 Okay, so I think we can start. So thank you very much everybody to join in this keynote session. My name is Ken Ito. I'm Executive Director of Social Body Japan. At the same time, I'm also one of the director at CIMI. We are very honored to have two distinguished guests today, the Odo Lee Tan and the Naoki Oda. As you know that the two of the leaders in Taiwan and Japan is like a leading discussion on this impact economy. And this session is titled as the building the impact economy, social impact, technology and a democracy. And first of all, let me introduce two speakers today. Odo Lee Tan, he's a digital minister of Taiwan. I think we don't have to introduce the background because he is the most well-known Taiwanese person in Japan. And also, if you look at his bio, something very impressive is that this is leading the social reform by the civic participation and also promoting digital governance. And we are seeing all different accomplishments during the COVID situation. And but no, it's just a piece of the iceberg. And we are very impressed to know that he's behind that and it's a leadership to bring these different initiatives to the government. And the second speaker is Mr. Naoki Oda. Oda-san is like a friend of mine and it's my senpai. And he has been working for the Boston concerting over 20 years. But the reason why we want to bring him to this discussion is that because of his cross-sector career and he has appointed to the advisor position to the minister, mainly taking care of the ICT policy formulation in Japan. And also he's known as a leadership team, as a part of a leadership team at the Code for Japan. So, and he told me that this is hard time to have a discussion with Odo Lee. So I was kind of surprised that these two people are very much like-minded and have a lot of the common topic to discuss. So before starting, let me introduce four key concepts of this session. One is, of course, impact economy that we are discussing this transformation of the capitalism that used to be with the leading indicator as the least can return. But we are adding impact as a side, like a principle of the governance of the capitalism today. And also the other keyword is the digital transformation. As everybody know that the data is the key to realize the impact economy. We need to measure the data, both qualitative and quantitative and how we make it viable to the policy makers or the business sectors or non-professionals that is the key to induce their actions to make the social changes. And this idea is also connected with the plan of evidence-based policy making. Basically, this is the implementation of this idea to the policy making process. So the policy are usually treated as a kind of political movement, some interest of some particular interest group or some particular politician. But now we are seeing the different era because we are seeing all the transparency of the data. We can see that this policy implemented and what was the result immediately. We can see, we are seeing the TV news talking about COVID and the people, maybe you have realized that we are using mobile data to see that how many people is on the street today in the particular area in Tokyo. So we can understand the impact immediately using this data. And this is expected to be feedback to the policy making process. So this is the basic guide of evidence-based policy making. And finally, the impact management, which the city has been promoting that we are trying to realize that a society which the impact drives that the social development. Okay, so shall we start the keynote? So Audrey, are you ready? Mm-hmm, yes, I believe. Okay. So should I just start sharing my screen? Please. Okay, thank you, I'm really happy to be here. Although as you mentioned, it's our first time in a panel talking together, it will not be the last. So I look forward to more discussions in the future. So yeah, I started with some numbers. This is according to Freedom House. They did a country's work card for the Summit for Democracy for all participating countries. And of course, Japan and Taiwan leads Asia in terms of freedom score and freedom of the internet. And this is very important for social innovation because the key factor here is that we need to innovate with the people, not just for the people. So having the freedom of expression of assembly and so on is the key part, indeed at the very pillar of social innovation. And in Taiwan, the internet has developed alongside our democratization between the lifting of the martial law in 1987 and the presidential election in 96. We saw the popularization of PCs and a wide web in a span of 10 years. So the first idea I want to introduce is that technology in Taiwan is not just semiconductor, it's not just industrial technology, but also social technology. Democracy is like a social technology that can only be enriched through the joint efforts of all. So ever since I was a child, I've known that our government insists that broadband is a human right, reducing the cost for civic technologies. Our narrow infrastructure allows everyone to broadcast life from Jade Mountain to Taiwan's highest peak because we believe that a completely open environment with free speech is perfect for letting digital democracy flourish. And so when COVID came, we used this basic infrastructure of universal healthcare, the IC card based on universal healthcare, the broadband that afforded access for the pharmacies to visualize mask inventory and so on, which I believe is well-known in Japan, so we're not going to details here, but I will share another example, which was from last May, because last May is when Taiwan faced our first wave of the alpha and then later delta variant, so we needed to shorten the contact tracing from 24 hours to less than 24 minutes. But in accurate information, we put us at a dilemma of having to choose between protecting privacy and also preventing the pandemic, which is sometimes phrased as kind of trade-off, but we do not want it to be a trade-off. So instead of centralizing contact tracing data to a certain company or to the state or yielding control to multinational corporations and their emerging standards, we instead sought social sector solutions. So that's the second concept, the idea of a social sector, just like you can go to a private sector for procurements. We went to the social sector for reverse procurement, that is to say, we're not asking anyone to implement anything. On the other hand, we're asking are there better designs that takes care of both the privacy and contact tracing so that we may implement it using state budget. So we're crowdsourcing the specification, the agenda, the norms around contact tracing. We're not saying that people in the social sector have to implement any particular thing. So this is crowdsourced agenda setting from the social sector. So by putting out this call for proposals in just three days, the civic technologies in the Gov0G0V community invented this mechanism you're seeing here based on text messages. So it works very simply. You don't have to download any app. There's no app required. This is the building camera. Just point it to the QR code. It pops out a SMS screen and you press send and that's it. So it goes to a toll-free number, 1922. It's already well-trusted as the representative number for the central epidemic month, Sansa. But the data does not go to the Sansa. Rather, it's stored like post-it note for just four weeks at your telecom. If there's no local outbreak in that area for four weeks, then it's just deleted from the telecom. So it's never centralized anywhere. The venue owner learns nothing about your phone because it's between you and your phone company. And your phone company knows nothing about the venue because for them it's just 15 digits of random code. So this is what we call a privacy enhancing technology, APET. In this sense, we decentralize the storage and therefore, unless you're a contact tracer, there's no way to piece together the complete puzzle of contact tracing. So I went into this detail because the people who design it want us to make sure that everybody understand the privacy-protecting nature of this design. And this collaboration cannot happen without strong trust across all the sectors. And of course, by adopting the social sector design, we in the government also have to promise that we want to bridge the digital gap for the elderly and the visually impaired so that contact tracing can still be done through measures such as handwriting or stamping and so on. So this is not replacing paper. This is augmenting paper. This is another issue that we had to tackle early on. But with all that said and done, it's just I think seven days and then more than two million venues adopted this way. And it's more than I think about a half billion so far sent this way with no privacy compromises. So all in all, it's a really successful measure. And because the civic tech originated from this community that has a strong sense of privacy, for example, there was a judge that assessed a police search warrant and said that they have to deny this warrant because it says for epidemic control use only, right? It's the original message in each and every SMS that's sent. So the judge denied the police from accessing this mapping between the remnant code and specific venues, but also went public, wrote a newspaper up ahead that says it should be illegal for those SMS to be sent to the wiretappers. And so we immediately convened and the minister of justice said, yeah, that's true, the 192 to SMS does not constitute communication under the communication security and surveillance act. And therefore should not be repurposed for law enforcement keeping the original intent intact. So I believe rule by the people is the original intent of democracy. And digital democracy means designing with the people. And so people who wanted to see, for example, in the past 28 days, which contact tracer have accessed their data for what purpose and so on, everything is radically transparent to everyone. So this is a reverse audit. You can do a reverse audit to the contact tracers by authenticating your SMS numbers. Again, mutual accountability ensures that the people public private partnership starts in the social sector, where the people sets the norm. Through reverse procurement, the state implements the norm and the private sector like the telecom company and the convenience store that post those QR code simply implements the norm that they do not have a way to go outside of the norm. So this is social sector first design, which is the only way so far that we've discovered that can increase trustworthiness as the pandemic goes on instead of decrease trustworthiness because people who do not have a say or participation in this kind of mechanism eventually lose trust in the mechanism. But because everyone can participate literally on a day-to-day fashion. So that they can actually understand how it works and also improve how it works. So I think mutual accountability is also very important. But none of this come out of from a blank state. The reason why the mask rationing map, the SMS space contact tracing can happen within just three days or seven days is because there's already a very strong civic infrastructure in the digital realm that allow this to happen. What you're seeing is Airbox, a low-cost air quality tracker adopted by many primary schools as a way to teach data stewardship and household balconies. So the citizen science supplemented our government's limited capacity and paved the way for data stewardship and environmental education to be taught by young children measuring PM 2.5 and contributing to a distributed ledger so that it could affect the decision for their parents whether to go outside to jog or for a hike. That morning is partially dependent on the primary schoolers measuring the air qualities to get them. And instead of banning this efforts as some more authoritarian regimes would do, I instead encouraged them through the civil IOP program which expanded this network to areas inaccessible to primary schoolers. For example, industrial parks because they probably cannot go to industrial park and install air boxes there but it turns out our municipal government owns the lamps. So we just took again the design from the social sector the citizen scientist and implemented that on the lamps in industrial parks. So at a time they were less than 2000 devices in 2015 but today there's tens of thousands of those devices that completes the picture around air quality and pollution. So data sharing should be again, built upon this idea of social sector first approach that allows us formed shared goals together based on evidence that's gathered together. And when the evidence points to multiple possible solutions there's also a way to crowdsource shared feelings despite those different positions through assistive intelligence or AI. For instance, many passengers welcome Uber's entry to Taiwan in 2015 but it also triggered taxi driver discontent. And again, with the help from the GovZero community we utilize the Polis system as you see here to invite stakeholders to resonate with each other's feelings. So the way it works is that if you feel similarly to me your avatar moves toward me but if you said no, I don't share their opinion well, you move farther away from me but there's no way for people to outvote a minority group this measures the plurality this does not measure the headcount. So this allowed us to surface the shared values which are hiding in plain sight. And every time we run a Polis conversation for three weeks we see maybe 5% of the ideological statements that people agree to disagree like whether it's sharing economy or gig economy but safety or insurance or paying taxes, professional license and so on these are the common feelings that were then ratified in the diversified taxi program of 2016 and I think this is the most important of all. So I think this is the same idea that has worked for many, many different topics and because of time constraints I can't go through them all but I want to just finally highlight that we found a way to institutionalize the rapid deployment of this social innovation that came from the social sector. Every year we give five trophies to the social entrepreneurs and public servants that have built something that work on a smaller scale but the promise of that trophy is that we'll just amplify it to a national scale with all the budget, all the personnel and all the legal requirements that can then take their idea and put it on the national level. So there's many idea the start overseas for example in our social innovation lab there were people sharing the Japanese idea mai mizu that allows people to track the drinking stations to for refillments but then it won the presidential hackathon and then the idea became a fong cha or home day that allowed people in Taiwan to combine that mai mizu idea which allows you to find a drinking fountain nearby and Pokemon Go which is a way to gamify the system to find new friends and collect coins and so on and so in SDG terms this is effective partnership through reliable data in a way of open innovation. So to conclude I will just read my job description which describes a social sector take on the more technical jargons that were at a time quite popular still it's very popular today but I firmly believe that Japan and Taiwan are natural allies in finding the human-centered way to reinterpret those ideas it goes like this when we see the internet of things let's make it an internet of beings when we see virtual reality let's make it a shared reality when we see machine learning let's make it collaborative learning when we see user experience let's make it about human experience and whenever we hear that a singularity is near that is always remember the plurality is here thank you for listening and looking forward to the discussion Thank you Odoi this is very interesting the showcase of the how Taiwanese society is transforming it's a very interesting complus to our like news articles in Japan some like manipulation with statistics like once a four year election decide everything so I think this is really good like a point that we it's a point and a lot of reflection to our discussion in Japan so Otoi-san maybe you know you are very well positioned to respond to these like opportunities and so may I ask you to introduce what we do in Japan and your view on how we can progress Otoi-san, we cannot hear you Otoi-san, we cannot hear you maybe why he's configuring the ID setting maybe I can ask some question to Odoi so this is very interesting to see that so when we talk about like a data many people have some fear that data is misused and also that who manage the data who take over the governance but you're like a showcase is the saying that the transparency is the key so that if the transparency is ensured at the system level then that will ensure the governance on the other hand yes so there's two key things here one is that how quickly can a rough consensus something that we can all agree on on the use of the data the proper use of the data that's the first thing and the second is that how quickly can the bias and misuses around data be discovered and corrected if the iteration the agility of those two are as quick as the Taiwanese example that is to say literally within a week or so then people actually see those shortcomings as ways to improve each other's mutual trust but if longer than a week if say it requires a year or four years to correct the data bias or to build consensus around data use then of course is a net loss for everyone involved people can say just trust us but then people would not have a way to address the shortcomings or maybe you do trust your clinic and your clinic does trust some IT vendor but it doesn't mean you trust the IT vendor and so every time that there's this kind of situation occurs without a good enough consensus making or correction mechanism then it's everybody's loss so I think we need to invest in the social infrastructures of trust building and mutual accountability even before we think about deploying anything that's wide scale. I see, so Watasan? Oh, no, we cannot hear you. So maybe our colleagues could help you. And the other interesting point is that this formulation of trust or consensus by making all different opinions clear so this is the very interesting complus to our cyber space like a political debate that you are trying to find the enemy and the attack it and mobilize all different opinions but you're saying that this is a simultaneous communication the mutual communication will eventually form a consensus in a very short period of time. That is correct. So I think it's the same people the same citizens, constituents it's just the space that is different that is to say on Facebook or other more in the social corner of social media the focus is on creating this addictiveness of outrage when people are in rage about something Facebook attracts you to have a back and forth but in the Polish system that I just introduced is more a pro-social social media so that people compete not on fighting each other but finding things that can convince people of different feelings and because there's no reply button if you are a troll you don't have anywhere to grow, right? So the space itself is conductive for the dynamic nonviolent communication this is exactly like in a physical town hall or campus or a public park the space is designed for pro-social conversations we would not take our town hall discussions or deliberations into the nightclub where the music's very loud you would have to shout to get her addicted drinks private bouncers smoke for your room, right? And I have nothing against entertainment sector I just think that we should not put our citizens conversation there we should have dedicated spaces in the digital realm. Thank you, I'm very interested in this because in the impact assessment impact management space we always talk about these consensus impact information will bring the people to the same table to discuss and leads to the conclusion eventually but our image is that it's a physical meeting like a kind of town hall kind of meeting presenting the result of assessment and the people listening and the like a panel discussion type of setting but actually it doesn't have to be like that so we can do it in a simultaneously and indirectly in the sidebar and I think the voice is back, yeah. Okay. Now, can you hear me? Yes. Okay, yeah. Okay, so let me share a few slides and thank you for having me today. So, okay. Wait a moment, I'll switch to the other PC. Okay, good, good. Okay. Yes, we can see your screen. So, as it was introduced to me and my activities are across the three sectors. The private sector that I've been working with Panasonic and Twitter to develop to promote smart cities mainly in rural areas. And the public sector I have been the advisor to the minister of ICT for almost four years but nowadays I became a member of the council which was set by the prime minister, Kishida-san to promote the vision, the code digital Danyan Toshi which is a meeting the digital technology and the rural areas. And, thirdly, I'm actively involving to the movement called Civic Tech as I was introduced which is aiming to promote the movement that where the citizens tackle social issues by using the technologies. And based upon those activities in terms of the relationship between the social and technology there has been two questions which are very important to us. The first question is that there is a trend where I would say sentiment after 2010 which is called the tech rush the technology and the back rush and which is there the people, the few, the anxiety or even resistance to technology to use of technology. The first question is that faced with the global pandemic has a tech rush that being put on hold? And it seems that there are two schools around that question. One and a half years ago there was a very important and interesting dial between two persons. Why is the odors are here? And the other is the Yubao no Harari known as a author of the Homo Deus and Sapiens. And Harari urged that looking to the future there is a great risk to humankind which is the technologies namely data and algorithm are going to influence or even control our mind and thinking. And this is very difficult to resist to that trend. But this is his opinion. And the odorsan it is very easy for her to share her opinion here but in the dialogue her position is very different. And shares that they are defining algorithms as a code. And code includes not only the program or algorithm but more generic general rules. And in the very near future it is very easy for us to participate and contribute to making rules at any time. So this is a very near future. And my opinion around this question is that she's involving to the civic tech movement. The technologies are becoming more become more democratized and it is very easy for us to use that to tackle social issues. I'll give you one example. Two years ago, the Tokyo Metropolitan City has decided to create coronavirus information site by open source technology. And more than the 300 students including the junior high school students and the senior person that developed the site within a few days. And the project was managed by Code for Japan. And since the website was built by open source the code has been shared by other cities and Hokkaido and Okinawa and Osaka and Kyoto and et cetera. And more than 20 million people use that site and more than 60 cities use the program. So this kind of stuff is going to happen in the very near future. And that is first question. And the second question is more general one. How to live with coronavirus? And in the 21st century, if we remember what's been happening we have been suffering from the pandemic very periodically. It is said that there are many causes including the soil have been heavily damaged. The soil is very effective to control the virus but it's been very damaged. Or the humankind have been very close to animals and there are many other reasons but it is said that the pandemic is very difficult to stop and will continue in the future. So we often use the word new normal but now the second question I'd like to raise is that how we think about open and sparse space? I'm explaining why this is very important. The humankind have been made many innovations but one of the great innovation is urbanization. So urbanization has been reading the society and economy. And what is urbanization? In the western side, if you look at the diagram the urbanization means that we have been moving sparse to dense and close, open to close. So this is the urbanization. But you know, nowadays it is very risky to live in the dense and close space because of the coronavirus. So the second question is how to find the value in the opposite side, which is the sparse and open space. So in the very near future, I think they are the space and area value will be re-innovated based upon how dense the space is or how the air is floating or how the people are moving. But the question is, since the urbanization is a great innovation, it is economically makes sense, making sense. And the urban is very attractive to people. The urban is the place where the new cultures and the new innovations and new ideas are emerging. But on the contrary, if you look at the open sparse space which is basically rural areas, they are very struggling. The infrastructure, including road and water or energy are very high and it's very hard to maintain. And there's no power to attract people. So in order to re-find the value in the open sparse space, we need to innovate. First, the infrastructure by using their off-grid technologies and also to create the attractiveness within that space. That's the second question. So in terms of the society and technology, I think the first agenda is not let ourselves get hot, but we have the society and system to make the society a better place. And second is there, since the pandemic will continue periodically, it is very important to create value in open sparse space, mainly in rural areas by using technologies. Those questions I'd like to raise to stimulate our discussion. Thank you very much. Thank you, Oda-san. This is really a nice way to interpret that our context to Oda and the audience. But I'm seeing the common keywords, like it's autonomy and centralization. And these two principles are applying in a different setting, but maybe we are seeing the innovation in the IT and also our change of social system to more participatively like a setting will make these concepts enable to implement in the real setting. So thank you, Oda-san. This is very insightful, the idea. So for our discussion, I have several agenda. The one is that maybe everybody's wondering that how this Taiwanese response to the COVID was successful because if you want to make the data transparent, maybe there's some people want to stop it because I know that all the government officials something responsible for the organization don't want to disclose the data. Maybe this emergency situation will make it enable, what was made possible. But could you tell us about more like challenges or some processes you have experienced during the COVID time? And also maybe this is the same question to Oda-san. The concept itself is good, but if now you are insider and the government and they're trying to drive this change, what are the major challenges and we need to overcome? So maybe this is the same question for two of you. So maybe Oda-li, you can start. Yeah, I read on Twitter that I spoke too fast and interpretation did not have time to catch up. So I would be slower with fewer words. I think the most important challenge is that people who see things that are invented after the pandemic rightfully worry about the cybersecurity and privacy impact and it takes time for adoption to happen. For example, when we wrote out the SMS based contact tracing on QR code because we ensured if you don't have a smartphone, if you have a flip phone, you can still manually text the 15 digits to 1922. So it's very transparent based on easy to understand concepts like SMS and QR code. At exactly the same time, there's also another system going on called the Taiwan Social Distancing Act, which is based on the same principle as Cocoa in Japan. It's a Bluetooth-based exposure notification system. Although it is also privacy preserving because we've never used Bluetooth this way. It took much longer for people to understand and it never really reached the critical mass to make a real difference. So we primarily relied on telecommunication, SMS, and so on to shorten the contact tracing. Of course, I personally still use Bluetooth by having a real difficulty convincing other people to do so. Ours is also open source like Japan. So it's not about its cybersecurity issues. It's about the time it takes to trust a new system. So the heuristic that we use is just to reuse components pre-existing before the pandemic. The innovation is in how to combine those, not in introducing entire new systems. That's my answer. Yes, we understand that is more on our perception, our feeling of safety. How do you think Otasana are based on the Japanese context? What are the challenges on this digital democracy implementation? Okay, so there are many challenges, but let me talk a bit about the digital agency which was created last September. There are 600 people working and across the three areas. One is the governmental service and the second is the healthcare and the third is the education. In terms of the use of data or data transparency, there are many important things, but one which is the national ID which can be used to aggregate data, your data or our data. But there are difficulties around the national ID the code mine number in Japan because of the distrust to the system. Why distrust is happening? I think there's a gap between the government and the citizens. And in Japanese, the government is often called Okami, the upper place, the upper distant place. So they don't trust the government. But in order to use the national ID, people have to trust the government and participate to push making. But nowadays what is happening is a very opposite way. So the participation and trust is very important than the challenge to the government. Thank you. Yes, I think it makes a lot of sense because we are always discussing the trust building and the governance solely. So what kind of process we need to follow to nurture trust between different state quarters. And this solely should be applied in the process of developing digital democracy because we need to have a trust relationship between people and the government. Thank you. And maybe the other question that the people are very interested in is that in the COVID situation we have a lot of debate both domestically and internationally. And some people started to say that this civic governance is a beautiful idea, but it will lead the policy implementation. And some people started to say that we need to have more authority and power at the government side. And maybe the missing piece of our recognition of this space is that... So although you mentioned it's a people procurement. And the... But in order to make this happen, we need to have more resource at the people side. So we need to have more idea that could be the counter power to the government decisions. Also that we need to have such a resource. So I hear that like Otasan's story that some called for Japan developed this system for the local governments. But that was result of accumulation of such experiment in the different ways. But so maybe there's a number of challenges to realize this is democracy and also civic participation. So what's the process we can follow? Maybe we can start from Otasan. Maybe this is the part of your job description at the committee, at the digital agency. But how do you think about how we can foster this participatory approach? If I can be very honest, I told you that the trust and the participation are very important. But unfortunately, according to the survey conducted by Edelman, trust to the national government in Japan has been very low. That is a fact. We have to admit that. But the good thing is that the trust to the local government is very high in Japan. So I think here at national level, the quick win or the quick change is a bit difficult to happen. But if you look at the local government, we can install the, for example, digital platform called Decidim, which was invented, which was born about 10 years ago, to the local government to accelerate participation and directed people to make the suggestions and even to make rules. And that is a way to show the new opportunities to the central government. And the central government can run to change its behavior to make the more trust and the transparency. I see. Thank you. So how about you, Lita? Maybe some Japanese people are interested in knowing how did you get such a participation from the system? Ito-san, can I share one little episode? Yes, please. And about one year ago, the Code for Japan worked with the Kokogawa city to introduce the Decidim. But at the beginning, there are many anxieties that the people are really pushing the complaints to the local government by using Decidim. But when we started, there's the good surprise. Many high school students participated and make very constructive suggestions. And the other people, the senior people run by that and change their behavior and mindset. So that kind of change could happen in many other places. Yes, so I think that is the point of the discussion today that when we talk about the discussion digital agency or civic tech, people think, oh, this is a big challenge to the government. But actually, the challenge is on our side that how we can nurture a society that even the high school students are willing to participate in such an activity or like air pollution assessment and so on. And I feel that the Taiwanese society has a unique tension, such like a participation because it's such a small island country. We see all the diplomatic pleasures outside. So maybe that is one external factor. But also, can you maybe give us some example of your idea that how this civic participation is promoted and ensured in the Taiwanese society to make this like people's participation happen? Yeah, thank you. Really good question. If the reason to start a decedent or a council or in Taiwan is called join, if the reason of adopting these systems is to implement better solutions to existing issues, then it will create a burden to the public service because they have to explain all the context around feasibility. But if we move it to the front and say, we use this system mostly to identify emerging things that our public service have not yet understood, then it is a net plus for the public servants because there's more people scanning the horizon, so to speak, to identify key trends. And that largely do not cause a conflict with existing resource allocation. So when we roll out such systems, we ensure that we crowdsource the petitions and so on before we even go to the budget allocation or regulatory planning stage. So that is why in Taiwan, the join platform with more than 30 million visits in a country of 23 million people is a lot. Most of those ideas were horizon scanning. For example, there was one talking about banning plastic straws from bubble tea takeouts. But it got a lot of attention, but it doesn't really change any particular regulation. It's more about signifying an importance at a time, a picture of a sea turtle choked by a straw. And so that went viral. And of course, the petition collected 5,000 signatures very quickly. But when we face the petitioner in a face-to-face meeting, we run such meeting twice every month. We discovered she just turned 17. She's a high school student. And I asked her, why are you raising this petition? And she says, it's our civics class assignment. The civics teacher just asked the student to find something that's interesting for the society to raise it in the petition. So I think we are normalizing this idea of citizen participation so much so it could be a homework assignment. And we make it very visible. So the person, Wang Xuanru, that raised this petition, now 19 years old, is already our cabinet level commissioner on national action plan of open government. She's part of our steering committee now. And I make sure to call her commissioner, Wang, whenever we meet so that we are not blocked by the seniority culture. Instead, she has this title and the status to push for national level reforms. So I believe the high school students are really leading this horizon. And the more that we can shift the conversation to the problem definition stage, the higher a social status we attribute to those social innovators and contributors, the better would it be perceived by the public servant like they're actually our allies. They're not here to just complain or to criticize us. Thank you. So I'm seeing that such an insidious, mountainous people that they realize that this is a great opportunity for people themselves to demonstrate their ability to offer something, like new ideas. And maybe that is because you are still kind of, I'm sorry, to say that this is a new country that it's just a study 40 years ago that your martial law was lifted. And the people started, people allowed to speak anything they want. So they still remember that what was happened during that time and how precious, that how valuable that this freedom of speech or participation in the society is. So maybe that's something we need to remind ourselves in Japan. How do you think of the sound? Yeah. OK. And so this is all connected to our discussion in Japan about impact. So we are always frustrated. All these information, all academic resources produce all different reports, data. But one is that this is not circulated, distributed in the market. And the other, the frustration is that maybe this is all printed at the paper base, even the PDF and the PDF form. And we have difficulty to utilize these data to implement it in a policy-making process. And maybe, what does that mean, your view that how we can overcome these difficulties that the, so our theme for this today's session is that the transition to the impact economy. And I think everybody agree that the data transparency is the key. But what steps we can make this impact management idea into the public policy or public governance space? Well, there are the many viewpoints to discuss the discussion. But I raise one viewpoint which is that some Asian countries including Taiwan and Japan and even the South Korea in a very unique position to accelerate the public-private partnership to promote the digital transformation. And if you look at the European countries, the tax and the social securities accounts for 70% or 80% of national income. The meaning, the government is very big. And the government is very active to accelerate digital transformation, not only in public services but in education and health care. And if you look at the America, the situation is very opposite. And the tax and the social securities accounts for 25% of national income. Taiwan and Japan are somewhere between the 30% or 40%. The meaning, the government can play a partial role, important but partial role to make the social innovation happen. So in major areas including the health care and the education and et cetera, the public and the people, private sectors including the social organizations should collaborate not only to accelerate the use of data but to create a very important critical platform in education and health care and disaster and areas. That is my opinion. See, how about you, Lina? Maybe you are showcasing projects that are very good example, but I'm sure that you have some sluggers in some part of your past experience. And how do you think about that, what makes this effort could make it progress? Yes. I think data is very broad, a ton. It's like asking how should we utilize text in our policymaking? It's so broad, it's very difficult to analyze because there's no norm around text. There's a norm around academic papers, reviews, and so on. There's norm around journalism, checking of the sources, fact checking, and so on. But there's no norm around text. So similarly, when we digitally transform text to data, I think the point here should not be that we should amplify the use of data because it's too broad. We should instead, I think, say two things. First, if there are existing norms around the text that people already respect, it could be about contact tracing, writing their registered names. It could be around fact checking of journalism, and so on. When we digitally transform that into data, we should not abandon that social norm because if we abandon the social norm, the social sector will be opposing digital transformation. We should instead say whatever norm you care about text will care more with data. So this is very meta. But I think this is the key to overcome the struggles that comes from the social sector, which is why I think both Taiwan and Japan took a leave no one behind attitude when it comes to digital transformation because we're very realistic. We understand this is the only way that this could work with the blessing from the social sector. This is the first point. And the second point is that whenever things are about personal data and privacy, and so on, the first impression really matters. If the first impression is a privacy enhancing technology that makes data even more private than text, then people will voluntarily do digital transformation, as in the case of SMS as based contact tracing because people see, oh, they're venue owner, they don't learn of my phone number anymore. So it's even more private. But if we do not have such a demonstration on the first try, it's very difficult to fix that on the second or third try because the first impression is already that, oh, this may be quick, but it's less safe. But the feeling of unsafeness, it takes months or years to overcome. So on the first try, it's worth it to spend more time and money on planning and make sure that data is more privacy preserving than text. That's my two points, it's all very meta, but I think that's my personal experience. Thank you very much. Actually, we are receiving some of the questions from the audience and one of them is very valid to our discussion today. So let me just bring it to the table. So this person is asking that how to ensure the feeling of safety in the cyber space like a discourse. We know that if you make it anonymous and people understand that I will not be identified this is maybe different discussion. This is not the data, but if we look at the cyber space discussion, like norms, and we know that all the hate speech type of discussion in different different web pages or in SNS type of things. And so the privacy discussion and also that the conflict of these different values and opinions seems like have some contradiction. So how's your view that we can see the reconciliation of these two topics? So you don't have to disclose your names or your things. Then people suddenly are very offensive so to say that you are totally wrong and these debates like heat up. So we are seeing and also that we are seeing this like a division of all the opinions. People trying to divide that you are at that fraction. We are not. But the people who espouse hate speech on social media and get a lot of retweets many are using their real name. So I don't think there really is a strong connection between pseudonymity and hate. I think pseudonymity is very important because it allows people who are in a situation of power imbalance to be judged by their values not be judged by their age or whatever rank that it has, but the pseudonym need to be continuous. So when the 17 year old raised the petition she chose the pseudonym, I love elephant and elephant love me, it's a whimsy called pseudonym. But the pseudonym preservered, right? The pseudonym has its own life and she registered through SMS. So she knows that if she says something that's criminal the SMS can be used to track her. So it's not like she's void of criminal responsibilities online but having a stable pseudonym, I think it's still important. And I don't think there is a contradiction if we can't decide to build such spaces that doesn't amplify hate speech. It's the design of the space that not particular pseudonymous actors. I see he has understand so that the Satoshi Nakamoto is very known, but we never know who is he or see. So maybe the same thing. So how's your view, Ota-san? Well, the cyber space is relatively new to us but we're running how to live in the space. And that's the word called DQ, the digital intelligence. And the two living in the real space we use the IQ plus the EQ and in order to have the better time in the cyber space the DQ is very important. And it is at the program at school to learn about DQ including their competency and the skill to have a better time in the cyber space. Thank you. Yes, I also realized that this situation in Taiwan when these students involving this cyber space like a discussion or like some other petitions that these people say that it's a part of the assignment. So I think that's a nice way that the Taiwanese education system like incorporate that the, like a new type of like a literacy to participate in the cyber space discussions. Okay. If I talk or to talk a bit about the privacy and I think that decentralization is very important. And nowadays our data is owned by the big brothers the government and the big IT companies. But this is our data. So it is expected that the people are empowered to use and control our own data. Which partially was realized by the rules like GDPR in Europe and the many discussions are going around the data portability and data ownership which is very important to secure the privacy. Hmm. I see. Thank you very much. So unfortunately the time is approaching to the end of a session. And I think we have learned a lot of like the ideas that which these two speakers have shared with us. So initially that the, you know, when we talk about like the digital democracy and impact economy and we thought that this will be kind of reform agenda for the government. But it's a participatory model, you know, it's bringing this agenda back to us. And I feel like we need to empower ourselves more, you know, and we have actually we have already have a capability. You know, we have all equal access to the cyber space and we have all equal power to express our opinion and the new ideas. So, but maybe we need to think more about how we can design the governance as Audrey mentioned that it's not about the privacy itself, but it's maybe the design or the space that matters. And the all the technical like innovation will be the supporting factors to make this space happen. So I'd like to take the like a messages from these two speakers to the audience today that what we can do, you know, as immediate action that we have all different stakeholders, the government people, the business, academia and the social sectors. So maybe what the sound maybe you can like a share your message to us that the call for action for next decade. Okay, I would suggest that we start from I on myself when it comes to the better relationship between technology and society. We tend to think about the big thing, something big, but we can start from the very small thing like within the three meters around us to make the town the better place or to make the relationship within the family or with friends or with the community, the better one. So that is the opportunity of the hacking. The hacking meaning the make the our place a better place, better one. I think that is the very pragmatic and very effective approach to reverse the relationship between technology and society and promote innovation. And in other words, we can start from I and the corrective I becomes we and eventually we leads to the solving the social issues. That is my message. Thank you. We need to nurture our own field to make the country a better place. Yeah. How about you, Lee? Well, my call to action has always been the same is to be fast, fair and fun. And it's important to know that these three are not fungible. If you design something that works very quickly that is very fair, but it's not fun, then you will not catch on. All the three pillars need to be together. So just I echo the sentiment that it doesn't need to be perfect. It should just iterate on the existing status quo. So a little bit faster, a little bit more fun, a little bit more fair simultaneously. And that is to increase the virality, the basic reproduction number of your social innovations. And before long, it will catch on and other people will be remixing it to make it even faster, even more fair and even more fun. Thank you. I realized that these comments from these speakers actually echo each other, that these small practice, as Autocom mentioned, is to meet these three criteria that the fast, fair and the fun, then meet people looking at the other, the field, the next door. Oh, maybe we can do something similar and we can do something else. And that will eventually the harmonize or the movement was like a more innovative society. Good? Okay. So thank you, elderly, thank you, Autocom. And I think this is very nice way to do a tone setting for these two days sessions. As you know that these data and the participation is part of the key concept of the impact management. We need to have a participation of beneficiaries, different stakeholders. We need to be transparent about the data we getters. And we are trying to implement this insight as a result of analysis into the management. So management doesn't mean that management of company, but it's the kind of governance of the society itself. Good. Thank you. So this is the closing of the session. And thank you very much for everybody to join in the session. Let us know if you have a question to the elderly, Autocom or ourselves. And as I already mentioned in the beginning, this is the beginning of our collaboration. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. You're so impressive. Thank you, bye-bye. Bye. Have a fun.