the starts affected countries back in 2003. That's why we had a lot of stock of mask. And that's why we have a kind of communicable disease act that prescribed the CCC, the central epidemic command center. And that's why we have a digital national health insurance card because at the time of stars, the Taiwan Island did only have paper based health insurance cards, only the island of Pung Hu, the Pescadores Island, have those new fangled IC cards and people see what a world of difference. To have a IC based health card in the time of a pandemic. So, I would say, I'm not confident at all, but I'm, I was cautiously optimistic that if we play the source playbook. And this starts 2.0 is somewhat similar to SARS. Then I'm cautiously optimistic that it will work. But of course we did at the time had no idea how similar to sauce. It would be turns out still pretty similar. But by this year, of course, all the beta gamma, Yoda, eight variants, where we're less and less moving less and less to familiar territory. We're now in a territory where we have to invent new things, not the source era guidance, but like entirely new guidelines like the SMS based contact tracing, which last year, if you ask me, I would say it's, it's not that much needed. But this year is obviously needed because it's makes a world of difference to find the contacts within 24 minutes or 24 hours. It didn't make that much of a difference in the original or the alpha variant, but it makes a lot of difference for the delta variant. So for people would like to know if humor can be used to combat against viral and toxic content. Can humor be also used with malicious intent to spread this information effectively. It's not that easy, though, because humor, as defined by making fun of the messenger itself, right, making fun of myself self deprecated humor. This form of humor already promotes release of the tension that could have been used for discrimination or vengefulness, because it's the same sense of outrage. But by expressing it through humor, the sense of outrage is already gone. You can't easily feel outrage by making fun of yourself. It's really difficult. So unless, of course, just to prove a point, you design the entire kind of black humor comedy strip just to prove a point in real life. Usually, if we express things using humor to cast and kill dogs and so on, it cannot evoke the same set of mentality like outrage turned into vengefulness and discrimination. That will foster this information. Instead, it will foster people making fun of the existing not so perfect situation. And then it will promote them people to think about how to prevent things like this in the future in a more creative way. So I don't rule out a theoretical possibility. And if you want to do that research more powers to you, but in real life, it's less likely a self deprecating humor can lead to more outrage and therefore more disinformation. It can lead to to misinformed misinformation, but it doesn't tend to go viral that way. So for people who like to know on social media that allows equal participation. Those who chat actively usually draw more attention. Do you think this rather creates an equal participation? Certainly. That is certainly the case. The question to ask is. Whether people who spun right other people's attention, whether there is a easy way not to tune them entirely out, but somewhat keeping a distance mute selectively or dialing the the noise level down. Now, pretty much all the modern social media systems have some control knobs like that that can save ourselves from a lot of spun from people who chat unusually actively. But one related question though, is that is this the only only way to garner attention before broadband as a human right. There is a clear inequality people who enjoy easy access to broadband broadcasting facilities. I'm thinking about television broadcasters and so on. They have like a unconscious this uncontested position to push high bandwidth information into people's homes and cars through radius and so on. But nowadays, if you are in a jurisdiction where broadband is a human right and is a fixed price against Taiwan is less than 16 US dollars a month for unlimited upload, then it suddenly changed the economy. The way to draw more attention is not to chat more actively, but to provide higher resolution, higher quality, either audio via podcasts or video via the short clips and films and things like that. And co-creation and video conferencing and sound meeting rooms and things like that because for each participant, the marginal cost is now almost, I would say it is zero for more quality input put in. And we do not have to satisfy ourselves into some sarcastic takes through short text and things like that. In fact, I believe the use of video and real time video conference as a prefer socialization form is a direct function of us adopting the flat rate of around 16 US dollars a month a couple of years ago. And by now, Taiwan definitely prefers video as the primary medium and this incessant text based chat is no longer the social norm to get more attention. So I do believe more bandwidth lead to finer understanding. You know, deepfakes not withstanding, but still real time interactions, it's still much easier to build reports that's to say emotional support if people can see each other's real time whereabouts and emotional states clearly if bandwidth is not a concern for economic disadvantaged people, which it isn't in Taiwan. Alright, so I think we're down to the last few questions. So, what are your views on recent efforts in China or even us and Australia to crack down on big tech companies. I believe they're following very different logic. So it's impossible to offer a the same view on these different jurisdictions. I would simply say that there's tech and there's technology. Just like there's math and there's mathematics. I don't think any jurisdiction is seriously cracking down on technology. I believe they're all pretty much doubling down investing not just in technological innovation, but also like stronger faster together. So, higher, faster, stronger tech together. That is to say, making sure all the different sectors have their way to contribute to technology and to innovation. I don't think that's changed. What is changed is the social media and social networking systems and the more entertainment focused tech is previously seen as leading the technological innovation. But now are more and more seen as simply profiting from the technological innovations without contributing substantially back to basic research or technology in general. Now, of course, this is a matter of debate of obviously there is some sponsoring of basic research from the leading big tech. On the other hand, the critiques are probably right in saying that if there's no big tech, the same technological progress will happen and also happen in a way that is more equitable to the entire society. So, both perspectives have merit because they're not in a zero some relationship. I think people are just calibrating on the kind of technologies that we need to invest our time in without getting massively distracted by the externalities. I'm thinking about the polarization of society and so on by the so called big tech. So, this is like, I don't know, people discovering that drinking too much coffee is bad for health or smoking too much is bad for health. So, it's a, it's a place of, of course, reflection, but I don't think it's entirely writing things off. So I'm pretty sure the US or Australia is like that. Now, I'm less sure about the PRC, but on the other hand, I don't work in the PRC cabinet and a very few people actually have a working full theory of why the reason crackdown not on tech in general, but on those purely kind of non national value enhancing tech and how much of this can be recovered through charity contribution and so on. I mean, it's an unfolding story and I'm just reading the news as you are reading this. I don't claim privilege knowledge on the particular way that the PRC governments is working out its new relationship on the so called big tech companies. So, five people would like to know, so Japan is about to, I believe it's already established the Ministry of digital, the digital agency. What kind of personnel should be in charge of it. Everyone, I mean the citizens. So, one of the first things that I did is to promote the joint platform from a ministry or level suggestion box into a inter agency level suggestion box. And when new suggestions that obviously cross ministerial boundaries, we don't simply say, thank you, but we don't know how to process this petition. We instead say, okay, minister will hold an inter agency meeting to figure out who owns e-sport, who owns banning of plastic straws in bubble tea, who owns the scams on Facebook and other instant messaging platforms turned into e-commerce platforms like that. They're all wildly inter agency, but we don't drop the ball just because no agency want to own that match. So that's literally one of the first things I did through the participation office and network platform. So, I did this, not because I'm a good person to be in charge of e-sport or plastic straws or whatever, but because I believe the career public service in each and every ministry deserve a chance to hold such inter agency meetings without being captured by the existing positions in their ministries. In a sense, this is a learning community formed by one person each of all the existing participating ministries. So, when we talk about the tax funnel experience redesign, the person who chair, who are in charge of the discussion group, maybe the public servants from ocean affairs, ocean patrol, sea patrol. And when we talk about the ocean affairs, like how to open up the surfing places and whether we need to open up the professional fissures warf to amateur fissures and so on. Well, the person in charge of holding that breakout group, maybe from the ministry of finance, or the finance supervised community and so on. And I, this is not a gimmick. This is at the core of the horizontal leadership model. We do because when a ocean affairs council officer in charge of sea patrol hold the discussion on tax filing redesign. They will not take the position of the ministry of finance. They will take the position of an ordinary citizen filing their tax because they are an ordinary citizen firing their tax. It's just they have public service experience. And conversely, when the ministry of finance person hosted discussion on ocean affairs surfing. What they're just a fissure amateur fissure or a surfer, they're not a officer of the banking agency, right? So, the point here is that if we establish such a cross cutting horizontal learning situation where the collaboration is chaired by someone who have years and years of public service experience, but no stake in the original ministry of position on this emerging phenomena, then it's the best of both worlds. The citizens who participate in the conversation understand that their concerns are being listened with an empathetic year because that person takes their side. On the other hand, the colleagues from other ministries understand they will never propose something illegal, something that is in cheating, something that violates the norms or the laws because after all they are a senior public servant. So, facilitating the conversations requires the recruitment, not only of external experts, but also of internal experts put in a very different possession. So, in my office, slightly over half are public service, like career public servants, and slightly less than half are those professional designers facilitators and so on from the civil society. I believe this combination has merit to respond to the emerging situation and aligning on the common values, at least something that we can all live with without any personnel giving in charge commands to the other ministry because they represent a wildly different worldview that cannot be recombined without the deliberation that includes people as equal partners. I hope that answers the question is a long-winded answer, but I believe is a core of my theory of change. Thank you very much, Minister Audrey Towne. I'm aware of it. We shouldn't take more of your time, but we are extremely fortunate to have you for three hours. It's just unimaginable to all of us and until now we didn't believe it would happen. And of course, we have been extremely also enriched by all the thoughts and opinions and your experience. So, let's put our hands together to show our gratitude to Minister Towne. Thank you very much. And we have asked so many questions. Do we have any question to ask us before you leave this room? Yeah, certainly. So, after listening to this, I'm not asking you to answer to me, but I would like to invite you to take anything that you find disappointing or not working as well in your jurisdiction. It doesn't have to be national level. It could be community level. It could be district level and so on. And to think of a call to action to make it better to think of it as an exercise. Now, after you did this, I also invite you to maybe post to Twitter and tag me. But it doesn't have to be Twitter. It could be Facebook, LinkedIn, or whatever. And who knows, maybe some of your followers or my followers will look at this call to action and make it better. Mostly, this is just to get us into a mood of working out loud, meaning that we're of course studying and making improvements and so on. But very seldom do we get immediate feedback from the social media. But if you do not feel comfortable with exposing to social media, I'm not forcing you to. I'm sure that the professor or the university or the class have some shared accounts that you can use like the global leadership program account that you can use to post those ideas. And I look forward to more conversations on Twitter or really in any of the ongoing venues with you. Thank you very much. Definitely we will try to do that. And I will keep you updated about how we are going to do with this three hour long conversation. And it's a great regret that you didn't come to Japan for the Olympics because I have to tell you millions of Japanese world disappointed. So we hope one day you will come back and to our university as well. Definitely and I think again for the Japanese generous donation of AstraZeneca without which I would not be vaccinated and be able to travel to Japan sometime hopefully before the end of the year. Thank you very much and our best wish to your great job to serve the people of Taiwan. Thank you and live long and prosper everyone. Bye. Goodbye. Thank you. And for the all participation in our event. And thank you, Professor and all the participants of the University of Tokyo. Tomorrow as well be in mighty to ensure no human rights in the British time bookstore to share their experience. The event will start at 11 o'clock in the morning. And thank you. See you tomorrow. See you and thank you very much. Mr Chen and the students. We will think about how to answer the question. Audrey town. Asked us. Okay. Now let's have a rest and we'll see you all tomorrow at 11.