 Yes, yes. Okay, let's begin to begin with I would like to know your preferred pronouns, so we want whatever, whatever, whatever. Amazing. So let's start with a Taiwanese success story during the pandemic. You've tackled the health crisis without limiting democratic rights and without lockdowns. Can you tell us how this even be possible? Certainly, we managed to counter the pandemic with no lockdown, the same way we managed the infodemic, the disinformation crisis without takedowns. In many jurisdictions, when it enters the widespread community spread, it's too late. So people thought that lockdown or takedown is the only choice that they have. But in Taiwan, we had experience in 2003 when SARS hit Taiwan, the epidemic. We already had a lockdown of the entire hospital, the herping hospital. So people understand that it is a mental health wise, very traumatic experience and we are committed not to repeat that. And so because of that is a three-pronged approach. First, a very strict border quarantine. I just returned from Italy to Taiwan and I'm on day three of my seven-day quarantine. Starting tomorrow, we're down to three days' quarantine. But for a very long time in Taiwan, a very strict quarantine on the border is enforced. Second is that in addition to early detection, we also use contact tracing very aggressively. So people for more than a year have to either write their contact number or to check in using the QR codes on the venue, using their phone, no app required, or use Bluetooth. So there are three different contact tracing methods. But at the end of the day, they shorten the notification period from more than 24 hours, which would be too late for the delta variant and on what? To less than 24 minutes, almost all automated. And because of that, people were able to get notification before they were infected. So that's the second thing, is the contact tracing. And the third thing is just good habits. People wear the mask not because they want to obey anything for the longest time in most of 2020. We didn't impose a fine on not wearing a mask, but rather people wear it because they know it protects their own face against their own unwashed hands. They wear it because it's pink, it's rainbow, it's a sense of self expression and observed. They have one hand washing and so reminding each other that the mask is there for you to wash your hands before touching your face. And so and that of course also is a very successful MPI. Do you think though that the success lies with Taiwanese people? And do you think that this model could be implemented around the globe with so many different cultures and nations with larger populations? Definitely, because we also did quite badly in SARS, right? It showed that our central government and a local government did not have coordination. It showed that the ministries did not have the awareness, the common sense of urgency or clarity and so on. So we learned from our mistakes. It's like a societal inoculation. People collectively learned, you know, maybe have a paper-based health card. It's not the best thing during the time of epidemic. The small pilot at the Pescador-Steppenwolf Island at the time for the IC card-based health card after SARS just became the national standard. And there's no cybersecurity or privacy incidents in the past 15 years. So this time around we're very reliant on the IC card-based health care card that covers not just citizens, but also residents. We use that for mask rationing, for rapid testing, for vaccination appointments, like just for everything. And I think many jurisdictions now, after postponing the pandemic for now, are also looking at the same sort of digitalization of the health care system, the modernization of the notification system and so on, so much so that many jurisdictions are now considering this sort of information system, critical infrastructure or national infrastructure, just like we learned in 2003. Okay, so the pandemic was a health crisis for population around the globe, but it was also a pandemic for democracy with governments around the world turning to authoritarian practices to keep people safe. Do you think that this has set a bad precedent on how to deal with a crisis like this when they arise? Well, it also allows relatively smaller economies and jurisdictions to shine on the global globe stage, right? When we proved that it is possible to have state capacity to deliver outcomes that meet the challenge of our time. So I was giving a speech in the new local conference in the UK, and I say, if you think Taiwan is too out there, too strange, just call it a New Zealand model. We don't care, right? It's the same model. And so while, as you said, in many jurisdictions, there are democracy in backslide, like the state capacity fell into the lilava, we also have shining examples from previously relatively unknown jurisdictions that are now held as the golden standard for the next pandemic. Okay, one of the many issues that modern democracies face is the lack of confidence of people in their governments. In your talks, you often talk about mutual fundamental trust between the government and the people. How can governments restore their credibility with the people? And is it even possible at this point when capitalism seems to be broken and not working on so many levels for so many different people around the world? Yeah, to give no trust is to get no trust. So it's important that the state trusts the citizens before the citizen are asked to trust the state. That is to say, trustworthiness needs to be earned. And I often say that democracy operates previously on a very low bandwidth. Just, you know, if you vote among eight candidates, that's just three bits. Very high latency, meaning every four years or two years. And also a very small connection. Many people who don't have to vote or do not want to go to the vote, their voice is not heard. They're ignored, like the immigrants, the young people and so on. And so because of that, what we need to do is to improve the bandwidth of democracy so that people can express their full preference spectrum. We've seen participatory budgeting, repetitions, presidential hackathon. Many models that have joined also spread across the globe so that people can have a continuous integration toward democracy, even as simple as picking up the toll-free number and speaking your mind about counter-epidemics. So that's the bandwidth. And low latency, meaning once a very good idea surfaced, like the visualization of mask rationing map, like wearing pink mask and so on, we implement that within 24 hours. So people are used to, at most, weekly continuous integration when genuinely our shortcomings are pointed out, like data bias and so on. Like we always in next Thursday, next Thursday, by next Thursday, we change our algorithms and our platforms so that it reflects the latest learnings by the citizens. So citizens won't feel that, oh, I have to wait for four years to vote another person into the presidency in order to implement the changes that I want. And because of those toll-free numbers, online petition systems and so on, do not limit to only adults with a citizenship, literally anyone with a SMS SIM card registering in Taiwan, including immigrant workers and very young people, can also have their say. Okay. I wanted to ask you, you have also lived in the US. Do you think that it could be possible? And you know the society there and the differences between approaches in personal beliefs and politics about society. Do you think that it could, like a larger society like the US that defines the Western culture in a way? Do you think and sets the example for the whole world could follow like this more approach of trust with the people? Well, in the very beginning of the pandemic, I've worked with, for example, the chief innovation officer of New Jersey, Bess Novak, to get some of the real-time Q&A and stuff on the platform in New Jersey. And of course, Beth is the expert internationally on open government and citizen engagement. We've also seen, like the state of California, there's many people who crowdsourced the vaccination and information websites for people to get informed and so on. And later on, these civic technologies will work with the federal governments to deliver the rapid testing kits via a US postal service to people and so on. That's a successful integration of civic capability into state capacity. So I see there are pockets of good all across the US and because Taiwan by population or land area is just one of the small to medium sized states. I wouldn't say that our model necessarily work on the federal level. However, if it has some success in some of the smaller or medium sized states, I'm sure that it will sooner or later enter into the mainstream conversation as the area like cone of possibility. Okay, I want to ask you, is your personal success story a proof that our educational systems are obsolete and need to be reset completely to provide people with this unnecessary knowledge to form a modern democratic society? I must say that even though I had dropped out of middle high school, it was with the full blessing of the head of my school and my teachers and I almost immediately enrolled, although not a formal diploma, enrolled into nearby universities to work with first undergrad and the graduate level studies. So without the academic community of formal higher education, I would not have the access of the community to learn so much. So I wouldn't say that they're obsolete. However, I would say that I'm more of a peer to peer like equal relationship with the researchers because I'm not dependent on them to give me examination to score me to give me a diploma. And so one rather they're interested in researching about swift trust about how people come to trust each other so quickly on the Internet and lose that trust equally quickly. I'm interested in that too. So that means that I'm just like a researcher but more junior and they're also a researcher but more senior. There's less teaching but more learning together. So I have ready to identify as an anarchist as an independent and he believed in conservative anarchism as a way to have a more humanistic approach modern democracy. Yes, which of these are precise characterizations and what does actually mean in terms of government policies. Yes. Well, I could also come as a spiritual Taoist. But for many Western audience that means I, you know, write some rights and perform a kind of folk religion rights and communicate with the dead. I don't do that. So while I can say I'm a spiritual Taoist, I didn't mean it in a folk religion sense with audio respect. But to say conservative is to respect what already is right. The Taoist idea is to the Tao follows what is natural in Taiwan. We have 20 national languages including the sign language and many of which indigenous. So each language represent a way of life, a cultural norm to be progressive in a Western way is actually to set back to decimate the autonomy and the cultural traditions of those. 20 very different cultures and so to conserve them in the original sense is to honor this diversity and plurality in this traditions. Now the anarchism part means that I do not give orders. I do not take orders. I only work on the basis as I mentioned among equals voluntary collaboration. And because I don't give or take orders, I don't use coercion as a way to force compliance rather. I always try to make grounds for the common values and deliver innovations upon those common values. That's the original definition of anarchism. I must always say to Westerners I'm not throwing bombs. This is not the main association. Okay. I wanted to tell me if you do you feel that capital works in a global scale and instead of overturning it in a radical way. Are you trying to an example on a new approach about how societies and nations can operate in a more democratic way. Yes, I think there are a couple of things. When we say capitalism, we often mean that a market that tend to concentrate the wealth concentrated decision making power and so on. So it's a little bit like statism with the idea being the state authority grows and grows without a checks and balances. Now, I think market is a good check and balance to authorize authoritarian states. If a state tried to do things that are more draconian like locking down on an extended period ignoring human rights. Well, the market leaves the jurisdiction. In a sense, the capital is checking and balancing the authoritarian regimes. On the other hand, when capitalism grows out of hand, sometimes the democratically elected governance system is must also be there to impose. For example, the Digital Services Act currently being deliberated in the EU is one way to counter against surveillance capitalism. So I'm not like capitalism is good, market is good, state is bad. I'm not like state is good, capitalism is bad. I'm like they're good only when they check and balance each other. So neither of which grow into a levy as an and allow the social sector to thrive. But if once is strong and the others are weak, there really is no room for civil society and social sector, which is the sector that I care primarily about. Okay, in a more philosophical notion, I want to ask you, do you think that power corrupts people, like people govern inevitably will be corrupted from their power, their gain from the people? I think there are more and have like actual respect for the people they govern on. I think there are power that are within a network that is to say like forced obey of the coercion of the top-down rule in the top-down hierarchy. That's a kind of power. On the other hand, there are also network making power. That is to say the power to convene, the power to connect people who previously wasn't aware of each other or to actually the kind of software we're using now, right? Video conferencing software holds that sort of power. It has many functionalities. Like if I speak in a language you don't understand, it can automatically recognize my speech and caption it for you or even automatically translate for you or connect us to an interpreter. But we would not say that, you know, the video conferencing software holds power over us. It's imperial. We don't say that. Basically, it holds power because without such intermediate networks, we cannot convey our thoughts to each other, will be separated by distance and so on. So it certainly is powerful in a communication power sense, but the power that it exercises is limited by the check and balances of the internet, fundamental internet ideas of end-to-end innovation. So if we find that this platform is locking us in, it's very simple to go back to the decentralized platform called email. I can email you saying, oh, let's go to the other platform and then we're not beholden to the login power. So it's quite obvious that when the power is communication power, it's network making power and situated in an internet network that allows true end-to-end innovation, then the power is checked and balanced by its surrounding networks and can never grow into lock-in power if we concentrate on making sure that the choices are possible. Okay, but does this apply as well to elected politicians? I mean, we have seen people being elected from the people. And in fact, in terms when they actually take over power, they have like really authoritarian processes and actually don't work in favor for the many. Yeah, actually, most of which are doing okay in their first few years. The problem becomes when they try to change the rules and renew indefinitely their position of power. And that becomes a problem because every single individual has a peak state. But as years go by, naturally people get owed and become less peak. But if during their peak years they invest their political capital and energy so that they can remain powerful ever, then of course the country and the nearby country suffers because then it becomes less peak in judgment and so on. But people are stuck with such a ruler as we have seen in certain geopolitical situations. So what we're trying to say is that the democratic check and balances is also temporal in a sense that we really need to establish a very strong norm. Then no matter how brilliant the president or prime minister is, they only have eight years in Taiwan, even though that we're facing geopolitical challenges like real urgency. Nobody would say, oh, let's just give Dr. Tsai Ing-wen four more years, right, because she's already on her second term. I think that is the fundamental of democracy. Okay, I want you to tell me the definition of digital democracy and what does a digital minister like you actually does when you don't have a specific portfolio and the areas of government you're involved are ever expanding? Yeah, starting from September, we will have a dedicated ministry for digital affairs called the MODA, Ministry of Digital Affairs. And it's defined as a combination between the part of National Communication Commission that provides like spectrum strategy, resilience, lowers, orbits, startling, all those things. And then also the part of National Development Council that concerns open data, shared data, privacy enhancing technologies, data altruism work. So that's the data portfolio and digital service, of course, for the public sector. And also the part of the Ministry of Economic Affairs on open source software platform, economy on so-called Web 3 and things like that. So like chips, but defined bits, that is the economic part. And finally, the Department of Cybersecurity will be promoted into the administration for cybersecurity in Taiwan. So it's these four parts, the resilience part, the data-based plural innovation part, the digital and data economy part, platform economy part, and the cybersecurity part that go together into the new Ministry of Digital Affairs. Okay, your digital democracy sounds a lot like an evolved threat from the representative democracies that most nations have. Is there a danger to become populist and authoritarian in terms of never being able to make actual decisions? I think for us, it's not about decisions. Most of our digital platforms is about co-discovery, co-design of what's possible instead of jumping straight to decisions. So although we do have elections and referendums that happen on, you know, intervening years, right? So this year is the election year. For mayors, next year will be referendum and the next is presidential and then referendum and so on. We do our digital democracy in the intervening times. So the national level election or referendum happens every year. But during the part of the year that doesn't have the campaign elections, that's when we have most of our participatory budget, presidential haggison and things like that. Collectively, they define sort the societal priority of what's important for the people who start referendums or to run for public offices to look at. So this is not trying to replace representational democracy. This is to give higher quality input into representational democracy. So at the end of the day, the budget is still overseen by the legislature. But in our case, because I'm a double appointee, people elect directly the president who appoint the premier, who appoints me. So among the colleagues in the ministers at large space, like of nine of us, seven doesn't have a party affiliation. And even for the vertical ministries, 32 of them, there's more independent members than members of any party. So this pre like drafting pre legislature stage, like removed from party politics is where participatory democracy can grow. But at the end of the day, we produce just drafts and then to the legislature for the four major parties to have their parties and conversations. Okay, so this democracy is about people having the opportunity to advise the government in a way, but they're not actually involved in more fundamental policy, fundamental policymaking such as budgeting of the state. So for participatory budgeting, of course, many municipalities carve out specific ratios of budget. So that also counts as direct input, but you're correct. Most of the budget is still in the hands of legislature. The most important part of co-creation comes when the citizens realize that this particular thing, for example, fact checking in the online journalism should not be a state budget. If the state runs the budget to fact check the journalists, then we go to the authoritarian model. So rather the citizens should cross or should solicit donations and the state should make sure that we just hold the social media to account so that they must respond to the fact checkers independently from the citizen civic media to run the public notice when they discover something is actually a propaganda, disinformation to disseminate humor over rumor and so on. But the state must not step in and say, let's just take on the take down this media and so on. While the budget is part of the state power, the co-creation from the digital democracy platforms can delineate the boundaries so the state doesn't need to enter because the civic power, the social innovators already took care of that part. Okay, I want to ask you if this democracy can work in the air of tech giants where not even our privacy is secured for people using the internet? Yeah, I think the tech giants to in my mind are like large nightclubs in the district of entertainment. That is to say they build addiction. So the young people should really get advice before they glue to the touch screens and so on because it's really addictive. You have to shout to get heard a smoke filled room private bouncer ready to escort you out if you say something wrong and so on. So I mean, this is mainly a place for fun for adults, right? But in a democracy, we need equally the digital equivalent of public parks of town halls of museums, libraries, those public and civic places that allow for more scalable listening and deliberation just as we wouldn't bring our town hall and our mayor to the nightclub where people get very rowdy and then we say, oh, is democracy possible in the era of rowdy nightclubs? Well, maybe you should not use that place in the first place to do democracy. So this kind of investing in the infrastructure in the digital realm on the public goods and the civic infrastructure that is very important. And so since 2016 we've classified that sort of thing as also public infrastructure money and qualify for infrastructure funding, even though it's not concrete like not made out of concrete. Okay, you have worked in Silicon Valley and I assume you have seen firsthand the corporate greed. Can single governments around the world try and control the power hanger of these tech giants? Or can it only be achieved if countries work collectively around the globe? I mean, if you impose regulations as the Taiwanese government, the specific company, does it even matter when all the other countries allow these regulations to happen? Well, in Taiwan, if you get into a car accident and you test positive for above a certain threshold for alcohol in your blood, then it's mandatory to install a alcohol lock in your car. And the next time you drive, you have to prove to the machine that you're not inebriated. I'm sure that many jurisdictions do that. But it used to be that the liquor companies many, many years ago are considered too big to fail. And there's even constitutional level like prohibition, like a lockdown that people think is the only course towards freedom from alcohol and so on. But nowadays we take a more civilized view, right? We know that unlimited alcohol consumption, the damage it takes to the harm it takes. But precisely because everyone, especially young children, now understand the social and mental harm over consumption can bring about. So the society has already reoriented ourselves around the norm of responsible use of alcohol. Now, currently, touch screen addiction is currently not as high on people's mind as alcohol is clearly a public mental health harm. But if we continue our digital competence and seek out alternatives, platforms that allows this kind of civility, this course without having to go to advertisement, fuel surveillance, capitalism. Then people can learn that, oh, there are also other enjoyable things that people can do together. You can throw a party with minors without alcohol. I always drink alcohol free, like alcohol free drinks. And the taste also very good allows me to communicate about the taste and so on without getting inebriated myself. But that was also because people invested a lot of time into finding the alternatives. The same goes for like cruelty free meat, right? Synthetic meat and things like that. So for each externality, we can invest a lot of time and energy into turning the public harm into something that people notice, but also to develop alternative that doesn't cause as much harm. Okay, how can digital democracy work in the age of trolls where people channel their frustration online creating extremely toxic environments on the internet? Yeah, so the platform that we use, the joint platform, the Polish platform, always have the commonality that we learn from the Icelandic better in that we don't have a reply button. And so you can upvote and downvote, but you cannot attack each other. That is to say we allow more synthesis of pro-social sentiments that lets people criticize the arguments or each other's proposals. But because there's no reply button, there's no way to vent the frustration against the other person. And so because of that, it's very difficult to get polarized in the Polish or joint platforms by design. However, you know, in more antisocial corner of social media, maybe they want this kind of personal attacks so that it can trigger notifications and also impose buying and panic buying and things like that is to their advantage by at least in our digital democracy spaces. We do not configure our space to encourage such patterns. Okay, do you think that people in the world can keep up with your radical innovating forward way of thinking or super conservative personal beliefs can be an obstacle and alienate people from joining this new type of democracy? Well, I'm not forcing anyone, right? That's the whole point of voluntary association. What I'm trying to do is just like Buckminster Fuller's idea, just make new systems that very gradually over generations may make old system obsolete, but I'm not disrupting, fighting the old system. You will notice that I speak nothing about absolutely being the members of the parliament. I didn't say that we need to replace our candidates with robots. I would never say that. I wouldn't say that let's just automate smart cities and the smart citizens become dumb citizens. That's okay. I won't say that, right? So I'm always about the plurality, about the coexistence of the diversity of models and the collaboration between those. So to the people who are super conservative, I thank them for preserving the tradition. It's a very important tradition and we need to do everything we can to bring the technology to these traditions instead of disrupting those traditions to fit technology. Okay. Is this a requirement for digital democracy to work? There are actual words raging throughout the world from Ukraine to Yemen, and you have a really complex history with China. Can your humanistic approach to government become a reality around the world? Do you believe that? Well, I mean democracy itself is a very new thing. And especially in Taiwan, our democracy, the first presidential election popular vote is 1996. That's already after the Huawei web. And in many of the jurisdiction that you mentioned, it is also coincides, right? The internet coincides with the protest. The protest turned the demonstration from a negative one, like demonstrating against something into a positive one, like the pro-zero system in Ukraine, to demonstrate that radical transparency is possible in the area of procurement and so on. And so because of that, I think each time that there is a strong counter power against authoritarian forces, the counter power can now tap into the network of democracy that we already have and turn their energy into a creative one that provides possibly better models for other people to consider. So I would not say that this is like us exporting a model or anything. This is more like the bee water philosophy of the Hong Kong demonstration. People just encounter individuals who have first-hand experience in such deliberative and participatory cultures and they spread the root of those ideas, maybe just in a very small community, maybe in a township and so on. But if sufficient amount of people do that, you know, I go to Africa, I go to many places and I always see those bubble tea stands. I'm sure they didn't get a license from that one. But really, it's just a simple idea that people can just put a Bioka boss or whatever boss and a local drink, not necessarily a tea, maybe Ruybus, together and make a really good flavor. So digital democracy is like that. Okay. I want you to tell me your personal experience from the transition from the martial law to the Taiwanese democracy. You must have agreed about 10 years old, like super young. Do you remember the time when democracy was actually implemented in Taiwan? Yes. When I was born, I was born into the martial law and because both of my parents are journalists and so they routinely get, you know, caused by the state censors, the one party saying that their writing is out of line and things like that. In my dinner table, when I was very young, like for five years old, people were debating whether this new party called the Democratic Progressive Party, the DPP, currently a ruling party, is a party or illegal gathering. Okay. So that was the days. And I learned very early on that we rely on international correspondence. Amnesty International, the International Human Rights Movement, and even international journalist in Hong Kong who gets what's going on on the ground, but because we're not allowed to publish that. So the journalistic practitioners, including my parents, work with international correspondence. So they may publish in Hong Kong or international media, and then we can then say, oh, it's international media, but what would the local government do? It's a check and balance on international level, right? Nowadays, of course, we're reversing the role vis-à-vis Hong Kong. But anyway, the point I'm making is that there's always an international democracy community and people who even are exiles from Taiwan or people who could not do much in Taiwan but maintains a sort of connection, many times underground connection with the international community can nevertheless express what's actually going on, speaking truth to power, but sometimes only in a very roundabout way. Okay, I have two more questions. If you would run with the time, because I know of like... Yes, of course. You said that access to... You have implied that access to technology is a fundamental principle to the notion of democratic society nowadays. How can a global access to technology be achieved when so many nations struggle fiscally to provide even basic necessities for their people? I think broadband as a human right is, I think, the actual quote. And we see that really in some smaller remote islands in the higher mountains, in the very rural areas, it used to be true that it was really very expensive to set up microwave communication and so on, so that it competes with the fund that could go to eliminate poverty. For example, I think that's the point you're alluding. Nowadays, I think because storage and computation, general purpose computation is extremely inexpensive. Taiwan may have some contribution in that. And so because of that, it's no longer a very high ratio of the GDP. So the computation technology, the storage and so on now costs less and less. Mostly it's about communication. The spectrums, as I mentioned, the microwave or fiber optic lines that are currently puzzling for many governments. And so because of that, I think the lower satellite technologies and many innovative technologies that configures flying balloons and drones and things like that is actually a solution so that people do not have to choose between investing in spectrum or investing in education. But rather, once you sign up for this lowest satellite orbit thing, it's like fundamentally almost zero cost to set up like minimum solar panel and the receiver that can connect you to the broadband internet that can power like one dish can power three villages, as you have seen in Ukraine. And lastly, I want to ask you as a transgender person or as LGBTQIA plus rights closer to your heart and your agenda as a politician. And do you follow the police around the world affecting queer people? And I want to also ask you how is life for queer people in Taiwan? Yeah, I'm very happy to report as a digital minister. I've never faced discrimination. And I mean, our parliament is more than 40% women. Our president is 100% women. And so because of that, I think we're long past the line where people discriminate by gender or something in the political arena. It wasn't always like that. In my youth, it was like taboo to talk about marriage equality and so on. In many communities, it took decades of work from feminists, from LGBTQIA plus activists to get to this point. But I think across the world, people, especially around the Pacific, people are seeing Taiwan as an example that we do not have to disrupt the old family or structure because when we legalize marriage equality, we say, oh, it's a specific form of wedding between individuals that is not a marriage between families. So it does not confer kinship relation, but it confers exactly the same slightly better civil rights to the couple that is wedded. So it takes care of the norms of the older generation, but also the younger generation. And this is what I mean by collaboration across diversity. We respect the tradition, the conservative part of the family to family relationship, the kinship people that do not want to disrupt it by the marriage equality. On the other hand, we make sure that the constitutional interpretation is upheld and respected by inventing a new kind of civic relationship, civil relationship. And so I think this model really inspired many activists. I know personally many activists in Japan that are reading up on the legal and societal strategies that we use and are reporting some very positive developments lately. Okay, and how did you manage in such a short term like almost something like 30 years to achieve social approval of this? Because in my mind, like a lot of communities in Southeast Asia, they can be a bit super traditional. And how did you achieve for them to accept the rights of a lot of people in general? Well, that's where the 20 national languages come in, right? Because in the Amis nation is a matriarchy. In the Taiwan nation that our president shares the lineage, the chief does not look at gender when choosing successes and so on. So we are a transcultural nation that is comprised of many nations and each nation have a different gender stereotype, a different gender norm. And when those norms coexist, we can then see that actually, you know, it's not about one tradition making sure other traditions do not get their expression, but rather how to word our legislation and our constitution so that we can pay respect to all the 20 or more different traditions while making sure that the human rights is asserted. So I think plurality in this particular configuration is a blessing because it lets us look at far more social innovations in traditions so that our tradition doesn't just mean one religion. Amazing. Thank you so much for your time. It was inspiring talking to you. Keep up the amazing work. Thank you. Thank you. It's really good questions to looking forward to your talk here. Nothings today. Thank you so much for the time. Thank you. It was very, very interesting. Thank you. So I'll have to sign off now. Of course. Thank you. Bye.