 for 10 years and also we've done a lot of the open data and open government activity too. So we are personally very interested about you and what you've been doing for years. It's really great to meet you. Yes, the same. So I've always been a creative commander as well. I participated in the first translations of Creative Commons and ever since the introduction of Creative Commons Zero, that is the main universal, I've been adopting it for all my software work. So thank you for working for the commas as well. Okay, before we start the interview, I will briefly introduce the purpose of DTC research. This research is actually conducted by the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family in Korea for the future, for the building of future policy. So part of that, Jennifer, she's doing, she's research about how the IT technology can help to the democracy move to the next level. How do we can gather the others' opinions and how can we can use them to the, when we make a policy decision and how can we use them to the policy changes. So there's the brief introduction about that. And yeah, like the questionnaire that I sent you to this morning, we'll just follow the questionnaire. Is it okay to you? Sure, of course. Yeah. So first, what is your key role as the Minister, because that is quite a new concept to us. Yes, so actually, this is a new post in Taiwan as well. I'm the first Minister. And my job description is on my Twitter. And so you can easily see that job description. And so you probably have already seen that. So I would not really allow again, it is a form of a prayer. Okay, so a Digital Minister's work is actually to coordinate across all ministries toward digital transformation. So I don't have a ministry. My office is one person dispatched from each ministry. So at most I can have 32 colleagues at the moment I have 22. But in each team, also in each ministry, also has a team, what we call the participation officers or POs in charge of the digital transformation around public participation. And so there is a core network of people who sent people to my office and also a periphery network in each of 100 people now working toward digital transformation. And so this is a role that is mostly coordinating the various different values like between economic development and environmental sustainability between scientific innovation and equality and inclusion. These are sometimes seen as competing values. And my work is just to find out the digital ways to make common values out of different positions that is my main work. So that means that you must be really, really busy because you have to meet a lot of people and also you have to arrange and also you have to like to recommend the best solution they can use. So would you briefly introduce your daily routine as a Minister? It's a different routine every day of the week. So Wednesday like today, I meet strangers that I've never met before. This is my office hour and sometimes there's a delay, so sorry about that. But before 2 p.m. anyone can step into my office and talk to me. So there's a queue, right? And also my only ask is that our conversation to be published under Creative Commons. And then after 2 p.m. that is the pre-booked time. So they're guaranteed to have 40 minutes of my time at a time. But they have to book maybe weeks in advance. So combined with those two, it could be through teleconference, it could be just visiting. I get to understand the latest social innovations and to find them the correct partners in the different ministries to help them in their social cause. So Wednesday is with the advocacy groups. And every Thursday is the cabinet meeting where I bring those ideas to the cabinet meeting and on the Thursday afternoon, there's a board of science and technology meeting where we collectively decide how to spend our, for example, budget toward developing 5G network, how to do AI research and things like that. And because it is a place where all the scientific and technology budget is made by each ministries, we have to harmonize their proposals so that they have to maximize synergy to where the common global goes rather than each ministry working its own silo. So in that role, I help the ministry of science and technology, but also our horizontal minister in charge of board of science and technology in helping them to bring social innovation. I just learned from Wednesday to the Thursday meetings and the cabinet meeting. And on Fridays, we meet with people who raise petitions, anyone who gets 5,000. I'm sorry. The sound is a little bit disconnected. It's a little bit disconnecting. Is it okay now? Yeah, yeah. Okay. So every Friday, anyone who gets 5,000 signatures in an online platform or the joint platform can call a meeting by the voting of the participation officer network. So every Friday, every other Friday or so, we also meet here in the social innovation lab or in different ministry to talk about issues that are raised by petitions. So it could be about, you know, banning plastic straws gradually to replace them with things that does not cause a C plastic waste all the way to how to make the mountain climbing more informed using the latest GPS technology. Or it could be about how to build a hospital in an remote area of Taiwan so that their ambulance travel time can be shortened. So there's no limit to those petitions, you know, other than diplomatic and defense. But other than that, everything can be raised and be deliberated on a Friday. And then on Saturday, I usually go around and giving talks, public speeches, attend the Oslo Freedom Forum or things like that. And on Sunday, I spend time with my family. And on Monday, Monday is special because it's our team meeting. Our team have lunch together and each one brief about the work they have done in the previous week as well as the things they plan to do the next week. But the thing is that because I give no orders and I take no orders, all the people who join my office get to decide their own work. So Monday is our time to find collaborators within our office. It's a very agile fashion of developing projects using standard Kanban, Rocky Chat, you know, the usual digital tools. And finally, on Tuesdays, I tour around Taiwan. So sometimes I just travel to a remote rural indigenous area at the evening of Monday or even afternoon of Monday and spend a whole day there and talk to their local co-ops, local elders, local entrepreneurs, social entrepreneurs, about rational revitalization. But when I talk to them publicly, we also connect back to the municipalities where all the 12 ministries are also online so that they can see through me the true life story of the local issues instead of seeing them as very abstract things. And that complements our Wednesday office hour because those people are the ones that will have to pay the most time expense to travel to Taipei to meet me. So on Tuesday, I meet them in their local place. On Wednesday, I meet people in Taipei. Wow, that's quite amazing one week. How about Wednesday? Is there usually a full book? So yeah, with the Wednesday, the pre-book time, I think it's usually booked to maybe in advance. But the walk-in is anytime, right? So you can find me very easily actually. All right. It sounds like you're a mediator with using the IT tech, IT magic things. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Jennifer wants to know that there, as you said, there is a 32 colleague from the different minister. Yeah. Is there any standard how they, I mean, standard to collect? How can they, I mean, is there any standard when the 32 colleagues call? Okay. What's my HR policy? Right? Yeah. Okay. So, and we're talking about the core team, right? Not the PO network. The PO network has its own regulation, which I just shared to you. It's a national regulation. It applies to all ministries. But you're probably asking who are the people that are hired directly with me on a day-to-day basis. Okay. So there's two HR criteria. First, they must bring in a new perspective, a new value, a new experience that no other existing team members have. That is to say, they must be complementary to the existing team. That's the first one. So the ministry of culture will bring a cultural perspective. The ministry of communication will bring a communication perspective and so on. So each ministry can send at most one person. That's the reason, because otherwise they're just going to reinforce each other. We want a plurality, a diversity, not a over determination by any particular value. So first, they must be complementary. And second, they must be willing to give at least as much as they take. Because when they come to my office, they still report to their minister. They don't report to me. They do their own scorecards. I don't rank. I don't rate them. I don't do any management. We just ask them to work out aloud, meaning letting everybody know what they're working on. That's my only ask. So because of that, they must be willing to help or other ministry's values as much as they want other ministry to help their values. So that's the only two hiring criteria. So that means that the 32 colleagues, they volunteer for this job or they volunteer? Yeah, they're volunteer, but they're career public servants. They are senior career public servants with anywhere from 10 years to 30 years of public sector experience. We need those to my office. So what they learn, they bring back to their ministry. And they're almost like sometimes almost director general level or already director general level when they come to my office. And they may be promoted to section chief right after coming back to their ministry. So each ministry can send someone to train for six months or one year, get them back to be the deputy chief or the section chief, and send another more junior one to my office. Oh, yeah, that's quite interesting. Because some part it could be easily just send them like a junior or some like a less than five years career, they can be signed at the kind of position, but that means they actually the government take it seriously. Okay. Yes, and I will also add that everybody who returned from their post to my office back to their ministry have been promoted. So that is also a powerful incentive. Six months to one year? Well, it depends on their minister, right? If their minister feel that they want someone to go back to contribute. Usually, I think that the shortest is half a year. But some like the communication ministry, the National Communication Commission, delegate, Councillor Yehning was here from the very beginning. So he's been around with us for three years now, and it shows no signs of coming back. But he maintained very close connection with the NCC because he was the director general of law in the NCC. So he has very good connection to other DGs in that ministry. Okay. Yeah. And how long has a PDIS been run? Three years. I just said that. Yeah. And then all the members, as you mentioned, they are from the other ministry, 32 colleagues. So there are some exceptions. So in Taiwan, we have something called the Institute of Information Industry, or TRIPOLII. It is like the 18F in the U.S. That's the closest resemblance. So it's a kind of not-for-profit institute, but it also works very closely with the IT-related policymaking. So it's like a think tank. But a think tank is actually a joint venture from the IT sector, the social sector, the academia, and the public. And so they also send people to my office. But those people are more like contractors. They work on a specific skill. For example, our filmmaking is delegated to one TRIPOLII person. Our backend management, our cybersecurity product management is to a specialist. So there's also a few of the specialists, maybe 10 or so, the specialists. But once they join PDIS, they can also choose to work on any project. And so they all then evolve to become also facilitators, also public speakers, also teachers and things like that. And so our rule is that the number of specialists must never exceed the number of public servants. Okay. So that means that balance is matter. That's right. So it remains a public sector innovation initiative. It will not suddenly become what we call a kind of external plug-in to the governance system. Okay. So do you have any kind of like a meaningful project for you when you're done by the PDIS? Yes. So I mean, we have so many. I don't even know how to but one pretty famous case is that two years ago, our text filing system stopped working on Mac and Linux computers because it was written using Java applet, which is a technology developed by Sun Microsystem, but then get purchased by the Oracle Corporation, which decided to stop deprecate to remove it from use two years ago. So suddenly everybody not using a Windows can now file their texts easily anymore. And so unfortunately, on May the first two years ago, the Ministry of Finance Internet disconnected? Hello. You're back. Can you still hear me? Yeah. I can hear you. Welcome back. Okay. Good. So yeah. So as I was saying, around two years ago, there was a problem. But unfortunately, the frontline support staff said, okay, so you can just borrow somebody's Windows computer. And they're really angry. Yeah. And so they started a e-petition and the petition is named literally, the text filing experience is explosively awful. So it gets support very quickly. And so instead of saying, you know, defending our policy, we just say everybody who complained about our text filing gets invited in a couple of weeks to the Ministry of Finance by our participation officer to co-create and co-design our text filing experience. So it's not just about IT. It's about the whole experience of text filing. How can we make it better for everyone? And so before we posted that invitation, 80% of population online or participation platform was calling for the resign of the Minister of Finance for using the vendor for corruption or things like that. So once we said the invitation, 80% begun to say, oh, I have a positive contribution. And then people started to really work together and we run for co-creation workshop that collectively builds the new text filing experience at negative budget because using cloud services, elastic services, suggested participants we save a lot of money and use that a fraction of that to run the workshops. So we run out as a pilot to Mac and Linux users last year to approval rating of 96%. But this year we roll it out to even Windows users, so they don't have to borrow a Mac anymore. And the approval rate is 98%. And this is not because the design is great. It is because thousands of people feel that they have a say their idea is incorporated in the line of text filing. So after that pilot case, we then apply it to our universal healthcare, how do we make mobile computing part of it, the National Palace Museum, and many, many other public services then are developed in this methodology. And we did a what we call government digital service guidelines along with our National Development Council to transfer knowledge to the municipal governments and townships. That's quite interesting. I mean I think the next question. Yeah. And like you explained before, I mean, there are lots of civilian experts working with you and your colleagues in the other project and where they work together. And how do they cooperate? Yes. So the idea, there are two ideas. One idea and they're very important or everything else is detailed. The first one is that the government need to trust people. Yeah. And not expect people to trust the government. That's the first principle. The second is that we must bring IT to where people already are instead of bringing people to information technology. So those two are the key ideas of digital transformation by making the conversation under creative commons even before making a decision. Everybody learns the why of policymaking, not just the what of policies made by making the national budget visualizable and publicly commentable to the joint platform. Everybody learns how their tax is being spent and can laser focus on the one that they care the most like long-term health care and so on and social housing. And by making all the regulations, no exception, up for two months of online public debate, people anticipate what is going to change and can even call a stop if the regulation doesn't fit people's needs. So all these three combined together makes the people feel that they are trusted by the government, but the government expect nothing in return. So this is the first principle. The second principle with civilian experts is that they already have their gatherings. They already have communities. So as I mentioned on Wednesday, we offer our venue, the social innovation lab for free, for them to host their events. And that is how we can then spend time dining with them here. We open until midnight until 11 p.m. We have a chef. We have very good cuisine. We have various different social innovation groups that just posts here. And because of that, they are much more willing to share new ideas because if you share new ideas in a formal setting, nobody wants to listen. But if you just share it with excellent food, next week you will return even if you don't remember a thing they said because the food is good, right? And open until midnight so you have plenty of time to mingle. What I'm getting at is that we're bringing the IT to the civilian expert to amplify their voices. We're not asking them to come all the way to our meetings to give a 10-minute speech. We are joining them in their local habitat, so to speak, but using IT technology, including telepresence, video conference, 360 livestream, to amplify their voices to the world, corresponding to the sustainable development goals. So that is our way to work with civilian experts, always in their space, providing them with space and providing them with trust instead of asking them to come to the government. Yeah, and like you explained before, for the public servant, promos might be the good motivation to participate. But for the civilian experts, it might be the good food and also what do you think, what motivation makes them participate? The main motivation is that they no longer feel alone. It's the solidarity because before people may be alone in their community, caring so much about one small thing. Maybe the petitioner that raised the gradual banning of plexus straw, who was only 16-year-old at the time, a senior high school student, she may be the only one in her class caring about carbon reduction and the plastic waste in the sea, but using e-petition, she can find 5,000 people who think exactly here, exactly like her and form a community. And the best thing is that she then learns that people who make those plastic utensils, they are not just for profit. They were also social enterprises 20 years or 30 years before because at that time in Taiwan, there's a lot of hepatitis B, the virus was a serious threat to the Taiwanese health. And because of that, they started their company making the plastic utensils because they want to prevent hepatitis B from spreading. They joined this industry for a social purpose. But now hepatitis B is essentially gone. It's very insecure. So they're also looking at new social purposes. And so the 16-year-old feel that, oh, then we can use plexus straws, but reshape them from the sugar cane waste to do a zero actually negative carbon production line. And she would not feel that, oh, it's the large businesses against me. Actually, the business owners are socially minded. They just don't have the ingredients and that's something we can co-create. So solidarity across sectors is the main motivation for the civilian experts to enter. Yeah, I'm pretty sure Jennifer experienced the same. Jennifer has the same experience with that. Like a lonely and because she's the first one, first member who opened the creative So, all right, can you see? Yeah, and also, yeah, and also, is there any some successful cases you wanted to introduce that conducted by the PO? Yes. So, as I mentioned, e-petition is one source. So tax filing system, plastic straw, all these are e-petition, but there also are some cases brought by the PO themselves. For example, I don't know how much of a culture of wooden seal on a physical paper is important to your culture. But it is important in the Japanese culture, and also to a lesser extent in the Taiwanese culture as well. Many people feel if they have a piece of paper with an ink of a wooden seal on it, it means a lot to them psychologically. And so the PO of the National Palace Museum, which you may have heard is a very large museum in Taiwan. And they are also a cabinet member. So when I say 32 ministries, the National Palace Museum is one of the cabinet meeting members. So the MPM faces a dilemma. The young people want to use QR code, want to use NFC, want to use their phone to quickly enter the museum and to navigate the museum. They don't want to wait in the queue, right? But the elderly people, they want a physical stamp, a physical ticket, something a memoir that they can bring back to their children. But they also don't like the long queue. The elderly people really don't like to wait for very long, right? So they try to introduce kiosk, but they are not very friendly. And frankly speaking, it's impossible to design a kiosk that's equally friendly to a 70-year-old and an 18-year-old. It's just impossible, right? And so the PO from the MPM brought this idea to us. And then we run a collaboration meeting with all the stakeholders, people who run tourist agencies, people who sell tickets online, people who specialize in printing and things like that. And we figure out a solution together. And the solution is very simple, actually, if you think about it. The solution is you can have a, maybe a line, chatbot, maybe any ways for the elderly people to get the entry ticket. When they wait in the queue, they don't have to wait. They just to beep their phone to the sensor and they walk in. But once they walk in using the same mobile phone or their watch, they can claim a receipt that's more beautiful and more well printed and has a seal ink on it that they can take home as a receipt of using that mobile entering experience. So there's no queue anymore because the collection of receipt is after the queue. And they can spend a lot of time spending more time with the art and the creativity in the museum rather than spending time waiting in the queue. And they still have a receipt, actually, maybe printed with gold that they can keep and share with their family. Yeah. In Korea, we, because Korea, we have a, we also have a very active online activity. People want to speak up their opinion about the political issue or also the political conflict. But they are more tend to like a, not like a choose their side and then argue, not like compromising or exchange their opinion and want to discuss about some issue. So how is in Taiwan the same like people tend to like argue, not like exchange opinion? Well, I think argue is just fine. But you have to argue in a structured way. First, you need to argue about the facts. That's why in Taiwan, when we say open data, we never mean open government data only. We mean open data from citizen science, open data from the private sector, open data from the academia, and finally open data from the public sector. So we use distributed ledgers, blockchains, to make sure we can hold each other accountable, that we don't have the capability to change each other's data. And then we put them into a type 20, I think, supercomputer, the national computing center of high computing, high speed computing, and then let people upload code to calculate on the same data to make predictions and so on. So the data argument, fact argument is always the first step. We do that before we do anything else. And after we have a common data set, for example, around the civil IOT, which I just shared the website address here, we have then a common data set about the air quality, water quality, disaster and other earthquake prevention and so on. And based on that, we can talk about feelings, the same data, you can feel pretty good, pretty fine. And another person may feel that we have room to improve. Another person may be downright angry. There is no right or wrong about feelings, as long as they are about the same data, the same fact. Too much time, the online consultation developed into an argument because I feel happy about something. You feel angry about something else, but we confuse those two facts with each other. And so we seem to be arguing, but we're not really arguing because our reality is different. But once we confirm the base reality, then people can share their feelings freely and there is no right or wrong. And then we use AI to make sure that people see each other's feelings. Actually, people have much more in common than they have in difference. The social and institutional media will amplify the difference because that attracts attention and sell advertisement, but actually mostly people feel the same around the same things at the same time. Those are called common sense or common understanding. And then after we discover the common understanding after three weeks or so, we move to the third stage after the fact and the feeling. We move to idea. So this time we can ideate based on the common understanding. In design thinking, this is called a common, how might we question? So then we enter the second diamond and we ideate about the ways to deliver on the common feelings. The best idea are the ones that take care of the most people's feelings. And finally, the last part of the double diamond is to ratify those people's idea into a new text filing system, into a new healthcare system, into a new system that does what people have wanted all along. They just didn't know everybody else also wanted because they were basically getting distracted on a couple of things that are ideological. So that's the entire method called the focus conversation. Yeah, how about the people, they actually follow the procedure. Because they're technically different events. So in this event, you're only allowed to talk about facts. Everything else is kept on the record, but they're not even informed the next stage. And on the next stage, we only ask about feelings and things like that. Yeah. Yeah. And now this is more about the personal aspect. And then as you distal minister, what is your future plan? Because you have done a lot of things so far. And also, I just curious, is there any future plan that you want to do as a distal minister? Well, this is more an honorary title, actually. My three working conditions as I shared. First, I can work anywhere, right? Location independence. Second, I don't give order to my colleagues. I don't take orders from my colleagues, voluntary association. And finally, radical transparency. Everything, including this conversation, every meeting I chair, even internally, is made completely publicly under creative commons. And because of those three principle, distal minister or not, I can do exactly the same work. Actually, I did that since the end of 2014 to 2015, all the way to early 2016. I wasn't having any position at the time. I'm untitled an advisor to a horizontal minister at most, but still using that civilian capacity, using exactly the same principles, I facilitated exactly the same conversations. So with this title or not, anyone adopting the three principles can start while I call a conservative anarchist intervention to their policy that focus not on against the government or support the government, but on transforming the government. So that's what I've been doing all along, distal minister or not. Yeah. And so far, what was your biggest challenges? You don't do this kind of experiments. So there's three preconditions for my three conditions to work, right? First, we in Taiwan have broadband as human rights, because if we don't have broadband as human rights, location independence doesn't mean much, right? If I go to the top of the jade mountain, almost 4,000 meters high, and there's no broadband there, I cannot really work there, right? But now they have 10 megabits per second, even on the top of the Yushan mountain. If I go to the Pacific Island of Dongsha, and there's no 10 megabits per second, I cannot talk about the coral reef there. But then they have broadband there. So anywhere in Taiwan, 98% or more, the rural indigenous places, they have 10 megabits per second. If they don't, it's my fault that you can talk to me. And so that is one of the preconditions. And that was a challenge, but now we've tackled that challenge. The second challenge around voluntary association is that we must have a strong social sector, not quote unquote non-profit organization, not quote unquote non-government entities, not quote unquote charities, not quote unquote civic hackers, but a social sector that includes everyone and see it in themselves their purpose to innovate for the society with the society before the government think about those issues. So that is the second challenge. But fortunately, we are seeing a lot of solidarity around Taiwan so that even universities now join the social innovation sector, the social sector. So that's the second challenge we've also overcame in the past couple years. The third challenge and that still remains is that there are still people who reminisce about authoritarianism, who still thinks that it is more efficient somehow to have a ruler that is wise and can determine everything for everyone. And we cannot really blame them because I was born in the martial law era. I can still remember how the martial law works and it instills a certain kind of mentality to people that somehow prefer authority to make decisions rather than deliberation. And this we cannot really solve with technology. This we can only solve by talking more to the elderly people and in participating more in the local community decisions. So this will take time, but from experience of the third wave of democratization, this may not be an issue at all 10 years from now. How do you see the do you think that IT technology can be used to create inclusive society based on your experience and in your thoughts? So never start with technology. So using actually the creative commons founders, Lawrence Lessig. So he has this theory called the Pathetic Dot or the new Chicago School that you might be already very familiar with. So there is this innovation in the middle and the innovation is informed by IT technology architecture on the top. It's also informed by the market forces, market policies from the right. And it's also informed by the law, the legal code from the bottom. And it's also informed by the social norm, the social expectation from the left. So the norm architecture market and the code of law forms a kind of square that's collaboratively determining the innovation and how it happens. In the authoritarian society, the code of law decides how the market should function, which then decide what technology to develop, which then decide how the society must adapt. So this way of working make the citizen very transparent to the state. And we can see it in our nearby jurisdictions. I will not name names, but in democratic states we're doing it the other way around. We're saying that the law should be in service of the people. The people should deploy technology however they want. Based on their deployment pattern, the market should satisfy their requirements. And if the market step out of foundry, the law should regulate the market. So that's the other direction of the new Chicago theory. And now we're saying this is not enough because it still starts from the public sector. We should move the starting point from the code of law to the social norm. The social sector should take the initiative of outlining what is to be expected by technology. And so this is what we call a norm first approach where the social sector designed the norms and the IT sector implement the norms. And in UN high level conversation, this is called co-governance or co-gov or digital interdependence. There's many different names, collaborative governance and so on. But the only commonality is that the social sector designed the norm and then the IT sector implement the norm. Yeah, I agree with you. How do you see the law of civil, I mean, sovereign in the future, I mean public sovereign in the future, like in 10 years, they look like the same or someone say that they will be same in 10 years, in 100 years, and someone tell, no, they will be changed, their law will be changed. So how do you see? Yes, so there are roughly speaking three different things that a civil servant must answer to. The one is a certainty, if you have no running water or no broadband, civil service need to answer for it. This is like very basic, the requirement of certainty. The second is a requirement of justice or equality, meaning that people should have equal opportunities. People who abuse the commas should be contributing back to the commas in an equal fashion. The judicial branch, for example, but also administration, take care to ensure social justice on this regard. That is also a service to the public. And finally, they must also answer in a democratic state to the will of the people, which actually may not be efficient and may be uncertain and actually may be totally counterproductive for equality. They may be actually very biased and tribalist and populist, and still the public service need to answer to that democratic will because we're a democratic state. So those two values that of certainty justice and democratic will, they're not reinforcing each other all the time, right? Sometimes they fight each other. Sometimes it's impossible to reconcile each other. And so I think the role of civil service will change because the democratic will traditionally are encountered by representatives, by MPs, by ministers, by the leader of organizations that represents the people's will. But I think that will change. In Taiwan, one year we vote for the president, another year we vote for a referendum, another year we vote for the mayors, and another year we vote for the referendum. So there's one year for representational democracy, but also another year for direct deliberative democracy. And so those two track coexist in Taiwan's governance system. And I think we will in 10 years see much more people taking direct action and re-presenting themselves instead of using a representative to speak for them. They will want people who let them speak, not people who speak for them. So that is one part gone from the public service 10 years later. We don't need a digital minister to organize the digital transformation anymore. Maybe we will at that time have an analog ministry instead because everything is digital already. So that's one prediction. And another prediction is the one about the efficiency or the certainty. As many of you already know, with sufficient training data, machine learning can automate a lot of the certainty work that the public service does by hand at the moment. It is in a long trend of automation that a civil service now can save their time massively by delegating to automation the trivial work. Trivial doesn't mean that it's not important. It may be very important like listening to a water pipe and here it's leaking or it's not leaking. But it is not something that a human is best equipped to do. The human is best equipped to find creative solutions if there is a water leak. But the human is actually pretty bad compared to machines to detect whether something is leaking or not. So the certainty part in my sense will be replaced and augmented by what I call assistive intelligence or AI, meaning that they're always at an assistive role, not a creative role to human beings. So that take care of the certainty part. So if the assistive intelligence take care of the certainty part and the collective intelligence take care of the democratic will, then the public service will concentrate on creating spaces to ensure social justice. That is to say to find common values despite different social economic positions of their community members. And that's that co-discovery of justice of setting the norm. I think that requires human wisdom and that will not go away. Wow, that's a quite great perspective for the, yeah, for the future. Okay, the last questions. Oh, no, I have a question. Yes, I have a question. So, I, I already interviewed you in the interview, and I want to include all of the people in Taiwan's thoughts. I have an interview with a commentator like this. So, the opinions of people who participate can be gathered for the sake of participating, but I wonder how I can include the thoughts of people who do not participate in the interview. Yeah, Jennifer watched some interview, video of you, that you, you tell, you were telling that you want to put everyone, every Taiwanese opinions and thought on the system, I mean, put on the PDIS or PO. So, but you know, it's a little bit hard because it's actually, we can reach to the people's opinion about someone who using the platform. So, someone who is not using the platform, how do you approach to them? How, how, what is your strategy to meet them? When they might. As I, as I said, yeah, I come to them. I don't ask them to, to come to our platform. So, so every other Tuesday, Tuesday, I just visit a indigenous tribe or a rural area and, and so on. And so last time we visited, as proposed by one of our youth counselor in the national administration, a place where they farm clams, but using a very sustainable kind of farming that coexist with solar panels, renewable energy and use natural sea waves to regulate the salinity of the clam pond. And that coexist with a very good birds and other ecosystem. And this is great because it doesn't draw water, clean water from the underground. And so it doesn't endanger the bio system when you think about seven generations in the future. So if I ask them to come to Taipei to give a presentation, I will only understand maybe 5% of what this is all about, right? But because I actually went down and, and, you know, picked the clams and participated in the farming process. And we had a conversation with all the local social entrepreneurs, both young and old generations, we actually can't density what our national policies have succeeded and where our national policy have failed. And this is very important because they tell their story not just to me personally, but for all the different ministries people telecommunicating through video conference. And we figure our solution right there in older public service systems. This is impossible because first you don't have direct access across ministries, right? You only have access vertically. And if things go right, if you find a good solution, it's always your minister that get the credit. And if your plan doesn't work, your ministry can always blame you as a public servant not implementing things well. So in that environment, there's very little incentive for a mid-level career public servant to truly innovate, to forge connection across ministries and across sectors. But because of radical transparency and location, independence, and voluntary association, they can now say what's on their mind, even pseudonymously using the online platform. So it's the public servants using the platform. But the local people for them, it's just a town hall meeting. It's just bringing me to fish some claims. It's just sharing their opinions in the places they already like a local cafe that they are already chatting to share their opinions and complaining about the government. For them, this is something that they already do all the time, right? And so because of that, we amplify their voices. Then if the career public servant find a solution right away, then they get the credit because of radical transparency. And if it doesn't work, it's always my fault because I'm the chair of the meeting. And you know, they are in Taipei or Gaussian or other municipalities. You cannot really punch across the screen, right? You cannot harm those public servants. But I'm in the locality. So basically, I absorb all the risk, but they, the public service get all the credit. And in this system, it's then becoming much more possible for the people to not only feel listened to, but also listen to each other as well and find that they actually share common values. It's just the bandwidth of the state was too low and the bandwidth of the society is much broader. Okay. I have another question. So Youth Council, your lawyer is the Youth Council, right? Can you ask in Korean and maybe we... Youth Council. Youth Council, yes. Yes. That's a administration level and chaired by the Prime Minister, by the Premier. She wants to know what's the role of the Youth Council. Yes, that's a great question. So, and this is a new invention as well. So as new as my digital minister, so only three years. So the Executive Yuan Council is different from every other Youth Council because those are the reverse mentors of ministers. So for example, I was the reverse mentor back in 2015 of Minister Jacqueline Tsai. A reverse mentor is like an understudy. An understudy is someone who works with you to learn your daily job and someday may be able to do the same job that's an understudy. But a reverse mentor is an understudy that also has something to teach. So as an understudy, they may be young, they may be 30 years old, 20 years old, but their ministers think they can help the minister to show the direction of the future. So in a sense, they are also mentoring their minister, even if their minister considered them also understudy. So this is a what we call reverse mentorship because usually the old mentor the young, but in this case, the young mentors the old. So each ministry can find such a reverse mentor and together they form the National Youth Council. So each one is considered a leader by the minister that recommends them in their ministry business. And so it's very broad. They talk not about only young people at all. They talk about sustainable development goals. They talk about indigenous rights. They talk about ecological farming. They talk about everything like how to revitalize entire regions, not only one's old house or two. They talk about how arts can revitalize education system. So there is no limit to what they can discuss. And what they propose is decided by the premier to turn into national policy by every Youth Council meeting very quickly. And so this is a much more finding process than a pure advisory position. Okay, the last one, I mean, someday, someday the time will come to you. I mean, after this after the minister, what is your future plan to have a new plan for the after the minister? Well, I'm always a minister for digital transformation. I've been doing that for, well, at least since my first startup that's in 95. So a very long time now. And so ministry has two meanings, right? One is the government minister, upper case M. And one is the evangelical minister with a lower case M. So like spreading the good news and a spreader of good news of how the digital can turn competition, which is limited resource in a zero sum game, into abundance, which is reinforcement into each other into a collective sustainable goal. That transformation from scarcity to abundance, exactly actually as the mission of creative commons, is what I have been preaching as a minister for first the free software movement and then the open source movement, and then the open access movement, and then the open hardware, open data, open government movement, and now the intellectual commons movement and many other movement as well. And all these movements are just individual symptoms of something that's larger that we think beyond scarcity. And so in that sense, I will remain being a minister with a lower case M. And in this position, whether or not I'm a uppercase digital minister. So I will show you my name card. So just this name card, if you can see it says digital minister, but in lower case. Yeah. And it doesn't say actually which country I'm working for. So it only say Taiwan can help. So what this signifies is that I'm not working for the Taiwan government. I'm working with the Taiwan government. And that is the critical difference between uppercase minister and lower case minister. And I consider myself always a lower case minister, whether it's uppercase or not. Yeah. Okay. This is I personally curious that what makes you attract to the open? I mean, since you're very young, you are very, yeah, do lots of things with the open things. Yes. So my first encounter with the open access community is with the archive community at ARX IV. I think Cornell University maintains it. And even today, actually my papers are published under creative commons in the social archive. So I encountered the archive community when I was 14 years old. That was 1995. And I see people just posting papers even before they publish to the journal. I was just a junior high school student. I don't have the money to pay for the academic journals but I get to read those research even before they make to the journals. And when I write the collaborators about cognitive science, artificial intelligence, computational linguistics, they treat me like a fellow researcher. They don't know I'm just 14 years old or just solving problems together in an academic community. And without a open platform, without a digital platform, this is impossible. I will have to take maybe an airplane to visit their lab and work maybe 15 years to become their postdoc before we can collaborate like this. But because of the where I went and the open access community back then, we were able to start collaborating even I'm just a 14 years old who speaks very little English. So this is how my education began. And I sent this material of my email correspondence to the principal, the head of my junior high school. And she after considering it for a couple of minutes said, okay, tomorrow you don't go to school anymore. You just work with the scholars. And I will cover for you because at the time it's mandatory education. So if I don't go to the school, my parent will be fined. There would be a penalty. And so my principal, the head of the school says, no, it's okay. I would just fake the record to the minister of education. So you can pursue your education with the wide web community, which she thinks is the future. So I have very optimistic prospects about the innovation capacity of the public sector of the career public servants because of my encounter with my head of the school when I was 14 years old. That's the how your journey started. I'm quite impressed that you mentioned that you are always the minister and you are always will be. Do you have any plan to come in Seoul? Yeah, I did visit Seoul, actually. But that was, I think for a cybersecurity conference. And I'm very, I'm more than happy actually to come to Seoul. And I believe actually our open government partnership national action plan, which because of political reasons is now just called the open government national action plan, we dropped a P from it. But it is very kindly supported by the career government, the OGP Liaison. And we did have a regional meeting with pretty much all my deputies came to Seoul to learn from the OGP process and the IRM process. So I think we will kick off our national action plan really quickly, maybe a month from now, and then start next January, we will begin the co-creation process with the social sector. And so at a time, if any of your OGP community, I'm sure Creative Commons Korea is part of your open government community is interested. We're very happy to do bilateral or mini lateral gatherings in South Korea. And I would love to come. Ah, okay. Because I want to mean real, real space. Yes, of course. And I mean, we're very close to each other anyway, right? So I think last time the Gap Zero movement, the social sector, organized a hackathon in Okinawa. Yeah, I heard of this. Yeah. So, so, so everybody, you know, fly the same distance and have a hackathon together. I'm sure that we can repeat that experience too, if you're interested in co-organizing. Okay, thank you for your time. You must be really, really busy, but you, yeah, thank you for your time. And then thank you for your older movement. And it was quite inspiring. Thank you. Thank you for the great questions. And thank you for your contribution to the commons. I mean, we get to publish this under Creative Commons attribution right away. This very seldom happens. I usually have to convince my interviewer of the importance of Creative Commons. But you know, I'm pretty sure to fire here. I'm really happy about that. Thank you for contributing to the commons. Yeah, thank you. Cheers. All right. Bye. Hope to see you meet again sometime. Yeah, okay. Bye bye.