 Hello, good local time everyone. I think in Taiwan, we all understand digital as connecting people to people as opposed to IT, which was about connecting machine to machines. If we focus on the people-to-people connection, we would invest in the public infrastructure that makes it possible for the very young people, the very old people, and so on, to make sure that the technology conforms to their expectations and their lives instead of asking them to adapt to technology. So this human-centered approach coupled with the investment on the digital public infrastructure such as universal broadband access, universal healthcare access over the internet, and so on. I think underlies the our winning formula of the digital transformation for the society. I think one of the main ideas is Be More Agile. In many planning of the policies, the government, especially central government, can change its policy only every once a year because of the budget cycle, and the general direction of the policy can only be changed every four years or so because of the election cycle. But during digital transformation, new emergent phenomena appears almost on an hourly basis. So how do we make sure that democracy itself has more bandwidth, more bit rate for people to participate, not just three bits per person every four years, which is called voting. But every time that you think of something new, the citizen can start an initiative, a petition, sandbox application, presidential hackathon, participatory budget, quadratic voting. All these are new ideas that increase the total input from the citizen to the democratic polity. And with those more bits to work with, everyone can respond better to emerging situations without having to wait for the yearly or every four year cycles. As I mentioned in the very beginning, the idea of appropriate technology is key. Appropriate technology brings together existing mechanisms that people are already familiar with without asking people to adapt to new technology that they are not familiar with because privacy is mostly about a norm, about a societal expectation. So for example, in Taiwan, we understand whenever there's an earthquake, we receive an SMS. The SMS will never know which room we are in because it's by the cell phone tower triangulation, it only know which block roughly we are in. Or for example, the flood evacuation warnings operates in the same way, and it will not, for example, interfere with our line conversation in the instant message layer. It's a very different layer. And so because people already understand how that works, when we use that for contact tracing and quarantine, people understand the privacy and security boundaries better than if we invent a completely new app just for contact tracing. This is just one example. There's many, but I think you understand the general idea, the heuristic about reusing something. People are already familiar with just like using the pharmacies and the health card to collect Musk. That's because the elderly already trust the pharmacy. They already know how to review their prescriptions. That's another example. It's true that in the Taiwanese public service, the full-time public servants cannot work for a for-profit position in the economic sector. So you're correct in saying that vertically these seem to be very different sectors. However, all public servants, including me, can serve positions in social innovation organizations that are for purpose, not for profit. And many large companies always have a good sustainability collaboration platform. For example, during the GRI reporting, many large companies have corporate social responsibility organizations that are for purpose, not for profit. So in the social sector, which used to be called third sector, but we don't say that anymore, the social sector, that's where the public servants and the economic sector business people, they can actually join the same voluntary organization and exchange their ideas in a way that is purely for purpose and not at all for profit. And the social sector first approach, I call it the people-public-private partnership with the people first. One of the key events is the 2014 Sunflower Movement, where more than 20 different for-purpose organizations unified in a social sector takeover of the parliament, like literally taking over occupying the legislature. And it's a very large demonstration with half a million people on the street, many more online. The demonstration was not a protest, but rather a demo. It shows that with facilitated conversation, open space technology, live streaming and so on, we can listen at scale. The half a million people can arrive to a coherent set of response to the trade deal and which was then ratified by the head of the parliament. So the occupier was a successful demonstration. But after that, the idea of a social sector setting the agenda for the country became very popular and the young people rekindled their voluntary participation to these social issues. This is very important. It's a watershed event. Definitely. We had decades, even before the lifting of the martial law and then the direct election of president in 1996, even before that, we have what we call the community building movement, the social cooperative movements, environmental protection, human right protection, all these NGOs that occupy the parliament together, most of them have like three decades of grassroots participation. So the social sector is always there. My response is more like these social sectors see themselves as a sector, not as 20 different social issues or environmental issues, but unifying together, becoming a substrate where the public sector, the governance people and the economic sector, the private sector people, they can act within the social sector as a agenda setting platform to set the agenda for the country together. This highest level of political binding power, that's a 2014 thing, but you are correct without the three decades or more of social sector organizations, we wouldn't be able to band them together around that critical time. Well it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If your designer think the eldest will be left behind, then it probably means that the designer team doesn't have much elders to begin with. If you begin with your design by inviting people in their 80s, in their 70s into the committee, into the council as stakeholders, then they wouldn't say that the elders will be left behind, which is why in our digital democracy platforms, the most active age groups were around 17 years old and then around 70 years old. These two groups of people are actually the most active. They didn't say that, hey, we don't want to care anymore about democracy. Actually they care more about democracy because well, they have also more free time on their hands. They get to be full-time social sector participants, whereas we are all part-time social sector participants, so that's very important. And as I mentioned, the pharmacy mask dispense platform is designed explicitly by asking the elderly what they feel as the most natural. And because some of them have chronic conditions, they have to visit the pharmacy every few weeks anyway for refilling their prescriptions. So we make sure that it works exactly the same way. So it's actually much more attended by the elderly than by the young people, which prefer, of course, pre-ordering using an app or something. As I mentioned, digital connects people to people. And when you are a primary schooler or a high schooler and you have access to a tablet to broadband connection, it's natural that you will want to express yourself. So digitalization is not about media literacy or data literacy. Or literacy assumes they are just consumers, readers, watchers of existing media and content and data. What we are now teaching since three years ago in the K212 is instead data competence, media competence, which is the ability to make new narratives, to express themselves, to make sure that they participate in an active rather than passive fashion. Meaning, for example, the democracy itself, all the primary schoolers can fact check the three presidential candidates during their platform and debate. Or they can measure the air or water quality and contribute to a distributed ledger of environmental science. There's many, many examples where if they learn about data stewardship and competence from a very early age, then they can share more. And there's more agency that is to say they feel more in control when new technology comes because they are not at the mercy of the economic sector. Yes, definitely. In our digital democracy platform, more than one quarter of citizen initiatives are started by people who are not even 18 years old. So the young people, even before they get the right to vote, already understand they can set an agenda for the country. This is very empowering. A lot of civics class teachers are now regularly making assignments to their young students saying, your homework is to start a social movement on the digital democracy platform. The important thing here is that the new system, the so-called hyperlink act that hyperlinks same-sex marriage to the individual, to individual, but not family to family parts of the civil code is adding some new ideas, but it's not taking old ones away. We are not taking away the family to family traditions of heterosexual marriage. We're not taking away the idea that civil code marriage is between a man and a woman. We're not taking these away. And the reason we're not taking these away is that people have expressed very strongly in the two national referenda that, one, they all want equal protection and rights for the same-sex individuals. But two, they all want the civil code marriage to stay the same in a heterosexual normality. So because of these two referenda, we make sure that we create something new out of our shared values instead of destroying old values. We don't do that. Yes, it's called a plurality. We're not doing one progress to the detriment or sacrifice of other values. Rather, we're taking a transcultural view and make sure that the plurality of peoples and cultures can live with these new innovations. That's the most important. Well, if you vote every day, chances are you will win most of the time. But if you only vote once four years, then of course it feels like it's very serious when you lose. So the idea is more democracy, vote more. In the citizens initiatives, for example, every day we get new people chiming in with new ideas. And the signatures collecting on the digital democracy platform is a kind of vote. The presidential hackathon every year, there's more than 200 different ideas that could use the national budget for the sustainable goals. But if you vote on a few, chances are at least one or two of them will make it to the cut. And even if it doesn't, well, you just vote again soon, right? So the idea is that if it's a continuous democracy, then winning and losing doesn't feel as disappointing or as exceptional. It's become something that everyone just participates every day. Certainly, the topics that people vote are citizens initiatives, but they must always be for the public good. How do we know whether it's for the public good? Well, they each must correspond to one or more targets of the UN global goals, 169 targets. And so if you make a proposal that will increase our progress to one of the sustainable goals, at least on that dimension, it's for public good. Now, the problem is traditionally, if you're making a national grant, you're relying on a handful of experts who may be expert in some of the targets, but in no way can someone or a small committee be a expert in all 169 targets. That's just not feasible. Or you can use crowdfunding, which is also very popular. It's a good social innovation. But with crowdfunding, people who have more dollar, more money will dominate the conversation. They can put all their money into a few things that are questionable public good. So quadratic voting is something in between. Everyone gets the same number of points, 99 points in the presidential hackathon. And you can vote, for example, your favorite topic like circular economy, how to reduce carbon footprint when building new buildings or making new garments. So if you see something like that, maybe there's five proposals like that, you can vote toward those. However, you quickly find that if you vote everything into one particular project, it's not very economic because one vote costs one point, but two votes costs four in total. Three votes will cost you nine points in total. So with 99 points, you cannot vote 10 votes because that will cost 100. So what people usually do is they see something as the most promising. They try to vote everything, but found it's cut at nine votes and 81 points spent. Now with 18 points left, they will find something of synergy with that project they like. So maybe they vote four votes costing 16 and still have two points left. They don't want to squander those points, so they will look around. So each voter at least will look at four different ideas. And sometimes they find a synergy, so they take some of the nine votes points back. Maybe they do a seven and seven, maybe they do a four and four and three and so on. So that everyone learns more about the synergies of the global goals. And we get a broader selection of the ideas that are actually in synergy with one another. And so we choose the top 20 or so for the national incubation. But the other teams that lost all get plenty of information for them to see which winning ideas actually are in synergy with their targets. So they can voluntarily join those top 20 or so teams. So in the end, everyone wins. And that is because we have a better voting system. I think the most important thing here is that people are voting for agenda, for budget, for things, not for people. If people vote for people, then of course the kind of negative tactics will be at play because people are essentially understanding the points not through a policy lens, but rather through a affinity lens. Like I like this candidate, I don't like this candidate. And all those tactics have a higher payoff. On the other hand, if we are voting for ideas, for budget, for things, then it doesn't really pay to slander things. It pays to propose something better. And so the very simple mindset change from it's just a few elites deciding the country's direction to everyone can propose a new idea to add to the direction, that's the spirit of co-creation. And it's, of course, quadratic voting helps. But other voting methods, approval voting, or any voting would do because what's important is this mindset change. Yes, when I say radical transparency, I mean making the state and how the state works transparent to the people, to the citizens by default. It's about state to citizen transparency. I don't mean making the citizen transparent to the state, which may be some other jurisdiction's focus. So the state, when it's transparent to the people, enabled everyone to think about public matters. Otherwise, even if we have citizen initiative, digital democracy platform, if we do not share the facts upon which those ideas can draw from, then none of the ideas would be feasible and that would be a shame. So the radical transparency is the precondition to a vibrant democracy. And during the coronavirus, we saw that being very transparent about how we work enabled the citizen to correct our course. They can point our failures, for example, when we distribute a mask. Initially, we thought, hey, the pharmacies and the population centers, they match almost perfectly. Each individual in Taiwan on average have the same distance to the pharmacies. So it's fair, we say that. But just a few weeks later, a data analytics expert, also a legislator, previously VP data analytics at Foxconn, MP Gao said, it's not true. The open street map community said, if you zoom out a little bit, the rural places, they have to pay a lot more time cost to access the pharmacies. The public transportation makes it harder for the people in rural places to reach the pharmacy. If they reach it, maybe the pharmacy have closed. So our initial policy has a bias. But because we are open, transparent, publish every 30 seconds about the actual purchase situation, so it's not a protest. It's a demo, right? So our minister Chen simply said, legislator, teach us. And then just 24 hours later, we change our distribution mechanism. And we added pre-ordering and convenience store support. So yesterday's interpolation become tomorrow's policy. And it's only possible because we share whatever we have on the actual situation through radical transparency. When we are making the state transparent to the people, it has a really great effect that I witnessed the lobbyists, the people who visit me, they always make their case. Based on common good, on the public good, and the future generations. Because in a sense, the radical transparency record is there for the future generation to understand how we think. So if we make some short term decisions at the expense of future generations, that will look actually quite bad on permanent record. Which is why everyone, when they understand broadcasted or transcribed conversation with me, are going for perpetuity, because it's in the creative commons, everyone behave like good ancestors. Like they care a lot more about future generations. It's a psychological thing. So in any vertical systems or systems that excludes the inclusion of many stakeholders, at least having radical transparency will prompt everyone on the table to think more about the long term effects. Definitely, definitely, and the idea of Taiwan model is that the idea of radical transparency and social sector based innovation could be actually even more effective, even more agile in countering systemic issues such as the pandemic or the infodemic. We countered the infodemic, that this information crisis, with no administrative takedown. So just like people were saying lockdowns are inevitable, and Taiwan said no, you can't actually avoid a lockdown. So there are also jurisdictions that says, oh, because there's so much hate speech online, and so on censorship takedown is inevitable. And we can be like, no, actually notice and public notice, making sure people understand the media competence of the fact-checking and how newsroom works when everyone is somehow an amateur journalist. There's no room for this information to grow. Of course, humor over rumor also helps. So that's the Taiwan model. Well, I think media itself can also be more participatory. The same idea about opening up to social innovators in real time also applied to mainstream media. The fact-checking platform, for example, that enabled us to see in real time during our presidential debate and platform is set up by traditional media and television people. However, the input is from the primary schoolers, the middle schoolers, anyone who want to learn how newsroom works because there's more pairs of eyes looking at this together. It's called crowdsourcing. So any person in mainstream media can actually experiment more with crowdsourcing because that's everyone's business. And so it could use everyone's help. Well, I think the Taiwan model is not a single playbook. Of course, our counter-infodemn and counter-pandemic are actually quite different tactics. But they share the same philosophy, which I do think is replicable. And the philosophy is that people connect to people. That technology works for the society, not the other way around. That common values should inform innovations to the benefit of everyone and making sure that there's rough consensus before committing to any decisions. And these are, strictly speaking, also the core values of the internet. That's how internet builds itself. There's a document called the Dao of the IETF, the Internet Engineering Task Force, that said we reject kings and presidents and voting. We believe in rough consensus and running code. So this is the philosophy that builds the internet itself. And I think internet has proven that it fulfilled what it's designed for. It enabled communication even though we're all isolated. That's the original design problem that internet tries to solve. So we can all learn more from internet governance and the way that internet builds itself, not just limited to Taiwan. In Taiwan, after the pandemic, what we are most interested in is to make sure that everyone else in the world also see democracy as a better alternative. That democracy itself is also a kind of technology that everyone can contribute. Because, frankly speaking, during the pandemic, democracy is on the decline in many parts of the world. State surveillance, surveillance capitalism, they get more excuse to encroach on people's agency because of the pandemic and the related infodemic. It's a global issue that affects us all, which is why I think democratic policies such as Japan and Taiwan need to work more together to make democracy a preferred alternative when people think about such global emergency issues. I think one of the core reason why we didn't have the kind of micro-targeting issues you talk about on, say, Facebook in our presidential election last time is because the GAFA have talked with us and they understand if they do that, if they allow micro-targeting, there will be social sanction. The Taiwanese people will refuse to use their platform during elections. And the reason why is that the Taiwanese people have shown through demonstrations that the radical transparency is expected for political campaigns, both the donation, expenditure, and so on, they are all published as open data starting in the 2018 mayoral election. And based on careful analysis by data journalists, we discover the kind of advertisement on social media was not filed as campaign donation or expenditure. So it's a kind of loophole and people don't like that loophole. And so we didn't pass any particular law that threatened them termination or blocking or taking down. But rather they understand they are going to get very unpopular if they cannot implement the same radical transparency in all advertisements on political and social issues during election, exactly as what people demanded of our national auditing office or if they allow foreign sponsorship of such advertisements, then it's violating a social norm because in Taiwan campaign donation cannot be done by foreign people, right? So if they violate the social norm, they will face social sanction. That's why Taiwan is the first jurisdiction that Facebook and other social platforms that explicitly sign this accord that correspond to the more pro-social social media domestic in Taiwan, which already sign on such accords. So having viable pro-social alternatives is important. The Taiwanese PTT, for example, is the first platform to sign such an accord and PTT is subsidized by National Taiwan University. It's literally a student pet project that's been running for 25 years. It has no advertisers, no shareholders, but that's what enabled people to expect it much like the actual National Taiwan University to serve as a civic infrastructure. And having a conversation there, just like having a real conversation in a national university, in a national town hall, library, museum, park, national park and so on, people expect a sense of civility. And if people don't have this experience, then using Facebook alone, that would be like having a deliberation on public policy in your local nightclub, very loud music. People have to shout to get heard. Addictive toxic drinks, private bouncers, that's not a good norm for democracy to evolve from. Yeah, definitely the exact words I said and what they said are on public record. So on the state platform, if you search my name and search for Facebook civic integrity, you can see exactly what we have talked about and other representatives as well. This is completely open negotiation. I have to say that our conversation around say, countering the infodemic is made easier because people would just remind each other, we don't want to go to the kind of censorship that the Beijing regime is doing. So having a clear kind of opposing model really simplify the conversation around values in our democratic policy. Even though our four major parties in the parliament often disagree on things, counters infodemic with no censorship. That's something they can all agree on. Deepening democracy, linking to international like-minded countries, that's not in dispute. So these fundamental human right related issues actually having the Beijing regime as kind of an anti-thesis actually speeds up the conversation to or share values within our polity. I think we are both democratic polities that understand that we need to work across sectors in order to overcome emergent issues. We don't have this idea that somehow the strong will of human will triumph over nature. It's not possible with the earthquakes and typhoons and so on constantly reminding us that there are external factors not in our control. Our focus is instead on resilience and solidarity. So I think this is what unifies Taiwan and Japan together for we understand resilience and solidarity better than the more self-confident polities would. And so we always look for concrete collaborations between us and also like-minded polities. Thank you very much and live long and prosper. Thank you very much. And thank you for the interpretation. It worked really well.