 So feel free to send the code. If your device doesn't have a QR code scanner, you can also alternative code to do this. Slider.com and then your 0, 0, 7, 2, 3, this is the state, it was 2, 0s before it would have been without the hashtag sign. And either way, either sending the QR code or entering the code, you get this anonymous Q&A platform where you can feel free to ask me any questions at any time and also like each other's questions. And the format would be that I'll answer the questions with the most number of stuff likes us. And right, so feel free to start lobbying. But in any case, people who raise their hand always gets priority over this one. However, this one is anonymous and also has a way of just floating to the top. And so we'll just alternate between two realities and two when it runs out. Or here's no more questions. There's no more questions when you're in parallel. But this isn't right. OK, so if you're free just to scan the QR code, it'll be gaining a few minutes. Thanks, Alan. I'm going to end up introducing a speaker for this morning, Audry Tom. So Audry Tom is the world's only transgender minister. So I think that decides around a lot. So Audry Tom, despite being a junior high school dropout, Audry Tom has worked in the private sector. She has worked as a consultant with Apple on computational linguistics, with Oxford University Press, on crowd-legs, psychography, and with social text on social integration design. And the voluntary sector, Audry, has contributed to Taiwan's Dove Zero, a vibrant community focused on creating tools for civil society. So I think that's all going to be a big round of applause for Audry Tom. So thank you, and glad to be here. I trust that people have generally scanned the QR code, I know. So what I'll do is use the five minutes, technically before the speech, to just give a very brief review of what the additional minister is and what this role entails. But then, as soon as anybody wants to raise their hand or has a question or slide, they will just abandon the slides and talk on whatever you want me to talk about. So it's the idea of processing. So we're in Galshau now, but this is my office, the Taipei, which is a nice office. It's called Social Innovation Lab. It's in the real life road, just next to the Chippewa flower market and next to the Central Park with Daan. And this place is great because this code is really co-created by hundreds of social entrepreneurs. And this soccer field that you see here is a creation of my view of a wisdom syndrome. That is to say, it was through some differences. Whereas we may view the world using text or abstract mathematics or whatever, the view of wisdom is to view the world through a geometric lens. And when they paint the world that they see, it actually creates a very creative atmosphere that people with stepping into this place can think outside of the boss system, so on. So that's the idea of Social Innovation. It's just breaking out of silence and encourage people to think about traditional roads as a society, and it creates a new way. And in this place, everybody can visit me every week, like from Wednesday and the end of the year, is my traditional office hour, and anybody can work for me outside to talk about pretty much anything. And the only thing that I ask my visitors is that all the transcripts, all the conversations that I had during both the hours, as well as actually for all the meeting down the chair, need to be very good transparency so that everybody can see as the chemist when it was 4,000 people, almost 1,000 occasions, and we talk together 200,000 or several statements. And this is not an abstract or a summary. This is actually a word-by-word transcript so that everybody can relive this conversation and I had, for example, this awful freedom for it, and people can generally just very easily quit anything from it, but without losing context. So the context, I think here, is that it was important because a lot of ministers have published whatever decision they have made, but very few around the world publish the decision before they are made. And so this drafting stage, rather than transparency, enables a kind of trust from the ground with two, this is a society, and so this is, I can see which cases have we considered, which solutions have we considered if we did implement one of the five, the other four of which evaluations do we go through that. And with that context, social and private sector can carry all these ideas that are yet implemented by the public sector with the full understanding that we are actually sharing our values. And so this is one very good example. These are tricycles, but they're self-driving. So the idea is that you can hop on one and then tell it's where you would like to go and you would just drive it down. And the greatest thing about tricycles is that they're very slow, meaning that they won't spread people, and if they crash into buildings or, you know, like on your self-driving vehicles, and also because they're open source, meaning that you can look at it, source code, and change how it thinks. It's open hardware, meaning that you can probably play each part of the vehicle. Also it's open data, meaning that everything that is senseless by the world is free for people to understand and share. And the end result is that it's kind of like a sandbox where people can just take this kind of self-driving vehicles to fit the actual social need and figure out the social norms around which that we feel comfortable interacting with these self-driving vehicles. So for example, people don't like the fact that it only had one angle in the cycle. So people just made it have two eyes that can look at you and can blink and blink under a number of behaviors. And also it's near the jingle flower market as I mentioned. So one of the most used cases that elderly are going to the jingle flower market by some positive orchids or whatever, and the cart gets heavier and heavier, and it's very difficult for them to carry those positive flowers around. Now with these self-driving vehicles, they can just be a cart that follows the ramp, right? So you can buy some positive flowers, put it on top of the cart. If the cart is going to get overloaded, just summon another one to join the fleet, and by the end of the shopping, you can hop on one of the drives you've known. And so all this basically says that the algorithm to carry the need to correspond to the social need rather than the other way around. And so Taiwan is a free society and democracy. I like to quote Dr. Tsai when in her inauguration speech, she said, before we think of democracy, we think of clash between opposing values. For example, economic development on one side and environmental sustainability on the other. For example, so-called disruptive innovations on one side and social justice on the other. I'm sure that you can think of many other polar opposites. But she said, before we think democracy as a position between these values, however, democracy now need to become a conversation, become different values. And this is the important part about our new government system that I was helping to advocate and now helping to implement. It's called COCA, or Collaborative Governance, or COCA governance. The idea is very simple. In the battle days in the previous century before we were all intended, people's only way of organizing is through representatives. So it could be a union leader, an association leader, it could be a member of the parliament, it could be a city councilor, and so on and so forth, or maybe a minister, right? And so each force basically links only to one or two of the representatives to the future. That's like some of the ministry of economy on one side and ministry of environmental protection on the other. And the rope here is the invisible career public service that absorbed all the attention that nobody knows about it, like. And so that was the old days. But nowadays, people donate ministers or indeed any other organizers to organize. It was the right hashtag, you know, hashtag Friday strike, hashtag me too, hashtag whatever. Half a million people can just mobilize out of nowhere and maybe occupy the parliament as we have seen in Taiwan. And so in these emergent issues, there's no ministry, no agency, no task force even to address each emergent issue. And so in this kind of society, the traditional organizing, arbitrating role in the government doesn't quite work anymore. And we have to answer different standard questions. Instead of asking more of the organizers how to make a fair balance between them, they always ask, we have different positions, but are there some shared values or there some common values? And given common values, are there innovations that can deliver on those values without leaving anyone who is off? And so this is a new kind of question that we're asking. And we do this through various ways, for example through sandbox. If you have a great idea about the economy in terms of driving vehicles or whatever, you can actually in Taiwan challenge existing laws and regulations from any ministry. And you will be given, for example, for those hybrids of driving vehicles one year to present out on a municipality or on districts that is synthesizing what's your innovation and what the government promises not to find you. But what we're asking is that you need to share your innovation now and when the open data and the cybersecurity privacy, all those statements, presentations, the one, need to be up for the public to inspect. And after one year of testing your idea and the society will make a collective decision whether it's a good idea or not. If it's a good idea, then your fork, sort of fork of the regulation become our regulation and policy. And if it doesn't work, if the society think it's a bad idea, well, we thank you and your investors for paying the duetions for everyone because everybody learns something, right? And then the next innovation can take a different track. And the MPs can step in and it's fine to say, oh, this is not just about the regulatory adjustment, they rather need to be alone. And they can have three or four years to have a real deliberation on a new law. However, during that deliberation, this sandbox experiment, as well as this business model, it's still legal. So it's kind of limited time to normally in exchange for open innovation, for sharing your innovative ideas. But how do we know that your idea address the local name? Well, as I mentioned, that every Wednesday I just accept people's call for office hours, that every other Tuesday or so I actually tour around time one and to the people who are least likely to visit Taipei of the high speed rail straight onto the rural places, indigenous places, offshore islands, it's the one and the whole, this kind of facilitated meetings with the local community, build a school of social media and so on. And in this environment, people usually speak for public benefit if they meet with me privately, they sometimes just lobby for their own interests. But because it's only saying, oh, that and you will know that this will be on public internet as a transcript 10 days after each meeting, people have to speak about public interest. And while we're talking actually Taipei, the social innovation law, all the 12 ministries are gathering in this in place and using to a telepresence looking at the rural and indigenous places and I'm voting this conversation as much as Taipei but all the other municipalities in Kaohsiung, Haichung, Haohyuan and Maui, Huai and Kaidong as well all join this kind of conversations. And the greatest thing about this is that previously, if you're a local organizing, you talk to your local city governments, just as I thought that there was forward your idea into the industry of interior, for example. The interior would say, oh, I have to talk with the ministry of economy because the budget is on their side but the economy would say, you know, we will have to consult the ministry of health and welfare and so on and so forth. But by the second time that your case get forwarded, it's just an abstract A4 paper and nobody understand the original context anymore and people would project things into it but they're almost always wrong. And because of this, this new kind of a synchronous telepresence of their ideas to the inside world have the same kind of on the Tianbian sentence or you can build 30% of trust just by being in this place. Now using Haichuan with broadband to build telepresence, you can build at least, I guess, 20% of trust. And just by the virtue of people sharing the same room, together, the ministry of interior would no longer say, I have to consult the ministry of economy because the MOEA person is just sitting next to them. So they have to bring some some way out to adjust a policy or to respond to their local need. But in this way, all the public service get the new credit or the innovations they know who are the public service that come up with those innovations that delivers on a such a problem and I absorb all the risk. And so in this case, most of the public service are actually very innovative and willing to work with the people. And once we have some good working prototype which is exhibited outside the Taiwan SB Realization of finance, for example, there's many policy, there's one in New Capacity, Linko, and so on that you can see the services, try your vehicles or the green energy, renewable, like smart grid and things like that in their real sense. So the last thing I'd like to talk about is then how do we determine whether people feel is a good idea or not. So usually we use the AI power conversation called PELUS is another open source tool that let people see their position as represented by the evidence on how it gets clustered with people with like-minded ideas as well as their friends and families who may be on the other side, but it's maybe just because we didn't talk about these things over dinner, right? So these are not nameless enemies, they're not trolls, they're your friends and families, just happen to be aware of different positions. And the way we design it is called a focus conversation method. First of all, we ask the people as well as government as well as the private sector to share any objective facts, that is to say when we talk about open data as much as open government data, but also open data from citizens as well as from the private sector. And after we all look at the same data, then we allocate three or four weeks for everybody to talk about feelings. And this is often missing from the traditional policy making process in that we often just jump from the facts into ideas, into solutions. However, we didn't start to ask the local community or indeed the entire time, why, what do you feel about those facts? Because there's no right or wrong about facts. You can feel happy, they can feel excited, whatever, but I may feel upset, right? And there's no right or wrong about feelings. And so the policy system is designed so that people can surface their feelings so that we can rate the ideas better. The better idea are the ones that take care of the most people's feelings. And then we turn those ideas into more. So this is one concrete example. We just had a consultation last evening actually about sequestries, about e-scooters and so on. And this was about self-driving vehicles. So once you get into the interface, you'll see one statement from your fellow citizen and you can click agree or disagree. And as you do, your avatar moves toward people who hold similar opinions as you. And another statement shows in the place that you can press again and agree or disagree. And after you do this for a while, you may have actually something to share with other people so you can also share your feelings for other people to resonate or not with. But what it doesn't have is a reply button. Because we discovered if you do have a reply button, people with the most time wins by default just because they can keep arguing. But if you don't have the reply button, the trolls have no room to grow. If you have a reply button, people get attacked. In a personal attack, they can post cat pictures. They get to real the conversation. Not saying that cat pictures is fine. But if for this particular thing, we want to serve as people's common feelings. But without a reply button, there really is no way other than sharing your own authentic experience with other people. And so yeah, we're at 1040 now. So this is the last line and I'll stop here. So every time we write this conversation, we see this show. If you look at mainstream media or indeed some social media, we would think that it's the only five divisive ideologies that divides people into tribes. But that's not what the reality is. The reality is most people agree on most of the things with most of their neighbors, most of their family. And Polis is just one of the mirror in the place for us to surface this reflection of how the people truly feel about and share this with everybody. Now with this picture, it's now very easy for us to start brainstorming by just reading aloud the consensus statements that everybody agrees with and asking the innovators to come up with an innovation that truly address these common feelings while tackling the divisive statements for future discussion, maybe each dog become a topic of his own. And so in this way, we can show that innovation to live us on what a society truly wants instead of being calling it another one by a few divisive statements. So that's a brief overview. And I hope there are questions on this one that we have to finish early. So any questions or anything you'd like to share or talk about? The United States perspective, what I actually personally is that it creates a lot of divisive, the divisiveness between parties. I know you used that program to have a consensus between these appointments. When you put them in the same room together, is there a normal consensus in Taiwan or is there a big divisiveness? And how do you get them to agree with each other? So a great question. And the answer is, of course, you're supposed to divisiveness and common understanding. I think a part of Taiwan's culture is that when we say gong shi here, that it means common understanding. It doesn't mean something as strong as consensus. Consensus is like something that you can put your name on. But common understanding is just I can live with it. So the idea of consensus is kind of different here in Taiwan. That is why I often just translated 1992 common understanding as common understanding and not consensus at all because there were no consensus, but sorry, but in any case, what I'm referring to is, for example, there's a case, actually, that involves both Taiwanese people as well as people in the US. So that's the additional dialogue. And we run four such dialogues in two more space. Working with the AIT, it's the US de facto embassy here, as well as the registered foreign affairs. And the first conversation was promoting Taiwan's rural development community. And currently, we're having another conversation about how to strengthen the trade economy so that you can, if you'd like, is the website address is talked to, AIT, OR, GTW, but you can also just Google for digital dialogue, AIT. And so, as you can see, this is a real policy instance going on. And previously, in that, how to promote Taiwan, we do see both divisiveness and common understanding. And the main dividing point that divides those two groups a lot is this China question. Every time the PRC closes an international door for Taiwan, does the US have the obligation to open one for Taiwan someplace else? Everybody on the B group on the right-hand side agrees with the statement. Everybody on the A group is unsure and indeed, more people disagree than agree. And so that was the most divisive statement. Now, we can, of course, dedicate two hours in our face-to-face conversation following each e-consultation to this divisive statement. And people will probably get very loud. However, what we've done is nothing like this. We just reread the knowledge that there was one particular dividing point to be right. But we set as agenda on this one. But it seems that people do have a common understanding in China's sense there's 10 group-informed consensus, meaning that people agree on them no matter which group you are on. And so this is very critical because otherwise, people would just swarm the conversation asking 100 people a similar opinion to vote exactly the same way. But with the idea of group-informed consensus, it doesn't work like that. You really have to convince people other groups as well in order to, for your statement to reach the agenda of the conversation. And so these are actually very sensible that everybody agrees, like, we should strengthen Taiwan's ties with other countries in the Indo-Pacific, that we should highlight how it's good governance, public health, and things like that. And that we should emphasize our freedoms and religious tolerance and things like that. And that Taiwan's emphasis on freedom of speech as well as equality is particularly appealing. And people agree that maybe we should change, help change the rules around the UN peripheral organizations and that the US should send someone to our presidential episode, which is our annual event, inviting people around the world to solve things like sustainable infrastructure together. And the AIT people, you know, after looking at those 10 points, as well as our local people, they just said, okay, this we can do, and we just sent someone, they did just send someone to the presidential ecosystem. And so we agreed to only use this consensus line as the agenda for discussion and to give it full accountability. So to answer your question directly, always after each consultation, there are divisive and common understanding points. But if we only hurt ourselves as agenda to common understanding points, then in face to face settings, it's very unlikely for anybody to get anxious or angry because when we start by reading at four or 10 common understanding statements, people would feel that the diversity is represented as well as they hear 10 things and 10 things they agree, actually. And so then the issue become, you know, the feeling is mutual, then what are the feasible ideas to implement those common understandings? So it's just our focus on the consensus part instead of the focus on the divisive part, the shapes, this kind of conversation. It's not to say the divisiveness is not important, it's just that we can get something going and people trust each other more and then we can tackle more different questions. Thank you. Yes. First off, I think this is brilliant. I just have one concern. There's a fair body of research and political science that says that transparency can actually enter the ability of policymakers to make the tougher decisions that they create due to public pressure. And so at what point do you draw the line on transparency? Yes. So transparency for me is an instrumental value. The core value, the core utility is trust. And here I don't mean citizen should trust the government, I mean the government should trust citizens. So increasing the public service trust to citizens that is the core value and everything else is just instrumental to it. So where do I draw the line? For example, I do a live stream, the meetings that I hold as a chair. Because live streaming, especially using the two-dimensional camera is kind of violent. The person who holds the camera holds all the power because they're hidden behind the lens, you see. And so the early time actually we use live stream if everybody comes into it, it's just placing in a kind of U-shaped or an O-shaped meeting, we just put a 360 wall of live streaming in the middle of it. And that ensures that nobody is particularly advantaged by this live streaming. But we don't often do that and it's only my consent from everybody involved. Usually what we do is, as I said, a word-by-word transcript. And everybody gets 10 days to edit the transcript. If it's an internal meeting that I hold, there's 10 working days, but the principle is the same. And this kind of textual representation is very good because, first, it reduce the time it takes for, like, investigate which are most, to understand the conversation because they can do full-text search, they can do cross-reference, and which is very difficult in a two-hour-long video. And the second thing is that after going through each other's points in the meetings, many times I just receive an email from somebody participant and say, hey, Minister, we don't have to talk about this anymore. I actually agree with the other side. During the meeting, I speak, but I didn't have time to listen. But by the time I read the transcript, because of 10 days of co-editing, they can actually empathize much more with the people on the other side. And then they don't actually disagree with them. And then we can resolve things much easier. And so the accountability through the textual representation is that the video representation is where I draw the line, because otherwise people will feel safe as you pointed out to speak their mind. But with the co-editing, if they speak about an anecdote about a third person, but that third person didn't actually authorize them to be used in a public setting, they can edit a way to kind of anonymize that anecdote. And so people, by understanding that this will not hurt other people, will be much more willing to participate in this kind of radical transparency. So by reading the transcript, I say I don't mean absolute or extreme transparency. I mean transparency at a root, meaning at a prototypical stage of drafting a policy, not that only on a publishing card. I hope that has a question. Thank you. Very much a question. Yeah, great question. So first of all, you have to, you know, have a direct connection. Fortunately, that's not a problem in Taiwan. In Taiwan, we have broadband as human rights. So wherever you are in Taiwan, so many islands, if you don't have 10 megabits per second, it's my fault that you can talk to me. So that's why we always get good video conferencing no matter how rural or indigenous is the gathering, right? So that's the first thing. And the second thing that they're very affordable. In many other countries, you will have to worry about the fee that you have to pay through your telecom. You don't need to participate in this long-running conversation or even with videos, right? But again, Taiwan, we don't have this problem because it's just 16 US dollars per month to have unlimited 4G connection. And you don't find it elsewhere in the world. It's almost insane, you know? And it's somewhat an accident. But anyway, that's where we are now. So now everybody with any telecom really in Taiwan, you can just pay 16, 17 US dollars per month and enjoy unlimited Netflix or whatever very streaming video. And because of this environment, there's actually very little difference in the urban versus rural participation or in the municipal versus township participation. So this is good. Then of course, you also have to kind of authenticate. We usually use the join platform, join.gov.tw, which is our one stop e-participation website that has 5 million users out of 23 million in Taiwan, so about a quarter of a population. And as you can see, now the need of municipalities and townships as well as the administration of the left join. Even the National Auditing Office is a frequent user of this platform. And on the platform, you can have petition. Anything that gathers 5,000 signatures will actually have a point-by-point response. And every month, we hold two collaborative meetings. Face to face with people who raise those petitions. There's a regulatory pre-announcement, which is like regulation.gov in the US, except that all the commentaries are actually public and gets responded to public. And finally, to close the life cycle, there is this budget visualization that you can see all the 2000 or so budgets, items from each ministry that takes a year or longer to deliver. So you can see the most watched projects are long-term healthcare, sanitation, social housing, so on and so forth. And so this is a 10-year project. But every quarter, you can see how well it is doing, what procurement, what kind of KBI's gonna deliver. And based on the people's feedback, every quarter the ministry of health and welfare go back and say, this is how we have adjusted in our ways thanks to your input on the internet. So this is a continuous dialogue. Now, if you want to log in, you'll have to do two things. First, that you need to have a cell phone that can receive SMS. And second, you have to have an email account or one of the social media accounts. So is it kind of two-factor authentication? And it's actually very difficult to get 5,000 SIM cards without triggering some end-to-end monitoring program. And so we generally trust that if you have a local telephone number that you, at this point, you'll get a SIM card, you'll probably have to present your national ID or your permanent residency or any kind of residence number. And so that serves kind of the KYC for us. And so SMS plus a social media or email account is a basic authentication format where you need to participate in such platforms. Oh, that's a question. Any other questions? Yes. Just on the United States, a lot of people and politicians have started using the phrase, facts don't care about your feelings. So do you think that in some situation, facts can outweigh feelings? And does that, do these borders account for that? That is a great question. So I think when I said feelings, I said feelings about the facts. I didn't say unfounded feelings. All right, so the idea of very simple point is that people really do have to look at a fact together. And then we ask a very precise question. So for example, we won't ask about, what do you feel about sharing economy? Because it's a lost cost. What sharing economy is, even. But we would ask, what do you feel about people without a professional driver's license driving not everyone around for profit? So this is very precise. And it's based on the fact of people doing exactly that. And we have the numbers, the traffic patterns, all the different facts convinced in the place, and as well as timelines of, like Uber's operations in Taiwan, and all checked by multiple stakeholders as factual. So the conversation starts at a factual point. Instead of asking people randomly, what do you feel today? Which is not a good basis of conversation, right? We're asking, what do you feel about these facts not disputed by any of the stakeholders? So that's kind of the fact, sometimes I'll wait, Felix. But if you use this kind of cornerstone, that is where it really is. There's a slight of question. So let's give some time to this anonymous person. Two people would like to know, based on my experience, what advice would I give to young people who are interested in politics and policy? I think learning about co-governance, which is really just rebranded internet governance, is crucial because people who participate in internet governance knows that there is a way to listen at scale, whereas many politicians are still imagining visual technologies as something essentially like radio or television, which means that one person can easily talk to millions of people, but nobody imagines you're packing the things that bring you into the mission. And one person can listen to a number of people. But indeed, with the internet, feel as if you're calling for it. Can't listen to one another as evidenced by politics and civil assistance. So because of this, internet governance gives priority not to representativeness, not to one person representing for many other people, but rather for representation of people's points. So as I said, you can just talk on a telephone and we'll make a transcript, we'll capture points and make it a mind map and things like that. So it's all the way still your personal feelings and ideas, but it's represented, amplified to different municipalities, to different level of the government and things like that. So everybody's speaking for themselves, not anybody else, but using mechanism and mechanism design to make sure that people who raise good ideas and good resonating feelings get the airtime as the priority that is at the core of our design criteria in internet governance as well as down nowadays we call it COGAF. And so this is basically a new set of mindset that is eminently feasible, but less adapted or adopted by large level, especially federal, but even state level, it's actually very difficult to just transition to this idea. But if you start small, for example in your university, in your township, like the city of Bowling Green tried out a purple district and that was actually where the picture came from. It's from an actual report from the Bowling Green conversation and everybody thought that they would be divided among, you know, the Democrats, the Republicans, or the generations of whatever. But it turns out that everybody think that the arts need to be introduced in K-12 and more choice about telephoto, and so on and so forth. So they're so far more understanding and so this is the question that we think sort of something. So anyway, I'll just keep those microphones around. Maybe I'll turn one of those in so that we can speak in stereo, right? So in any case, the point here is that if you wield the idea of Internet Providence then you have like-minded people in a lot of different countries and you will understand the power of network making instead of just working in each network is about the horizontal network making power that connects different sectors together. And so that's my first recommendation. And the second thing is to, I'm sure that you're already pretty well versed but get even more well versed in the sustainability protocols because when we're making these icons or different ideas. The one hand was chosen by UNDP in such a way that there was a slogan, and it's called No Builds Let Me Find. Meaning that no matter where you are on bus, it's like the police in my understanding. Everybody kind of agreed that these 17 are really good ideas and each of the 169 don't run a pattern to any of the other 168 they're rather incompetent than each other. And so this gives us a chronological power like as the special minister also my name is on 17 you can see to get the facts right to get everybody agree on the good level say something on 1717 on building a sector of partnerships based on this kind of understanding on 176 to share those relationships in a way that is not colonizing but rather co-creating this is a very easy vocabulary no matter which jurisdiction you're in no matter which part of the world you're in you can use this vocabulary very easily to create your ideas and your spirits and to find life for your people. So the third thing is to learn how to build up in a sustainable way. So this is what? So charging or something? It's mysterious. So three people would like to know can I elaborate on how so both warm power and non-shilies may increase Taiwan's international visibility and help digital innovation can contribute to that. So non-shilies is a kind of Mandarin tradition of the Taiwan's foreign policy in the past couple of years Taiwan can help. It's very easy to remember. Taiwan can help mostly means that we look at our own social environmental and economic issues. And then we build our solutions but while we're building our solutions we're very much willing to work with like-minded countries to just spread these innovations around in a non-colonizing way. Just one example every year we run this annual presidential hackathon and the hackathon is unlike the hackathon that we traditionally have, which is about a marathon of rapid prototypes over two days or three days this is actually three months. So over the course of three months and many weekends people work potential prototypes to increase the public welfare. And one of the five main teams domestically last year is Water Saviour because they save water music. So the team comprises of people in Taiwan water cooperation such as these skilled craftspeople who listen to the water pipes which is the longest in the world for possible leaks especially from plastic pipes. It's not a very rewarding job because most of the time when you hear on your pipe you're not leaking and so you spend most of your time even just confirming that the pipes are not leaking yet and just once in a while every two months or so you get creative and solve a real leaking pipe problem. New leaks takes two months to discover. Now using machine learning asking the technical experts and public service experts we actually deliver together a way that saves water by having a chatbot of the line system so that people can wake up and their AI apprentice, their assistant psychologist can just tell them that this is the three most likely to listen and say why don't you just do your work and listen to all of your three points and chances are more than 70% chance these are actually leaking and so people engage in a much more rewarding and creative part of their job while the chores are just filtering out the ones that are not leaking. It's not immediately machine learning but when the team is they get a trophy that's one of five main teams and the technical expert as well as the main expert on the social sector we cannot really hear from them why it's funny because they're not presenting them so what we gave instead is a trophy another trophy is a project if you turn it on it projects president's line giving you that trophy so it's very main and everybody in the team gets a copy of that trophy and they can fill in and it's very good because if your CEO or your deputy general doesn't like your idea, previously as a public servant there's really nothing much you can do however it was this presidential policy any time that the director general doesn't like your idea just project the president's image and they cannot say no because the trophy is a presidential promise that whatever people may criticize in those three points the president commits to people who got in the policy, the domestic policy in the next year and so we will maintain your idea that's what we want but each platform is indexed with a specific target so this one reveals the 64 target the 64 target which is about increased water efficiency and we broadcast this to all our allies and like countries in New Zealand this comment is immediately and invite the same team to visit because they didn't have the problem of water shortage but now there's a lot of change some parts of New Zealand are now facing issues so they could create an algorithm and they know the forward version of algorithm work they're as complex right now as others so we could create a solution part of it to New Zealand and they share the water pressure no data is data with this team and it takes enormous amount of trust for a sovereign country to share this kind of data with another country just defense the diplomatic relationship and so every time we have a winning team we make those data polarities and those data polarities are actually not only post sectoral they're really international we have one there's 2,000 or so people setting up very cheap air boxes which is like less than $100 each that measures the air quality about any school and many schools just use them as a way to explore exercises and so by setting up those there's not just reporting air quality but also sharing this to a distributed lecture that makes sure that people are not changing each other's numbers and those numbers are then syndicated into one of the top 20 supercomputers in the world our national center of high school education and then people can just work out their aggregate to predict the causes of the air pollution and in this kind of citizen science it's all over the data and it's all so people around the world can just download the data and very easily run it off any open content and each of those collaborative relationships also enable the government to say that we can't feed them so we have to join them and then we ask the citizen scientists where do you want an air box but we cannot get it to so they say oh maybe industrial parks which are a pilot property and they really suspect there's some kinds of pollution that can improve and we're like we know the land industrial parks so we can just hang those air boxes on maps and it would just be important to the air quality for people to say I want to tell domestic versus over the state air pollution so I want an air box on this north of the Mesopotamia and again it's very difficult for citizen scientists because they need to fly the drone and it's very easily in the middle of the state however we're going to do an air pass just to improve renewable energy so we can just say by any contract winners award those internets must also carry air boxes and then that solves a large problem of citizen scientists so as you can see as we work international as well as domestic technology especially things like this renewable energy that allows people to build up trust even for non-trusted parties are there's huge trust in the technology the trust machine because it doesn't make sure that people in very different sectors can nevertheless trust each other and willing to donate their confidence to the same data and again this is the algorithm from different sectors however working on the same data working on the same data enables a orange-orange comparison instead of just while the conspiracy theories that people cannot hide from people in this group this is the basic idea of how we're working as the teams and now this year's the cohort so we also have 15 countries drawing an international trend recently we awarded to international winners like Malaysia that is called cardiology that looks at all public work human history and ultimately a collective group of partners just winning a bid together through things like that and there's also one town called Uras that uses open data to environmental assessment of the projects that get not only in government license but using the data to kind of socialize to operate in a way that is applied by the community and so on so all of these are great ways to show that kind of development by sharing the technology that's intended to make our own profit using the data to choose to do taxes and then sharing the co-creation process so you have a lot of data how do you how many teams do you work with is it a big group or is it just based on that one server and you just gather it from that one sector you don't want to kind of ask for it yeah sure so that one server you know Amazon scale it is national center with commanding sites and a lot of community and technology to make sure that we can run the experiments without you and so yeah it's really the SDHC cluster but airbox data is also for example that can be used as well as other clusters around the world so that's where technology goes down in Taiwan we're blessed with having two very close to governance the next the Institute for Information Industry or the June 1 and the ITRI and the research institute so the two basically make a sphere of the technical requirements so it's like 18 of US except it's but it's like an extended arm's length not for profit private and public center open to the institute that take care of the technical needs of all those different server infrastructure so we're blessed with that arrangement as for my own office there is no additional ministry all the policies that I know you use is actually collaborative efforts from about 22 people and so the 22 people here are delegates from each ministry so instead of saying I have my own office and I work across ministries in Taiwan there's 32 vertical ministries but about 32 there's nine horizontal ministers I'm one of the nine that works across ministries and so my office is one person poached one volunteer accepted from each ministry and they together determine what to do and the only two things I ask is that they work out loud meaning that whatever they're working on it must be possible for the public to see at any time so this is literally but the 22 people are working on right now we use traditional by now you know kanban style trailer like work management we use this slack like a game free software we use collaborative documents and so on exactly like a startup and then these 22 people each coming from different backgrounds because different ministries, different values just figure out the project together and list other delegates help in that now of course there's 32 ministries there's 22 people in my office that means that some ministry did not send people for example the ministry of defense never sent anyone I wonder why but the more public facing ministries like ministry of communication culture, interior, finance justice and now foreign affairs are very eager to send people just from the foreign affairs alone I think there are at least 10 people lining up to join my office but we can't let them join at the same time otherwise we can't become a branch of foreign service so because of that they bring with them their own values but then they really don't have any mandate rather than the core value of increasing trust to the citizens from the government and so they just figure out whichever way they want to do to help making that happen and so that is the basic formulation of my office which is more like a sandbox for policy experiments than anything but the technical part is supported by the Chukauai and to a lesser extent the IDR and I so I hope that's a good question but there's one yes if you're near IDR yes yes of course so in the e-participation platform we do run the graphics survey the most active ones are around 15 years old and the second most active group is around 65 years old I think these two groups of people care the most about public affairs because one doesn't need to get a job yet and the other is already retired and also they have most time on their hunts and so most of the high impact repetitions are from these two groups for example just this month we bought indoor use of plastic straws which is why everybody is now using these kind of cups instead of using straws and so well our people switch to glass straws or recyclable straws there is a large industry now so in any case that was initially petitioned around two years ago by a 15 year old and when they very quickly reached 5000 people people thought environmental protection agency so it must be a senior activist to get 5000 people in no time but when we met her she is 15 years old it is part of her civics class and her teacher just wants somebody to figure out a way to call people into e-positioning so it is kind of a homework exercise for the civics class she chose a theme that really resonates with people and they did really good mimetic engineering for example you might have seen the sea turtles and how they wrangle with the plastic pipes and things like that so they really resonated with people and the EPA did actually promise our gradual planning of plastic straws so 15 years old even if they cannot vote yet is a force to be reckoned with and we are very happy that we have this design so they don't have to go to strike on Fridays but instead you are using the internet to get people's consensus now for people who are even older than 65 like my grandparents are now 190 respectively and so of course they won't have that much time or willingness to engage in a lot of debate on the internet but mostly they are still online they are just online right not that I have any on a particular platform they mostly use instant messaging to share pictures of their grandchildren and that's still online but it's indeed less likely for them to engage in public consultations this way and so we use two methods first is that we bring technology to where people are instead of asking them to a website or to do a conversation with the line bot we just go to their conveniences and a host workshops so for them it's the same as they gather around a large tree and have a conversation it's just this conversation is now recorded and sent as a confirmation by the elderly from the district office and then the district office can use the scenario planning to add to the common database of the NSAS which is the one online this year the Taiwan Economic Society Analysis System as the way it does is basically collects the facts the emphasis on facts around all municipalities townships districts and so we will just randomly click somewhere and you can see that particular districts or regions or municipalities and in terms of population income, economy, industry transportation, tourism, land housing environment, education, cultural transition as well as medical and each one like the pyramid of the population or whether it's moving in or out things like that all these are then you can see on the map and compare, again, oranges to oranges on how the population is increasing or declining now what we're collecting in this scenario become kind of a participatory budget the common scenario as agreed by the local elders become the blueprint for the local people to propose their projects that can affirm the common scenarios as envisioned by the local elders and local people in general and then as a kind of participatory budget the National Development Council allocates 10% of the project budget that previously you have to talk to each ministry separately, but now the 10% is something that as long as you have a scenario you've been planning you have run workshops to talk to your local elderly the NDC allocates those funding to you in terms of investment in terms of CSR in terms of deregulation and many other support that they can give the regional revitalization plan is one of the ways that we gave the elderly directly just by asking them to share their ideas in the places where they're already gathering so that's the first and the second thing is that we also use the elderly pictures but anyway they never reach the elderly anyway because the elderly are often online on the line platform whenever we see that there is a trending rumor on the line platform the line platform has just this week agreed to have a built-in way for people to flag something as fun or as rumor and have the fact checks and clarification probably in the line app itself and so it's a kind of anti-spot ecosystem that's going to just roll it out on the instant message just as we rolled it out a couple of decades ago on the email ecosystem so flagging a spot triggers the trending spot and once we see a trending spot for example there was a popular rumor that says let me you're here twice in a week we'll be subject to a 1 million dollars fine but it was really trending and every ministry is now in charge to deliver what we call the 2 to 2 principle within one hour they have to deliver something that has less than 20 characters as its title less than 200 words as its content and two pictures as illustration and so this is the composition of the elderly friendly picture and so once we wrote this out, for example Premier Su Jincheng personally wrote this out on the social media channels and especially online he said you know probably your hair will be subject to a fine as week it's not true and this is the photo of him when he was young and the young Su Jincheng said I may be bald by now but I will not punish people like that and this is my case this is the requirement for hair products ingredients it only takes effect out of 2021 and I didn't translate this part but the now older Premier Su Jincheng says however if you perm your hair twice or more every week it would damage your hair and you may end up looking like me so this is funny and funny in a good way because he makes fun of himself and so this naturally gets viral this is a good piece of mimatic engineering and we have numbers to prove that most people see this before they see the rumors so it's self-like inoculation without taking anything down people are getting into the habit of just understanding the parts and pieces of a puzzle of a picture instead of just relying on one particular conspiracy theory narrative and so getting into the habit of always expecting the ministries to roll out such clarifications is our basic way to counter the disinformation even among the people who are less digitally literate who had fewer exposures to media literacy classes I hope that answers your question any questions we'll go back to the slide can I give one successful and one frustrating example of kind of implementation of digital innovation that engage the people to public policy okay sure so I'll use the example of the tax filing system because it's very interesting so the e-petition platform around two years ago in Maine, second, two years ago it was a petitioner called George Yu and his petition is strictly speaking not an idea it's pure feeling so the title reads is explosively difficult to use and so it's just pure negative energy he's using a Mac and our cross-platform tax filing experience is built on this obsolete technology called Java Applet and two years ago was the time when Oracle Corporation now maintaining Java technology deprecated Java Applet meaning that you have to explicitly enable it for it to take effect on your browser so when filing the tax you will inevitably encounter a screen that says installing components please wait but then the pop-up is blocked by Safari's pop-up blocker wait for hours and Pihuaguochang supposedly waited for three hours and now you go to the street and so the P.O. of Mature Finance in the time of Yang Qinghen just posted publicly 30% of the petition platform is calling for a district finance to resign or they're accusing the trade event corporation who wrote that Java Applet for corruption and at the time he just posted a very simple invitation says everyone who complained about tax filing is reportedly invited to the Ministry of Finance to co-create our next US tax filing experience together just by virtue of complaining to enter this co-creation question and suddenly the wind just changed direction so the 80% of people now after he posted this and of course I posted after him as a positional minister but he said it's true then everybody actually started offering constructive criticism only less than 20% were just saying still saying you know the Ministry of Treasury or Finance should resign but nobody cares about it anymore and so once we run for example even for people who cannot make time pay you can participate over life streaming 360 even and also comment through SIDO and the petitioner turns out to be an interaction designer so those who care the most suffers the most and he suffers a lot by seeing an ugly interface and he made a really good point it's not that the tax filing experience was originally bad it was designed 10 years ago it's cutting that interface at that time it's just people using Macs have their expectation of what to consider as a good experience raised every year you know by the designers and Apple right so after 10 years the software didn't change but people's expectation changed thanks to Johnny and friends so these people are now setting the standard of what to consider as an acceptable even good experience we have to use the same tools as they use in Apple the user journeys and so on to re-categorize what people feel as frustrations around the tax filing experience and so if you've studied design thinking or service design this is a standard tool which is called Close Ignition it's very cheap to obtain so anyone who raised a point whether before tax filing after tax filing whether it is their actions their needs, their problems their emotions or solutions there are ways to categorize them into post-it notes and if 500 people as we see here say here wash the forum with the same post it's just one post-it note because it's just we don't do one point it's the same principle as we use in Apple and the important thing that I would like to highlight is to honor the statements as originally written many people in public services have harmonization filter in their brain but whenever they see the words are explosively abundant they will translate it as something like it is perhaps two verbose in our interface design so to tone down a little bit but then people will feel betrayed if you don't just use their words so if people say it's so baroque as to confuse and allow other people you must just write those words you can take away the exclamation marks but never the characters so all this basically shows a trust from the government to the people who presented these ideas and after looking at this mess people started to think actually we can do something it's a finite number of issues and it could be solved using a finite number of workshops so in the next four workshops we'll just invite the people who can like the loudest into the kitchen so to speak facing the people who they've attacked the most civil servants and the contract ID company we're using professional facilitation and again by reading aloud to come on understanding there's no way for people to be toxic anymore people just get to work and then co-design the text file experience that won 1996 approval last year in 1998 this year and this is not just about the design because if you pay a sufficient number of designers they'll come up with a better design but it's about a few thousand people about four or five hundred people feel that they actually helped in making this habit that they contributed at least one person in this design and therefore they serve as advocates of this new design so something we never seen haven't happened is that people voluntarily taught their family members their friends and so on about the interface design in public service and that is the root of public participation it's not just about the end product but also just about the relations that's built during this month's long process and so I think that is one of the very successful examples in digital citizen participation now the question also asked about a frustrating example like it doesn't quite go where it went what is frustration even then like the people didn't get what they wanted so maybe something like that so there was a petition again around the same time I'm trying to find it out that petition for Taiwan to change our time zone and as you can guess they don't quite get what they wanted evidence find that people are still living in UTC plus 8 right now so it's not like they get what they wanted but there's some silver lining about this particular issue so I'm just scrolling through all the collaboration meetings it starts with the Lennon card which is now implemented it talks about fishery about taking care of twins but yeah this one is my favorite and this one actually has an English version maybe so not playing the fake ball the times of his collaboration meeting is both positive and negative so this really captured a lot of attention on social media somebody gets 8,000 signatures on the petition but just hands on to GMT plus 9 they cited a lot of supposed benefits like increasing energy use efficiency, increasing tourism or whatever they had like 7 points to make not all of which very scientific but meanwhile there's 8,000 more people starting another petition that says how much you remain GMT plus 8 so internally we call it 8 plus 9 which is difficult to translate or even try so in any case these two places together is 16,000 people and they all certainly care about themselves and all we have done is essentially address their points point by point so for example the IDRI actually did a simulation and showed that even just daylight saving time would only save energy about 0.00117% that's say negligible and the Ministry of Labor say it would not actually increase tourism unless people work overtime and ignore the Labor Act and so on and so forth and so all the ministries responded to the facture part of the petition and we ended up having a quantitative amount, a dollar amount that says it's a high one-time cost and a non-trivial recurring cost that we have to do just to maintain Thailand's GMT plus 9 supposedly the old time zone and we invited people from both sides to come together in a meeting and read those common understanding of facts to them and then the people on both sides actually then started to reflect their feelings why do I really want time zone to change even if we already know that it would cost this much and then the side that says plus 9 says what we really want is people coming from the Chinese continent to have to adjust their clock by one hour as a kind of symbolic independence and the other side soon pointed out that it doesn't quite work that first of all the watch and clock and phones are now kind of self-adjusting so people won't actually feel that but even more importantly Hong Kong has its own currency the PRC can just say one country, two systems and there's some scientific basis on that there's many countries with many time zones Australia being a good one in the US of course and so it won't work it will get maybe 15 minutes of international fame like North Korea when they did that but then people logically would forget about this and so people then abstracted a little bit about their formal understanding like people would like the international community to realize Taiwan's uniqueness more so then something both sides can understand and can actually support both sides just did for us in their opinion on whether changing time zone would actually reach this powerful but once we have come alive it's now more easy so that people can actually go back to the original repetition each repetition will receive the same document that's based on the common understanding if we are going to spend this much budget anyway is there a better return of the investment that we can use so it turns out people on both sides did agree that if we market Taiwan's democracy and human life it's actually easier to remember than time zones are using open data and decision making and evidence based decision making open government that actually people remember Taiwan more and trade and international and marriage equality being the first country in Asia to pass marriage equality makes people remember Taiwan and nobody confuses with Thailand anymore because Thailand hasn't yet passed marriage equality and public participation and films like HBO Asia there's currently a film called the world's between us that is very highly acclaimed and so on and so basically everybody agreed it was investing to let the international community understand Taiwan's uniqueness more it's just changing time zone is the least efficient way of doing this and may actually backfire and so not everybody who original repetition for the plus nine accepted this argument everybody on the plus A side is very happy but even though there may be some frustrations people generally respected the government for treating their arguments as serious arguments and come up with facts and evidences and numbers to get the scientific factor across while they won't all agree with all of these proposals there are some like human right and marriage equality that they generally support and then therefore have a way to engage directly with the public service that just promotes this part of Taiwan and so it's kind of frustrating if you are the original petitioner of the plus nine but I guess this resolution is for the best because then people can collectively understand what makes Taiwan unique in the world any questions? Yes Do you see that government sees citizens as users and use design thinking or do you design to improve citizens' problems? Yes, we are using design thinking actually in our conversations in such collaboration meetings this is actually what we show in the very beginning so if you've studied design thinking this is a classic double alignment the thing is that Poland for example is just to get people's divergence of different feelings of people's kind of just surveying mapping the solution landscape and that we hope using machine learning can see some insights and also get some themes get some common understanding but it always takes a face-to-face conversation to get into the true convergence with a shared value and a how might we question that can actually help people to deliver the solution that works toward common values like how might we make Taiwan more visible internationally that was the HMW question during that collaboration meeting and sometimes we run many collaboration meetings each addressing different parts of the double alignment design thinking and so the greatest thing about working public service is that we are charged with delivering but there was no laws or regulations about how to run this part the drafting part and so there's a lot of room of experimentation based on the different kind of issues we can have different tools and different opinions, surveys focus groups and so on on the first diamond as long as they can converge into common values it's very good for us to experiment all sorts of different ways of making conversations and so that is design thinking the three main differences this kind of design thinking versus private sector design thinking is first we need to include consciously include people who otherwise wouldn't have a voice because it's not like you can file your texts to some other government very easily if we screw up the text filing experience in other private sector if Starbucks doesn't design experience the way you want you always have other coffee shops in text filing there really is no alternative or in the case here in healthcare because we are a single mayor universal health care there really is no other feasible choice so we must include people who didn't have a voice so that's the first thing and the second thing is that design thinking in the private sector is usually a way to build a specific user experience but as the public sector we need to think about a whole life cycle of human experience so it's not just people who are using our service it's our users we are going to take care about everybody including people who prefer analog who prefer face to face of different modalities these are all human experiences and because we're not narrowly just designing for the digital users we have to take everybody into account so that's the second thing it's about the non-digital bridge to the digital we have to design something that absorbs the risk as a mechanism in the sense that when people over-concentrate the work the public service itself sometimes we can design a system that reduces one hour of people's time when you are applying for a passport for example but if we design it such that it's just somebody from the household registration office just taking a taxi and sending your application to some other industry then it's just still one hour wasted it's just you save one hour by having you know one public servant work one hour over time and you can see these kind of designs over in Taiwan but that is not sustainable at all especially now we don't have the drafts of alternate military service it doesn't scale so a mechanism must absorb this friction if we save one hour of time by citizens we should also save one hour of time by two public service and that is why automation is so important not just on the people facing part but also on the inter-agency part so there's the difference as compared to a private sector entity in that we cannot cause internal inability to handle other public service items but other than the three philosophical differences we are pretty much using the kind of human centric design thinking and participatory design perhaps exactly like how people in the private sector use it so two people would like to know how does a joint gov try to involve more colleagues to discuss policies why does it exclude the elderly generated underprivileged is it failed so you need to look at the baseline like is it already the case that elderly generation and underprivileged have a lot to say in a traditional mode and that they're being excluded by the additional tools I would argue this is not the case the elderly and the underprivileged have even the last chance of participating if all we have is a public hearing held in the parliamentary office and that's a fact it's a quantitative fact just look at how many elderly generation come to even my office hour and you can see that a physical face to face actually exclude far more people than the additional does but that is not an excuse for the digital to replace the face to face we never use additional tools to replace face to face conversation we use digital tool to amplify the impact of the face to face by making sure that they are transcribed that they become an agenda for the next meeting and so on we make sure that the elderly are the underprivileged after they show up in their local town of a meeting there was their ideas, their thoughts, their experience as seen in real time by people in the central administration across high bandwidth telepresence we make sure that their ideas and their feelings are reflected in the higher level of decision making like the municipal or the state level by making sure that their points are not discarded when we make the agenda for regional revitalization and so on so all this is a different vision than a purely you know, e-voting or eye-voting way of governance all this is a human centric way of making sure that people's meetings do not get squandered that if they come out and express one single opinion that their ideas whichever modality even sign language or things like that gets translated into other modalities so that it enters the policy making process so while the technical tools do have the potential to include as well as to exclude our design philosophy is never exclude we only augment existing phase to phase conversations and we also, by using open source tools making sure local co-ops and so on can all run this kind of tool by their own instead of paying a hefty licensing fee to people asks so I mentioned the role of citizens' lives in supporting data collaboratives how do we ensure this data is accurate without becoming overly technical this is a great question so the answer is very carefully but to explain on that so data this possible data this data about you or generated by you that it is the beginning of a fiduciary relationship if you trust your data to a data operator or a data collaborative that means that they have to act in your best interest this is exactly like your relationship with lawyers, accountants, doctors the characters, whatever you can trust them with your personal data isn't only if they prove that they are accountable in acting your best interest and in public data like the air pollution water pollution as well as other data because in Taiwan we don't yet have natural personhood in the constitution so there's no privacy issues now because of that then this is basically trust is not among the person and the fiduciary but rather across people with competing interests I use one example called water box actually in this year's presentation on it so what they are doing is they are doing it themselves so the smart control of the national territories and their work is on 6.5 which is implementing integrated water resource management the context is this we just passed a law that says if there's any industries, any plants that are operating close to farmlands indeed if they occupy agricultural allocated lands and that they pollute the waterways or in any other way of the nearby agriculture farms then even if the local municipality do nothing the central government, the ministry of economy will cut supply to their power and their water and so this is a simple way of saying we're not tolerating pollution in farmlands however the plants to prove that they are not polluting is now facing a dilemma because they either use a very expensive way to prove they are not polluting but the people downstream may receive pollution from different sources and they can just simply ignore or distrust their numbers however the farmers also want to know precisely where do the pollutions come from but there were no easy way for the environmental protection agency to set up water sensors in each and every waterway we don't even know which ones are in controversy and so this is a cheap box that anyone can purchase just like air box and you can just put in any waterway rivers or irrigation channels and we will automatically measure the water pollution levels and upload the measurement numbers into again a distributed legend so people cannot change each other's numbers and then the public data dashboard that everybody can see and then using machine learning to analyze the propagation of the waterways so it is the best of the worlds around three sectors because the EPA don't have to arbitrarily select points to deploy measurement the farmers are willing to buy because it's very cheap and they would trust the numbers if it corresponds to their understanding of the local pathway to understand which pathway to deploy and the plants upstream if they are not polluting they would endorse this numbers because they improve their innocence and if they are really polluting they deserve the cutting of the water and the power supply and so everybody wins and so this is so interesting that the New Zealand people even before whether they win or not is determined the center day we say regardless of whether they win or not we are inviting them to New Zealand and so this is another great international collaboration in the sense that people don't just focus the data they focus on the multi-sectoral arrangement of what we call data governance of the collaboratives ensuring by incentive design mechanism design everybody participate in the water box data collaborative gains something if they are playing honestly that we make sure that people who are opposing each other can all support this coming endeavor and that is indeed is the main thing that we can give out in presentation on HACA song is that saying this is going to be public policy if they get into the top five and so this is a way building a social design and incentive and market design instead of just by numbers and mathematics alone so I guess it's also somewhat technocratic but it's social science not information science so I'm okay with that and so if you study social science you can also study market design and incentive design and mechanism design and by making sure that everybody have a incentive to disclose information that were previously privates or you know withholding and we make sure that people benefit from data collaborative more than they benefit from information asymmetry and once you design for that then you can make the world a place to join. What did the ministry start holding mobile setting such as one I just described do you think there is an effective way to hear opinions from the locals it is very effective and I would say it started even before I went into the cabinet the first occasion that I remember was with Mayor Lai Ching around 2015 so that's on his second term as the mayor of Tainan and he and Mayor Kewenche at that time both campaigned a very open government platform but while Dr. Kewenche at that time said famously that the entire city council is biophysicist because he is independent Mayor Lai Ching is facing something even more challenging because there was a case where the head of the city council is involved in a bribery case so Mayor Lai Ching refused to go into the city council period but how does the mayor elected by the citizens ignore the city council wouldn't that be against the idea of democracy so it turns out he just personally held those district wide meetings and just tour each district and meet directly with the district present district meet with the local association leaders the local co-ops, local community leaders, local elders so in a sense of bypassing the city council he actually built more legitimacy by facing the district directly in a kind of direct consultation so he went pretty well actually in terms of his support in Thailand city by doing this kind of tours so when he became premier he started the same tour touring each municipality and cities and townships and so I started more or less the same time while he focused on so called industrial innovations I focused on social innovations it was a aim of building a hub of social innovators around Taiwan so if you go to SI.Taiwan.TV you can see the result of my tour so you can click on SDG's topic and discover which sustainability goals do each county or municipality or city focus on and you can also see the locally registered co-ops companies, nonprofits and so on and which sustainability goals they are focusing on and you can also discover partners across Taiwan that are focusing on SDG's that you care about artistic locality cares about and if people integrate these into their supply chain by including those purpose driven products and services in their supply chain and they buy 5 million dollars every year or more then I personally go out and give an award and so basically this kind of integration is to make sure that no matter whether you are a non-profit, a non-profit even an office in a university in charge of social responsibility so for USR you can discover your natural allies here very easily and based on our touring people can just raise common issues and crowdsource their support from this kind of SDG based NAWEC and so I think it's very effective but it's effective only because it's relatively transparent and it's indexed using a common vocabulary that is the both sustainable goals three people would like to know where does polarization on the internet come from if people agree on those ideas with conversation become more extremely divided as in the community so as I mentioned there's always divisiveness and there's always common understanding common understanding will be always less loud by nature so unless you design specifically for people to understand the common understandings people will kind of ignore it and over focus on the control policies and so the design is a flight of our impetition all of them without a reply button it's because the reply button emphasizes on the control policies if you take away the reply button and you only have upload and sometimes downloads then it emphasizes common understanding it's this simple and so the shape of the interaction space determines the kind of interaction that we will help and whether we begin a meeting by really allowed to become understandings or we begin a meeting by provoking people in the most ideological rift determines the atmosphere of the meeting and so this kind of agenda setting power like today you collaboratively set my agenda but I make sure that people who share in a number of manner you know face to face next priority and the people who share actually if they have more votes they take priority that determines the shape of this conversation so that people would not actually troll because there is no point in trolling if you know that nobody will press like to your idea and that is kind of crowd migration that is what we practice and so the last question has zero votes so I'll respond very quickly if local residents have difficulty using digital devices then what should we do we should lend the digital devices and so in libraries around Taiwan we have the additional opportunity centers that you very easily get tablets and starting next year if you're okay to 12 and you don't you cannot afford a tablet will also make sure that you have numbers in your school at least have a high speed bandwidth connection that you can also take your tablets film to do your homework and things like that so it's not over serious about broadband it's not truly if you don't have the devices that go with it and so we're in time thank you for your questions