 Hello, everyone. This is Ajitang, Taiwan's digital minister in charge of open government. I'm very happy to be here to share with you our regulatory co-creation system, the sandbox system. Now, while there's many cases on sandbox RGTW, that is bilingual, I will just focus on one specific case, the Good Shepherd's case. Good Shepherd is an association in Taiwan working on what we call Food Bank. It's worked with food producers and supermarkets and so on to turn potentially leftover or waste food into ingredients for the local elderly to cook together and to take care of each other to promote social solidarity. Now, they've been running for quite a while and they found that because of their popularity, there's several lines of products that they produce together in this way that has a wider market appeal. And so they want to found a company, a closely held company that they can control through the special vote system that we just introduced in Taiwan in 2015 so that they can hold maybe just 30% of the stock but actually have a majority of vote. So the for-profit company keeps earning the profit toward the non-for-profit organization. And so the company itself would be what we call a social enterprise or a company with a social mission and a social purpose. Now, the problem is in Taiwan, the company law, the first article of company law actually says a company exists for the profit of the shareholders. So it is a really neoliberal kind of system where shareholder value is actually the only thing that the company exists for. And so this kind of companies wasn't that legal in Taiwan, there's some gray area. To add to that, there's also a limitation on whether a non-for-profit company can be authenticated, authorized to start a company. Although there is no law that says it's a no-no, but there's no law that says it's allowed either. And so they're kind of in a legal limbo when they want to pursue this innovative approach. Now what we do, our innovative approach, is a regional innovation system. I personally tour around Taiwan every couple of Tuesdays to talk with social innovators through telepresence. I'm in the local population, but the 12 ministries related to social innovation are in Taipei's social innovation lab or in Taichung's social innovation lab. And we use telepresence to make sure that people can actually see through my eyes, like I'm an ethnographic reporter. How exactly is the good shepherd operating there? How exactly does the local other stakeholders, other MPOs, and other social entrepreneurs react? So by a multi-stakeholder panel, we give much more context through the entire transcript published as a radical transparency to make sure that people understand why, not just what, of the motivation of the policymaking. And after this regional tour, we make sure that they enter the sandbox system that can call all the related ministries into, again, multi-stakeholder discussion with the full transcript published on the internet. And so the key principles is three-fold. First is, of course, radical transparency. Because previously, if any public servant say, okay, I want to allow this kind of experimentation, they actually bear all the risk. The minister can always blame them. But of course, if it works, the minister take all the credit. But now with radical transparency, it's flipped. If things go right, then the journalist, the general population can go back to the transcript to see exactly which public servant came out with the innovative idea that allowed this kind of hybrid companies with a purpose. Now, if things go wrong, because we have a sandbox system that says, you know, this is just a one-year experimentation. If the one year terminates and it doesn't work, or if the MPOs and the people in the ecosystem generally doesn't trust this kind of accountability, share accountability, then the sandbox experiment actually terminates. And again, the public servant will not be at risk. So radical transparency is very important. The second principle, as I said, is location independence. The case is brought by a very local group. But if we tour around Taiwan, we can always see them in their natural habitat and interact with their real on the grounds they call us, instead of seeing them as kind of abstract applications. And so seeing them eye to eye, even just through telepresence, by all the related ministries is very important. Because otherwise, the Ministry of Interior can just say, you know, I'll have to copy the Ministry of Economy, but they cannot say that if they're physically in the same place, sitting next to each other, they actually have to brainstorm something. And finally, I think voluntary association is very important. Everybody understands that they joined this regulatory sandbox because of a local social need. It is not because a ministry or someone in the top level assigned them to do it. It's because everybody wants to respond to this new social need of capitals that contributes to social solidarity. Now, the measurable outcome, of course, is that first our company act was changed. The first clause that says the company may declare in their charter that they are existing in addition to profits, also for a social purpose. So it's legal now. And we also have the technical measure that allows people to see the accountability report and for a PKI-based e-signature system for company to declare such charters and also reports. And finally, the critical questions is my own uncertainty about this is that people generally think companies are for profit and nonprofits are something else entirely. And such hybrid organizations challenges people to think about the triple button line as the spirit of sustainability of goals. And frankly speaking, not all people are very sure about this. And so what we need to do through the sandbox system is to create actual cases that proves that capitals when infused with a tightly monitored, a fully accountable record actually contribute to social solidarity. So that's my sharing. Thank you.