 there was this huge uprising demanding transparency, participation, accountability, and inclusion of many people into the positions that affect the whole society. So in a way, the current administration in our way of working with the people, it is entirely a product of how the civil society has already started rethinking itself. But, admittedly, just as our President said, before we think democracy and we think the clash between two different values. So now our energization with democracy become a conversation between many diverse values. It is not us leading the civil society. It is the civil society already that has been successful in this expectation of the public service. The public service has changed us to let people see that we're trusting the civil society now. Because the civil society may regain trust with any situation. You mean that democracy is something that you have to learn to start the obvious for most of the people? I think democracy, as it was conducted by the Indians using stone tablets, is not the same as democracy conducted over paper. And it's not the same democracy conducted over radio and television. And now the democracy over internet and the multimodal way of people listening to each other and then just listening to one radio station or one television station. Even though we call them a democracy, they're actually very different from any models. And so I think this is not obvious from the people of one post in the previous generations of democracy. How democracy, the internet age, you must work. And so because there's fundamentally difference, I don't think anyone has a privilege in saying, you know, we're well versed in internet-based democracy. For everyone, this is a new thing that we have to share together. I mean that the world was just beginning. And we don't, at the moment, think a lot about how the world and itself may be a place where democracy is conducted. People mostly see it as a campaign for the different presidential candidates who let them know how they think about the society. But in the end, people still only vote every four years on these presidential candidates. And they go on to do their business. And if the president do something that people don't like, maybe they go to the streets. But again, the internet is just used as a way to mobilize people to the streets. So in a sense, it's not using the internet as a listening potential. It's still using the internet as a radio or as a television station. It's broadcasting potential. But now using internet, just as people here believe they have already seen the concrete budgets, the concrete projects, the concrete e-petition issues so they pick up the compensation on a state-to-date basis by knowing exactly where the administration is going and then bringing it into the private discussion. This is what we call the social object. All the different things that administration is doing is not being discussed online as the social object. And people can take a snapshot of what they think about the social objects, including the e-petitions including regulations, including budget spending and taking the eyes and bring it as topics for discussion. That doesn't actually happen 20 years ago. 20 years ago, it only becomes a public discussion every four years. And even then, just as the controversial issues will now be far-faring in very everyday issues because literally thousands of topics are being explored concurrently online by stakeholders who are influenced by these kind of policies and they want to contribute back not just by building every four years. So I always say this is the ongoing or continuous, linear process that doesn't really take events every four years but it's maybe every four hours, every four minutes. And so the iteration that might be what people express in their idea and the public exchanging because of people expressing their idea has drastically shortened from that more in the period to just a week or a few days. And I know that you're trying to figure out how do you feel when you see that the biggest, so-called biggest oppressive in the world, in the comfort of the ice in Taiwan is the oppressive which is actually one of the strongest in the country. I mean, the tools that Taiwan is using to improve their policy. Yeah, well, there is a global level such as the digital, the seven previous digital funds was organized with a signal of sharing the process the code, the procedure, everything that can be used among all the different jurisdictions. So I think our generation we value this international collaboration. We see Taiwan as, of course, one of the very good labs to try these new methods but there are many others. There are still me and I, there are the Iceland people recently from New Zealand. They're trying to recovery many of our thinking. I mean, they're new, haven't ended their process. In the UK, Germany called them and used this idea as this campaign platform and things like that. And just this June, we're going to New York to work with the city society in the United States to collaborate, to introduce this model to New York City. And so I think this is not something that Taiwan can do alone. We need to work with all the different people on the global scale and to take their innovations and incorporate here and maybe end with my little bit but then the next jurisdiction will maybe make it more advanced. So I think this is an international collaboration for anyone and it's actually one of the places it goes but this is a signal that when you go the center thinks SDG explicitly said this kind of a close and thorough cross-national collaboration is really the only way to achieve the best that you can. I think it is that the Western world and the so-called democratic countries don't want to they don't want to recognize Taiwan as one of the greatest democracies in the world. Why do you work with this democracy to come to the United States? No, I think everybody recognized Taiwan as a world's one of the leading new democratic entities when I was in the open government partnership in Paris City I spoke with Paris City more about our democratic inventions and all the delegates to the open government partnership they are very welcoming our introduction and our innovation I haven't seen any single OGP member that comes to me saying we don't recognize Taiwan as a democracy I haven't heard anything like that so I don't know where your question comes from but from where I come from I see all the different democratic countries and entities is if Taiwan has a very valuable in providing pro-sectoral models of what you said. So what conclusion is your design? He's together. If you have to design a Taiwanese democracy what would you say? Well in Taiwan there were very names there were young democracy and we're saying that we're a very open to innovation democracy and I would use a kind of academic word to say that we're a recursive public that is to say we're a public that is not just a republic about representation but a public that is recursive that means that we're hopefully looking at the way democracy works and new innovations like the new reform the new innovation platform and how to do a perfect invention for us democracy there's not something that's fixed for George J.D. as anything has to change for us democracy so the big thing that we can be recursive. Can I take this off?