 Thank you for coming to this plenary session, amazing panelists tonight. Thank you all for willing to be here to share your thoughts about this topic that sometimes is not in the front pages of the newspapers, but I think it's really relevant for the future of most of the countries, if not all. The panel is going to be a conversation, so I invite you to be in a vivid conversation, to engage in the conversation between you. I'll try to do my best, I mean, moderating those guys here at the stage, and I would like you to start this panel with a couple of minutes answering a simple question. Given the speed at which technologies are reshaping economies and societies today, how can leaders like you all embrace disruption and accelerate sustainable development outcomes? And I would invite Prime Minister of Bangladesh to start this a couple of minutes. Well, thank you very much, thank you all, all the head of the government and my panelists and other guests. Well, as you know that Bangladesh is a country where only 147,000 square kilometer land, 160 million people. Now we have to feed them, we have to ensure them they are housing, healthcare, education, job opportunity. I mean, what needs for a human being, we have to ensure that. And you can understand it is a very difficult job, not only that, the country, our geographical situation is in such a way that it is very much a vulnerable for climate change. And natural calamity is it is our day-to-day phenomena. With under this situation we have another burden that is 1.1 million Myanmar citizen Rohingya, they get refused to our country and we give them shelter. We ensure their food and medication and other facilities, whatever we can afford. But international community, they are supporting us, definitely we appreciate them very much. Now our country was liberated in 1971, under the leadership of father of the nation Bangamandhi Sheikh Manjibur Rahman. When we liberated the country, in our country about, I can tell you that about 80 percent people or 90 percent people are under poverty level. Now we have a aim that we want to develop our country. Our economy is mainly based on agriculture, from agriculture to industrialization. That is our main aim. Yes, we need agriculture, we have to ensure their food security, nutrition security, side by side industrialization give the opportunity to develop. Now we are taking different steps. We open up our private sector, encouraging people to invest, foreign and abroad investment. Currently we have industrialization side by side, agriculture production we have increased, we ensure food security for our people and definitely now we are taking care of their health care, housing, creating job opportunity and also their nutrition. Many topics already, a lot of for the debate. Let's move to the President Peña Nieto, if you don't mind. President. Thank you very much Gustavo. I have two minutes. To reply to your question I believe we will have enough space for a debate. I would like to begin by saying I'm going to give people time to wear their headset. How can we adjust to this speedy change that technology is posing us and achieve the right results or the results that we need to have a sustainable world. In my opinion we need to adjust, we need to adapt and in the process that means to break the momentum, we need to break with paradigms and that means that we need to advance education. Education is the main pillar and the powerhouse of any nation and we must say for starters that if the world is changing in consequence policy and a nation structure needs to change as well in order to obtain better and different results from the ones that we have seen in the past if we keep on doing the same old thing we would achieve the results that are not enough today to address the demands of growing populations with more inhabitants in a world that there is interconnectivity and that uses more technology and I hope to have a chance to share the Mexican experience but I would like to share with you some figures that represent how Mexico has changed 30 years ago, 125 million inhabitants country now we are the 15th economy in the world, we are the second largest in Latin America and we moved from being a country where our biggest exportation product was oil and mining and that represented 66% of our economy back in the 80s and the 90s, 66% of our exports were precisely oil based on mining based today since we have decided to open up to the world we were able to show ourselves that we can be more productive, more competitive, we can compete with other nations and step into globalization, 90% of our exports correspond to manufactured products and practically only 10% of our exports come from the oil based economy. In my administration and I will elaborate on that I have fostered very important structural changes precisely to adapt to technological change that the world is undergoing. One of the reforms that I would explain deeply we have the telecommunications reform now we have access to 80 million users and our population is 125, 80 million users have access to internet, we doubled it, we had 40 million and now we have 80 million and we reduced the costs of telephony by 50% and there are many other reforms that have shown tangible results but I'm going to go back to your question. And this is my answer, how can we adapt vis-a-vis technology and how can we make technology bring results and be up to speed? Well the response is education, we need to teach new generations to learn differently, they need to learn how to learn and they need to adapt to this speedy change that the world is seeing every single day that's my answer. When you finish with education clearly is the main point of your statement. Let's move to the private sector, Michele Baker. She is a co-founder and executive chairwoman of Mozilla. Yes and first I'd say private sector we're more of a hybrid organization, we're a non-profit or NGO at its core but have a private subsidiary business. Fair enough. It's not often that I'm the representative of the private, certainly not of the private tech industry of Silicon Valley so we'll just start there. And I would, in a way it's building on the President's comments for technology, how do we embrace disruption which is difficult and also engage in sustainable development. I'd like to add the critical component of encouraging and increasing civil society participation in problem solving and the results. Because the technology, certainly the internet and messaging, communication have the impact of changing structures. Not just government structures but communication interaction structures and the sense of being involved both the ability to find something that you're either interested in or that outrages you and to get involved in some manner seems to come with this technology and it has a life of its own and that has power both for dramatically good results and the potential if ignored to be highly disruptive in socially undesirable ways. And so for example our experience is that the technology products coupled with local engagement, Mozilla has massive communities actually in Mexico and Bangladesh and where especially young people, those who are able, I have some degree of education, are really interested in participating. What is the technology? How does it work? How do we develop solutions with it? How do we engage with others? How do we collaborate? Can we develop some positive interactions on a cross-border style? And so left alone of course you can get all sorts of social movements that are aimed towards violence and disruption but there's also a huge possibility and we have seen over our 20 years of working in tech an amazing hunger for citizens to find a way to be engaged and participate and help craft solutions of their own. And so I think the combination of structural reforms, government reforms, perhaps regulatory reforms of the global private sector and a reform in the participation opportunities for civil society would be extremely powerful. Thank you. Talking about private sector now, I'm sure that you are private sector 100%. Alex Gorski, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer from Johnson and Johnson. Well thank you very much and it's a real honor to be here and to participate in a panel of such distinguished guests. And as you might understand, given the privilege I have of working at Johnson and Johnson, the world's largest healthcare company, I guess the main vector that I would take in discussion today is one about the intersection of innovation and healthcare and the important impact that they can have on these sustainable development goals around the world. And I think it really starts with a strong belief that we have that health is just a fundamental issue for families, for children, for mothers, for fathers, for cities, for communities, for countries, and frankly for all of us around the world. Because it enables us first to enjoy life, but of course beyond that it has to do with productivity, it has to do with stability of society, and so many other issues in how we engage. And so understanding the importance that healthcare has in really touching so many of these issues is critical. I think second, I think the good news is, is that we made a tremendous amount of progress over the last several decades. And if we think in our life spans, the average lifespan, even within that time, has increased by several decades. Improvements that we've had in things like cardiovascular disease, prenatal care, even with something like HIV, I can remember in the early 80s when it was first really discovered what the issue was you could expect to live perhaps two years. Today it could take several years off an average lifespan when treated with the right therapeutic regimen. The challenges we still have a lot of work to do. And as we think about it, there's several areas where innovation is going to be absolutely critical to our path forward. It will start with great science. There's still a lot of things we need to figure out. We need to do a better job with Alzheimer's. We need to do a better job with infectious disease. We're making great strides in areas like HIV, like TB, like polio, but there's still a lot of important science that needs to be done to actually move from treatment to cures in these conditions. Second, we've got to be more innovative about taking a lot of the existing therapies we have and making sure that more people can get access. And sometimes that can be as simple as color coating pills so that people take the right regimens to ensure compliance. It can be taking an old medication and finding a way to extend its duration of activity, therefore increasing the potential for it to have a therapeutic effect. It can be taking simple surgery and making it more accessible to greater numbers of patients. And last but not least, I would say what's really important is how do we take some of this new technology and employ it in new and unique ways to healthcare. We're doing programs right now where we're trying to educate, provide mothers just prior to the birth of their child with a phone and by giving simple messages on a recurring basis to these mothers, both pre-term as well as following the birth of their child, it can have a dramatic effect on the long-term health of that child. So I'm confident through public-private partnerships by working together, focusing on some of these things that can have a real impact on these goals. That's the point, private partnerships, public-private partnerships. And we have public representations here in the panel. We're going to finish this first round with Mark Groot, the Prime Minister from the Netherlands, is a developed country. I mean, here we have two developing countries. What's your point of view? Well, first of all, let me make one preliminary remark, which is towards my colleague from Bangladesh mentioned the Rohingya crisis. And I really want to applaud the way Bangladesh is helping to deal with that crisis, which is not easy. So I just want to make that preliminary remark and really my respect for how Bangladesh is working on this. Now to the question, and yes, it is education, it is disruption. I think I would like to make one point from the government. What we can do with these transformative technologies like artificial intelligence, the digital revolution, the fourth industrial revolution of Klaus Schwab has written a book about this, very authoritative. From government, we can do two things. One is to look at the negatives, the issues on privacy, the issues on people getting scared, the fact that it might distinguish between countries and people who have access to these new technologies and who don't. And yes, we have to deal with that. We have to deal with privacy. We have to deal with all the other issues coming out of these new technologies. But I do believe being a developing country, being a developed country, I think all of us, we should also embrace this. Because in the Netherlands, but also in Kenya, I now know of young people who on their own can start a multinational because they can have access to the whole world market, be it from the capital of Kenya or the capital from the Netherlands. It doesn't matter anymore. When I go on a trade mission now, I originally would only have the big companies like Unileve or Shell or the others or Johnson & Johnson on the mission. Increasingly so, we have small companies. There's only a couple of people working there who are working worldwide making use of the latest technology, making use of the latest distribution options we have in the world. And I think what we should do as governments is, yes, address those negatives and the impact it might have, but particularly look how we can channel these new technologies in such a way that they're really funneling and fueling our economies. So don't look at it as a problem, but as a huge opportunity. And this is, and there is no difference, be it Kenya or the Netherlands, how this will impact on young people starting a business on society as a whole. And there are huge advantages. That would be my main point. Thank you very much. I think there is one agreement between all of us, which is the technology is going to help in deal with the challenges that every country, every company, every human being has in the future. But as President Peña Nieto said, education is critical. And we, in my opinion, we have challenges from the education point of view in developing countries for sure, but also in developed countries. Absolutely. President Peña Nieto and Prime Minister from Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, how do you deal with this challenge to educate people, especially in your countries where other basic education needs are not fulfilled and you have to prepare your societies for this fourth industrial revolution? Thank you very much. It's a very important question. Well, as because we declare that we will develop our country as a poverty-free country, I feel that education is the key. And that's why education is up to, like for women, up to 12 class, it is free. We distribute free books up to the secondary level. From primary to second, I mean her education, it is all free. But you have the teachers, educated, to educate these people? We give training to the teacher. And also our up to higher education, we give stipend for the poor people and also for intelligent people. And we started build up, up to is a village level. Now we have schools in the primary section, 98 percent student, they go to school because we help the mother. We send money to the mother directly through mobile phone, some lump sum, some money, so that mother send their children to the school. We have made a meal. We get little help from other, but now our education level, it is already up to 72 percent literacy rate. We increased it. And also for educational side-by-side health care, we have community clinic. For every 6,000 people, there is a community clinic. From that, we distribute 30 types of medicine free of cost. We distribute books free of cost. We ensure that each and every children should go to school and get education. Side-by-side vocational training, we give vocational training so that everybody will not get high education or they will not interested, but they should get the opportunity for, I mean, job opportunity. That way we get more importance to them. Side-by-side, we feel that for, I mean, development industrialization is very, very important. But you mentioned already education, sorry, healthcare. I want to offer the floor just before the president of Mexico to the private sector to talk about health. How important is health in societies in order to achieve these challenges in the fourth industrial education? Well, I think it is absolutely critical. I mean, it starts with the very birth of a child. What can we be doing to help ensure that morbidity and mortality rates at birth are improved? We have much of that technology available. It is a matter of how do we improve the access to that? How do we think about it in terms of increasing productivity for all of our societies? And that, of course, means what do we do with the burden of disease? How do we keep people well, prevent them from getting sick in the first place? And then, of course, it's a matter of also longer-term treating disease so that people can maintain their lifestyle, can continue to be productive members of society. And by the way, that's for men, that's for women, that's for children, that's for all of society. And which role plays the PPPs here? Exactly. It's critical. Absolutely critical. I will talk about education first, and then I'll talk about PPPs. In some countries, this has been a tool to find uncertain projects, and in my opinion, we start seeing some crises and problems. But let's begin with that occasion. I would like to say that all of the countries present here and the representatives from the private sector, we see that there are solutions. And specifically, we can learn from success stories in terms of what needs to be done to address each country's needs. However, we must say that not necessarily every solution can be replicated elsewhere, because we need to address each country's reality. Imagine, let's try to use the same medicine to heal a different disease. We need to understand the different factors involved in a disease, because one single medicine will not heal everything. Education in Mexico was a challenge. It's one of the 14 structural reforms that my country underwent. Of course, it was tense at points, and it required a confrontation to a specific degree because there were vested interests. You mean the teachers. I'm describing the vested interests, not necessarily the privileges that teachers have. Some teachers had taken ownership of the largest union in Latin America, two million teachers, which are part of the teachers' trade union in Mexico. And some teachers, well, they have taken hostage the state due to their invested interests. So we decided to take ownership over education. Now, the state governs over education in Mexico. We have education for free. We have 36 million students. It's twice as double the population of the Netherlands, 36 million. So with this number of teachers, we had to create a method that would place evaluation as the best way to screen the best teachers we needed to give teachers a possibility to improve their level of income by means of a system of merit by training. And we needed a better infrastructure and better learning content. So this was the basic purpose, and this is what we decided to do for Mexico. At the end of the day, I believe that each country has to tailor its decisions to its own reality. And by creating the reform and adjusting it to Mexico has been a challenge. It's not an easy task. But I want to share this with you in this discussion, because it is easy to give away solutions. But the thing is how to put them in practice. And you have to understand each country's reality. And it can take a toll politically. It took a political toll. Yes, yes, it was exhausting, because it is linked to other reforms as well. Mr. Groot. It is exactly getting to the right point. Because two things are now being discussed. One is healthcare. Let me also mention distance healthcare. When you talk about developing countries, how can we bring the best healthcare to the far out parts of that country? And with the latest technology from companies like Phillips or Siemens or General Electric, we are able to do that. And again, this is to my point, that as a government, we should grasp the opportunities of these newest technologies and make them of use to our populations. So that not only in the developed countries, you would have a doctor in every small city, every small town, also in developing countries where you might have fewer numbers in terms of doctors and hospitals, that you are able to get the best possible healthcare to the most distant parts of those countries. And this is what the newest technology is providing us. It is really fantastic. On education, I completely agree with the Mexican president. It is not just about skills. It is also about how to bring the education to the young people and how to create a right mindset of being able to deal with transformative change, which is taking place at the moment. And for us, for example, it means that coding increasingly is now part of the educational system. It is not just being able to count and being able to read, but also being able to understand what coding means and being able to deal with that is also part of the educational system. Increasingly so. Again, we have to deal with all the negatives of the newest technology, but these are all examples of how it can help us to really, in a transformative way, improve our societies. If I could maybe just add one comment that I think is a bit of an intersection between education and science, certainly that we see from the many different STEM or technology fields that we are involved with, is just the fundamental premise around education of not only learning what, but understanding how to learn. And it can seem very, very basic, but many of us in here, and I'm making a big assumption, much of our education was based upon what we knew at a particular point in time. And when you think about how quickly science is advancing, the half-life of an education today versus what it was only 10 or 20 years ago, what's much more important is the ability of young students to be able to learn and perhaps reeducate themselves several times over throughout the course of a career. And we see that particularly to be true in the basic sciences. And so thinking about how we build our education systems, thinking about how we build our employee development and education systems with this idea of continuously learning, continuously developing yourself and your particular area of expertise throughout your career is going to be more critical than ever to ensure that people don't lose their relevance, don't lose their ability to contribute and really make a difference for a company or a country or society. And let me tell you, this is extremely difficult, lifelong learning. Very brief. You're working on this for years now, it is so difficult to implement that, but you're totally right, we have to do that. Sorry, I said brief because I want to hear from Michel Baker that everyone is talking and you are quiet right in the middle, and I am sure that you have plenty of things to add to this conversation. Thanks, what I was going to say is there's the education and the learning and then the question of what are the jobs and where do now, you know, students go, how is job creation handled and what is the changes structurally to the nature of jobs and what kinds of investments. So one of the things that we look at through innovation work and, you know, the classic makerspaces, but where is innovation happening? And so one other way I hope that governments grab on to the opportunity because I'm a big believer there's huge opportunity still, is where are their investments for local solutions and is their investment in social enterprise or are their investments the new, you know, like emulating VC funds sometimes or innovation funds or challenges and we find that there are many people trying to emulate Silicon Valley global platforms, but there's also a surprising number of people who are really interested in solving local problems and looking for government investment programs that are at least a corollary to the more glamorous piece of how do I actually get seed funding? How do I try to solve a problem for my neighborhood? And so I would hope that we can show the promise of this and then encourage these kinds of government programs as well so that more people are actually have some steps to take in addition to looking for jobs of the already prevalent companies. Well just reacting again very briefly, I get very enthusiastic about this. We have introduced the system of the right to challenge. That means if the local government is providing solutions for the local community, the people can then tell their local counselors, hey, we have a better option. We have a better solution. And this is the right to challenge. We are implementing that at the moment. It's very difficult again. Like lifelong learning is not easy, but government is not easy. But that's why it is so fascinating. But it is a great program because exactly as you were saying is making use of the enthusiasm of the energy of the people who know best what they want for the local community and making use of the latest insights in technology. Yeah, but you talk about education and if the young generations are prepared and are receiving the right education to face the challenges of the future. And I was wondering if the because President Peña Nieto mentioned that he had to deal with a very strong teachers union. Are the teachers in Netherlands, in Mexico or in Bangladesh with the skills, the right skills to face and to educate these future generations? Well, obviously, still a lot has to be done there. But at the end for us as politicians, we should be on the side of the teachers and not of the unions. We are there to make sure. Which is for many people, it's the same. No, it's not the same. The unions. No, no, I mean, I'm not against unions, but they are a grouping which we should talk with and discuss with. But at the end, we don't work with teachers through the unions. And there is a direct relationship between the government and the teachers and the unions are there as an NGO to be part of the social fabric of society. I want to mention one thing. For developed country, there is no much problem, problem with the developing country. You must. Well, as well, from developing country, now we have graduated to developing country, at least from least developed country to developing country. How we could do it? Within 10 years, we give more importance to education. Well, if we think about the industrialization, we need to educate people. It is important. And education, education must be diversified. Education, it is not that just they will pass and take the certificate. No, they have to learn how to run the industry or how to run a school. Then teacher, teacher also need education and training, which we are doing. We are trying diversification of education. Are they willing to, to educate, to reeducate themselves? Educate. Yes. They themselves also, we give facilities, we give facilities to do training for the teacher. We are giving, like, we have established digitalized Bangladesh. Now we have internet service all over Bangladesh. For computer, 1996, when I formed government, I found nobody use computer. Some people, they have computer, just it is like a showpiece keeping in the table. That was the situation. Now we change it. Now everybody using it. Now we are giving, we have multimedia classroom. We have different, I mean, we, we started for, from student to teacher, we are giving training to them. Now industrialization, we want, we have already started establishing industry all over countries, inviting foreign investment like PPP basis, G2G basis, or personal private sector. We open up private sector. But for that also we need a technical law, science, technology, education. This is very, very important and we are taking all the steps for that. So education is the key for everything education you need. We've heard what it's going on in Bangladesh in each country. And on addressing your question, this is a process that takes time. You can't reach that outcome to provide. Are you asking for a second mandate? Oh, no, no, no, time for teachers. We need time to train teachers properly so they can teach properly. And that's what students deserve. And what is the right content? As it has been said, we need to learn how to learn. And as Alec and the change is so fast that more than giving them formal learning contents, we need to teach them how to learn. They need to keep on learning throughout their lives. Otherwise they're going to be left behind. And the first question was, how do we use technology to solve today's problems? I believe that there's a huge window of opportunity in the area of technology used, but there's a challenge that we have identified. First of all, we're living in a world that is growing in population. We're 8 billion people in this world. 50 years ago, 60 years ago, it was half the population we're seeing. I've always said this. It's like going on an elevator, when you were one or two riding the elevator, when you click on one or two floors, but when you have 20 people in one elevator and you have 20 floors, so it becomes excruciating. So that's the challenge of governments. How can you keep up 20 people in one elevator clicking on different floors with calm, with patience? How can you keep them calm to get to the floor that they have pressed on the elevator? And that's how we describe the state of society. And I believe that technology has demanded governments to present outcomes fast, because that is what society demands. And as a consequence, we start sitting in the world. Well, practically, the non-conventional approach, people sometimes are against the system because it might have taken years to build. We're starting to see opposition to democracies, political parties, and this has happened so fast that people are questioning if it is working or not. What is the best alternative? What do you think this is happening? We are seeing it. We are seeing it in Latin America, in different parts of the world. There is an anti-system approach. The recent election in our country, for example, where we have government already elect with great support from voters, and the traditional parties got the worst voting results ever. And my party is included. And this shows clearly, and this is the case of Mexico, it is clear that the society supported one political option. And I'm very glad that that was the way to go, because that's the next president of Mexico's level of support. And we see the same thing in Europe, in Latin America. We see a break in this status quo. We see that the momentum is being broken. That was creating positive results. But now the society is asking for fast results, and we have an anti-system approach. The population can, you can convert population to your asset. Like in our country, we believe that we have younger generation. If we can give them proper education and if we can give them opportunity, they can be our asset. Because for agriculture, for education, for industrialization, for healthcare, everywhere you need trained people, educated people. So I believe that it is not a burden. Rather, through POPAPlan program, you can achieve your goal. You can give them training. They can be your asset. Now, within 10 years, we achieve our GDP 7.86%. Under these circumstances, we have so many problems. But even then, we are making progress. How? Because we are encouraging our people, giving them opportunity, giving them more facilities. That's why we achieve our GDP 7.86%. And also, our poverty, we reduce to 21%. From 40% to 21%. So that way, our country is making progress. Now, we are, as I told you, as before, that now we are going for industrialization. But industry, it must be diversified, different type of industry, so that it can, it is not only that we will export, but our purchasing power is increasing, our own market is increasing. So that way, we are working. So education is the key that I can tell you. Can I tell you something? Now I understand why you are a politician. Ms. Baker, I have a question for you. I know that you are a strong advocate for open internet and open source. Which role in the education challenge has open internet for developing societies? And I want to place a mark. I'd like to come back to the anti-society bias at the end, if I might. So open internet and open source, let me separate them out for a little bit and talk about open source, which I think is a pretty fundamental positive building block for many levels. First, as an educational tool, if you actually want to learn coding, but how it works in the world, especially in a large project, those are hard to do in schools and individual projects. So open source as a way of learning by doing and seeing what's actually real as well as bringing trustworthiness into the system. Because clearly one of the issues with technology today is trustworthiness and how do we build a system that's trustworthy enough that your point of view will be successful, that we still grab hold of it and try and fix the problems rather than be afraid. And so open source is the ability to actually verify that what someone tells you is happening is actually happening. And we can see across a range of technology products but also other institutions that once you learn that what people told you is happening is false, then all sorts of anti-society problems come out. So I see open source as a huge educational tool for something that is a public good. Open source is the only way for it to exist. That's why Mozilla is trying to build part of the internet as a public good and everything we do is open source, say public asset. And finally it is a huge tool for building something that's trustworthy. But in your opening remarks you call for participation and local engagement. How do you help to achieve or to reach people who live in rural areas in developing countries who don't have access to internet, which is in my opinion one of the main tools in nowadays education. So Matt might be your your first question about open internet and how important is it, but access to the internet with a broad range of content is obviously the fundamental activity. And so one of the questions is very much like education. What we've been finding in our research and activity is that the solution to internet access in rural areas is very local solution. And needs a community, whether it's community networks or community engagement, often there's a regulatory problem related to spectrum and how it's managed, but very often getting out into the highlands of we'd say Bolivia versus getting into the rural villages in India, they are very different solutions. And so that fundamental piece needs like the flexibility of government to enable many local solutions. Flexibility, that's my next point for the politicians, that regulation. Do you want to add something to this? When flexibility is involved, you should ask me a question. I would just like of course this debate is focusing on the positives and the negatives of this technological revolution, that it's only logical. But let me try to combine the two and because on the one hand we know through technological change, particularly women, might lose jobs because many traditional jobs in many countries where many women are involved will be the first to be involved in this new technological revolution. Take for example the health care sector. At the same time we know that when we are all getting older that we need more people to be taken care of. So the technology here will help us. For example in Netherlands we have 130,000 vacancies over the next 10 years in the health care sector. If we would not have technological innovation, one in four people would work in the health care sector in 2025. That's simply impossible. We're already spending one in four euros on health care. We cannot have one in four people working in the health care sector. That's simply impossible. So you can combine the two, which is to make use of the latest technology, the fact that you're all getting older and then also to mitigate this negative of that many people might lose their jobs. And this is the role for us politicians. This is difficult. If you don't play this well you will have a populist backlash. If you play this well it would also be a new lease for the more traditional centrist parties to be able to continue to govern their countries. But this is a key test which will come up and technology providers. And a final point will be on a totally different issue, which is the fake news debate we now have, that these newest technologies will also help us to fight because this is one of the biggest risks our society are confronted with, the fake news. It will also help us to fight that if we play it well. So there are many, again, many positives, but at the same time we have to play this extremely well as politicians. It is not easy. I would like to invite now Aleks Glorski, President Peña Nieto mentioned that everything goes super fast today. And talking about regulation policies, red tape, it seems that the governments are big monsters. And to change anything within the government it's a huge effort. And the private sector usually goes faster than the public sector. Okay, we have a debate here. What would you ask the governments to change in order to go faster with the current speed of the changes of the revolution that we are leaving it? Look, I think that the government has an important responsibility to always be balancing the right level of regulation with obviously the impact that it's ultimately going to be having on society. In our world it's then one, for example, about the approval of new products and carefully balancing safety, quality access with speed to patients. And what we have found is that there too it takes partnership, it takes education, it takes transparency of information. And as we were mentioning earlier, I think being a more of an optimist, I think having greater ubiquity, greater transparency of information, more sharing between what's available in government, what's available on the private side can facilitate this kind of balancing that we're talking about to have it be more effective and more efficient. Interesting. We have four minutes left. I don't know if... A question was asked to politicians, but was specifically the question. You were going to ask a question about stability. That's really odd. Oh my god, a politician asking a journalist to ask a question. All right. This is okay. That's getting interesting. All right. No. I want you to be focused now in the time that we have left in the transformation of jobs. The industrial revolution is transforming jobs. And for many people that means that their traditional job are disappearing. And that has political consequences. Just to mention, I live in Washington. I see what happened in Wisconsin, in Ohio, in Michigan, how this globalization has changed those states. And that had an important impact in the political arena in Washington. How do you deal with the people who are not skilled to change their jobs in their 50s, 60s, or 70s in many countries, but they lose their jobs because of this transformation? Very brief. We're going to start with the three politicians that we have here. Well, what I feel that we have some traditional production. We are giving them special training and all the facilities so that, well, it can be modernized so that they can continue their traditional activities side by side, job opportunity. Now, in our country, we have internet service all over the country, even up to a village level. We establish digital center. People are getting job opportunity and people are using internet. And side by side, the light broadband, we have broadband all over. We started giving them. And we have satellite. Now it's people like for agriculture. Agriculture. Now we are encouraging people that I know that traditional job they will not do as because they are educating. Now mechanized agriculture, we have started teaching them and also engage them in the traditional job. It is not that we will just bring them out from their traditional one, but I want to keep them there, but with giving them mechanized ones so that they can continue. That way we are trying to do it. And also the mobile phone, now we have mobile phone in each and every people they have. So the new technology and new thing they should learn. So how much you can teach them and training them, then you can. Prime Minister. Yeah, I know. Prime Minister. Yes, technology has broad consequences and technology will bring about solutions. I believe at the end of the day it should not be seen as a problem. It should be seen as a breakthrough that has happened very fast. But we're going to see many solutions arriving from technology and from my opinion, I would say that being open is part of the solution. What might be a problem? And we've seen different views already. If is it positive for different countries to join globalization? Well, that might give rise to the development of global value chains several regions. For example, the European Union, North America and the generation of value chains and job creation in regions is linked to technology. If we close up, if we isolate ourselves, if we impose protectionist measures, will it seem to be that we have managed to do several decades ago? It's been seen today by some countries has been seen the formula to solve the problems that globalization has brought along. But I believe that globalization will allow us to face the challenges of this time. We should not close our doors. Technology is bringing us issues to solve, but technology is going to be part of the solution. Now you asked for questions. Would you say that it is a failure that Canada decides not to add up to to NAFTA? I believe that the ground is set so we can take advantage of this platform to revamp the agreement that we already have. Mexico has reached an agreement with the United States, already Mexico expects that Canada reaches an agreement with the U.S. as well. And we hope to have a partnership of three partners for North America. I believe that for Mexico, the United States is the biggest partner. It represents 90 percent of the trade we do in North America and for Canada, of course, trading with the United States is extremely important. It's even bigger than the trade that Canada has with Mexico. So some portion is already sold. We're very positive and we're optimistic that the portion that is left will give us three partners. Your response has been very sensitive. In a nutshell, no failure. Answer to a question is two-fold. First of all, you need to put in place deep-rooted reforms because from that you will get growth. The Netherlands is now growing twice the pace of France and the United Kingdom and 1 percent above Germany because I think we put in place the necessary structural reforms and now they're delivering. And from this growth you will get new jobs. It is the engine to job creation. At the same time, you need modern labor laws, a modern labor market in which particularly the 40s and over 50s and 60s are able to be as flexible as possible within the labor market whilst maintaining a maximum of security at the same time, which is necessary for them to be willing to adapt to these new circumstances. I think if you have those two in place, you can deal with these disruptions and you have to as a society because otherwise all these vacancies will not be filled. And if they are not filled and they are not taken care of by the newest technology, then you might have a big issue within the healthcare sector and within your educational system. We ran out of time, but I think it's fair and nobody in the World Economic Forum is going to tell me not to give the floor 30 seconds for the two last panelists to close the panel. So let's, no, no, no, no, from the private sector. So Mr. Goski, the floor is yours. Well, as you could probably tell from the comments earlier, I think that there's more reason to be optimistic about the opportunity that innovation and technology presents in helping us deal with many of these issues. However, with the strong caveat that it's going to need to be done in a balanced way, with the right sense of security for workers, with the right balance of regulation by governments, but I'm convinced that many of the examples that you heard up here today, when we create the right kind of partnerships that have got the right kind of trust and accountability that we can make tremendous strides forward. Ms. Smit. But we haven't heard anything from the journalist. Of what? Excuse me. Say it again. Maybe I'll finish up and we can go on. Okay, later. Okay. We're not done with disruption. We're seeing the early phases of disruption of democracy. I too believe technology can be a part of the solution. So we have more disruption coming. I'm not sure that any one of us will embrace all of it or how much of it we each wish we could avoid. So moving into, I think, more and faster disruption, one of the key aspects for grabbing hold of technology has got to be trust and trust in institutions. I don't know if we can go back to being slower again, but what is a quick enough response of institutions to maintain credibility and be able to be respected enough to move forward and solve problems? And so this question of transparency and accountability and engagement and how do we use technology, I think, to build trust in the underlying institutions will be key to almost everything. With that, we have to leave it here. Mr. Roth, Mr. Gorski.