 Actually, if you move to a watch at night, you would have more time in the day. And actually, I would actually find out something that depends on your position. I'm sorry. I'm sorry to go to work for this. So, right in your mind? Yeah, is it on? I'm still on? Yeah, where I was? How do you know the name, right? Audrey. Audrey? Audrey. Oh, Audrey. Yeah. Who's my couple? You named the guys in the background? His mind will come with it. Yeah. Yeah. Really? Yeah, very good. Thank you. Like old German prints? No, it's not. Yeah. In the region. But also for an Israeli program. Thanks so much. That's really nice. No worries. So, we run weekly deliberations based on the people's positions, but also things that are really so advanced that no departments or ministry don't have to handle. For example, the UberX case, we're handling this plane, where we have this online, AIMVT discussion where people express what they want or don't want from the shared passage of time and stuff. And we use a machine learning algorithm to sort people into principal component, components, clusters, and then to have majority opinions gathered, even though people may disagree. I was saying, people still agree on things like insurance, taxation, and so on. And then we take those majority opinions and have their case with their separation. And it's... Only a lot of things, people just agree. Well, actually, only a dozen people agree. Because people agree on this, things are as important as values. And then we ask all these things, whether it's the Uber and taxi drivers, and whether it's the time regulations you think are useful to address these people's common feelings. But we also talk about kind of disappointments, of course, that we don't usually spend much time on it, which is respect people have different feelings about this and basic fact. But the idea is that address these people's common feelings is a win or a loss. And then in terms of regulation, the point here is that with thousands of people participating online to watch the live stream increase the tremendous pressure people to go to show up and also act reasonably. So this is how we did, for example, things like sharing economy right now, social interfaces, and I include vehicles and all sort of new things that doesn't uniquely fit into one ministry's end of us. We do it like this. And so because we meet both into the real space and also we want to give people the practice of this thing over live stream, the same notification feeling as people here, right? So we explore a lot using both mental reality and virtual reality so that people can wear an asset and feel that they're part of the discussion place. And also so that we can project people's consensus around specific points or specific places in time as one of the objects of discussion, like the people who are talking about city planning for us to talk about it as a corrective model or such. So that's the idea. We probably have to repeat all that one. Yeah, that is okay. So these are some of the scenarios we're trying to define both in a room-based VR and also as that is VR and makes those two together. That sounds like you're trying to... The internals kind of... How long does it take to record this one? Yeah, it's a moment that you just have to try to get to an actual organization, right? And then it's always kind of hard. You said it was not working, right? And you kind of... Don't talk yet as well. It's okay. Of course, we can try to make a setting as well. So how many of you reviewed the footage? So they looked at it back and forth and I'm about to see in the first episode of MongoDB. Or maybe even before. And... Yeah, it's for the... The whole form is kind of told and there's no external speaker or operator. So kind of they tried to use all... The voice and the other leg... I think it's going to be exciting to see what the overall institution will be. Did the MongoDB arrive? It's the first one. It's going to be the part of it. It's going to be air about weekly basis. So it's time to discuss... Yeah, and I found out that today there's going to be some challenges. It's going to be for a German audience. It's going to be a German research and a station which is sending a board to come to Germany. So it's going to be air about weekly basis. Which is cool, isn't it? Yeah, I look forward to it. So you're going to be able to see it here. It was great discussing. It would be great if you could introduce yourself. I think... I'm not really sure if it's going to be a democratic phrase in German. Okay, I'm Audrey Kevon. I'm a digital minister here in Taiwan. I'm a digital minister. I don't have a digital ministry. But rather, it works as a minister with several federal government. When there's new digital stuff e-gaming or things like that, that doesn't really neatly fit into any of the ministry's purview. Then I held the premier to make sure how exactly should each ministry handle this. And if one of the ministries think I also helped the ministries to communicate with the premier. So you pretty much insert yourself wherever you needed them? That's exactly right. While other ministries would have their specific ministries to worry about because the digital transformation really covers all the ministries. So the participation of officers come from the jewelry industry and the administration. So that, in my understanding, pretty much sounds like agile software development or things like that. That's exactly right. We run on a weekly basis where we have stand-up meetings every day and then also offline and online come on boards and the same things like that. We use to record our road mapping business or economy. So all those tools that people use in start-up and on a weekly intelligence library is mostly how I run this public digital innovation space. People that are not used to software development and working methods, isn't it hard to work with them? Not at all because the public digital innovation space works on a volunteer basis. So only people who volunteer to work in this space currently about 20 people get into this culture. So we're not forcing all the ministries to transform overnight into this digital way of working. Rather, we're working in a prefigurative way of demoing how this works gradually into the other ministries. So since when do you do this? Since last October. Last October. And are you happy with what? As you said, you're pretty much dependent on how other people are working together with you and could you give me an example of something which you have been doing and you love other ministries who are involved? Sure, of course. So we work on the e-petition pigs where people will have a counter signature of about 5,000 people online gets a guaranteed response from the ministries. Now if the petition is just for one single ministry, of course it's relatively easy to condo. But sometimes we get those petitions that involves a lot of different ministries. For example, there was just one about a southern part of Taiwan which really lacks medical resources. And the petition was to ask for the Ministry of Interior's helicopters station there to work as ambulance so that they could be transported to the WU. Right, exactly. So it's WU's. But it's actually involving the Ministry of Health and Welfare as well and also the Army. And a lot of very different stakeholders who, everyone has a different solution to this problem of medical assistance. So what we did was we went all the way to 100,000 most part of Taiwan and held a about 20 to 40 people deliberation there and then we projected this in live stream and allow people over Taiwan to both watch how we gather the facts and check everybody's feelings, but also provide their inputs as the deliberation is going. And so the legislators also practiced their expertise on suggestion of how to solve this problem. So it's not just from the administration but some legislatures as well. And after full day of this kind of deliberation we finally settled down a few ways to improve their local medical situation by improving the hospitals and improving their transportation and things like that. And then just recently the premier visited him trying to make good on the promise of the deliberations held there. So I think it was pretty successful in both getting all the ministries lined up together but also that people know that when they have a petition no matter which ministry takes the petition every ministry is actually the same government and answers people in a way that is equal like peer-to-peer instead of telling people what to do best. We are now trusting people to come up with ideas and their feelings of their local wisdom. If you so will it's a more democratic way of more agile and democratic way of running. I'm very sorry I have to interrupt for a minute. I have to change frequencies because of this portion. No No So I should get to the device again. This is a test 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2. Can you hear this and will you say it's nice and clear the way it should be? No distortion I think? No. Okay, thanks. I must find the beginning of it and become worse. 2, 1, 2. Okay, yes. 1, 2 1, 2 2 2, 1, 2 1, 2 2, 1, 2 2, 1, 2 3, 2, 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 1, 2 2, 1, 2 these issues. Is it like that? I would imagine that some people are not used to this method. Do they all agree with the method or do you have forces of concern of dealing with issues like this? Well, not at all, because the ministry's participation officers from each ministry vote every month on the cases that we want to retrieve this way. So it's also democratic in turn. Nice, that's great. So I heard you softly about what happened, right? Still not. Still, and how you balance these two different things. That's the same thing. Yeah, and we're writing the country's summaries. We start from the kernel. Okay, very good, and it's like time-wise no problem for you to balance it. Not at all, because the legal idea is for me to act as a vehicle of radical transparency to people. So all the interviews that I give, I take, I copy myself and publish it on social media. And also all the meetings that I chair internally, I take the full transcript and send it to all the participants to collaborate, edit, edit, and for 10 working days and then publish it to everybody. So basically my work here is like a bridge to the open cultural or free culture movement and the government itself. So I work on all the automation tools to simplify the transcription, to simplify the translation, to simplify the recording, to simplify the facilitation. And the development process basically. Exactly, a continuous integration of people's voices. So that's my main work. So it is a software, actually, architect's work. Very good, good. When does this role of the ministry got established in the first place? There was always some ministry without portfolio taking care of digital affairs before me. It was definitely inside. So both I was the minister and before her we have, for example, Femin John and other people. And it's interesting because Simon used to be a director of engineering and Google. Champions, I used to work in IBM HIs, a director of law, and I used to work with Apple. And so we all come from this world where we talk a lot about HL being responsive, being user centric, and things like that. And make some sense. And do practice. So it's been like that for years then. What do you think is the biggest struggle for HL? I took my time understanding this regard from here. And I learned a lot from all this economic diversity to the manufacturing of electronic devices. And I also learned that all the big manufacturers are also China right now. And I think this information from the just hardware-based industry to the most hardware-based is probably the biggest challenge on this facing, isn't it? Yeah, that's right. It's basically, we have a very good working relationship with machines and silicon and chips and semiconductors. But now we need to work with relations with people, with interaction design, so design, also the design work. And that was not what I was known for. But a lot of times the younger generation are actually very talented in this regard. But a lot of the things the government does is just to mix the older generation who are super good at doing semiconductors and stuff. And younger people who have a better working relationship with social value, with people, communities, concerns and things like that, and make sure that they're working calmly instead of contradicting each other. So you really say you're part of the government, but do you think that fully recognize that this is the transformation that has to happen for Taiwan? Well, we are working on this traditional ancient plan, and it's an ADL plan. And we know fully that the bureaucracy or the professional career of public servants were raised in an era where the fields have very delineated demarcations between the fields, right? So people were training one field or the other, and they seldom talked to each other. But now it's very cross-disciplinary. While we were changing our curriculum to reflect this fact, we're not just changing everybody who's working in public service overnight, which is why this is an ADL plan and not an AMOX plan. So we recognize the difficulty in tackling this, but we're also recognizing we're not alone. All the governments everywhere are working on this social transformation, so we have good friends who do share matters and learn from each other. Cool. So we've talked about the future. We think about how this Taiwan, or at least in terms of information, is going in five years' time. Do you have goals where you can say, I want these things to be changed, or what would you imagine in the five years' time? Well, I would like the public service to trust people more. I think that's my main mandate going in, because trust, as you can see, is mutual, right? And somebody has to move fast. And if there is a growing distrust and the idea of disempowerment from the citizens, because they're used to a lot of online communities where people have very close relationships almost overnight, it's caused with trust, while the public service is still working on a bomb-space iteration cycle. Of course, it feels that people are becoming more distant with public servants. On the other hand, the public servants also feel that there may be populism, there may be rumors, there may be a lot of things that sound like noises, no signals, right? The main work, I think, which will take at least 20 years, not 5 years, is just to get the government to see that all the different descending noises and all the so-called noises are actually signals, and we have a good demodulator that turns the descents into data and into something that people can't focus on in the conversation with. And when the public service trusts people this way through transparency and participation, maybe some people will start to trust the public service as partners, but never more than how the public service trusts in people, so somebody has to move fast. So that's my main idea, and I think it would take a generation or so for the government to trust people all the fault. I would say so. That's a great approach, right? Cool. Can I just re-describe your double function, minister, and tracker? So you run from the ministry back to your company, or how does it work in your everyday life? No, no, no, it's not like I'm partying on anything now. It is just the previous ministers with that portfolio working in this position were also from international companies, but they, of course, quit their job before becoming a minister. It's not like we're partying on something. Do you always want to do this working for the companies? Well, for me, it's more or less the same kind of work. I used to work in the pro-community, working on the new language, the pro-six language, and it also involves talking to a lot of state governments and consensus-traveling all over the world to gather people's imaginations and expectations of what any language is going to be and so on. And it is actually governance. In a sense, just like you're going into ITF or ITN, they're actually doing political work without being in the UN or in the sovereign state is what we call the multistakeholder governance model. And so when I brought in this model here as part of some of the detail on the project and many other projects, it was explicitly modeled after the standard bodies multistakeholder model instead of the voting model. So if we don't vote, we reject votes and kings. You surely know this, right? We believe in rough consensus and voting code. It's just the running code is not just algorithm. This case is actually regulations and policies, but the fundamental idea of anyone who can declare themselves to be a stakeholder would welcome them to show up and if they felt this composition, they would use the same as the open multistakeholder model. So I think I've been more or less doing some of these in work, but I'm very fortunate that we have a cabinet where not only the premier and the arm-dependent is more independent minister of any party says that we can focus on this policy but as well without being seen as in the betraying some parties or things like that. So you have to put these two ways. I'd like to have things in my head. Yeah, you can. I'm sorry. I got the glass. It's a different story. I'm just curious. Have you ever, I don't want to say brimmed off, but did you really want to be a minister? Why did you do this? To take a political action as well? Well, I mean why not, right? So, but you answer this more and more seriously. After the Occupy, the sunflower movement, the demands of people of radical transparency has really sought sky-high, so that everything that the government does not publish is seen as secretive and to be trusted. So there is a real trust crisis going on around that time. So as someone who specializes in designing such interaction and social network systems and social media systems, I see this as a very good opportunity of doing a demonstration in a national-wide scale of how exactly can digital tools help people not just to speak freely. We have so many tools where we can speak to millions of people, but we don't have that many tools to listen to millions of people usefully or have millions of people listen to each other. And because that was my research interest, I think why not, right? And to have this kind of demo field to actually develop a set of tools that can transfer across different contexts and cultures to really get millions of people listen to each other at scale. So this, I think, is my research interest. So my main boss is actually still research, but I'm very fortunate to have this space where I can explore these ideas. Are you in direct contact with someone? We have been on this frequency and not a problem making this a question. On this question? Yes, in the last answer there was some frequency issues. You always can use this one? It's like, not as present, but... You just try it. It's probably to change... frequency, yeah. That's good. Yeah. Just thinking, you probably be on contact with some startups, you know, is there anything, I think we would say that is missing to startups that have one that they need urgently? Something like that? Well, it used to be that our company law was preventing some structures that the startups really need, such as not having their stocks diluted after a few rounds of investments and things like that, which is why a lot of startups, when you came to Ireland, they used to set up company law. But thanks to our previous Digital Minister Japanese-sized effort and the V-Taiwan community's process, we actually fixed that in the company law where you can now have a closely held company where you have special voting rights and things like that. And at the moment, we're still expanding on the closely held company law concept so that people can have different voting ways in the closely held company and things like that to make sure that startup people are realizing their mission or their social value and things like that. But I think the company law instead of being a very fundamental law, I would also like, and this is speaking personally, to see because in our act there's the first clause that says a company exists to make money, to earn a profit. But if we compare international, there's a lot of company laws that already allows people to allow different social missions, social values or environmental values, and so on without getting sued by their shareholders. So this shareholder-to-stakeholder shift as part of social innovation and so on I think is something that really needs to happen because otherwise we have people who are just for the money and people who are in the MVAs who just care about social and environmental value and they gradually don't speak the same language and we have a lot of in the startup world fights even over the relative values but they don't have to be at odds. There could be social innovations that are sustainable while taking care of the environment and so on. So I think personally that's something that really needs to happen and we're reflecting that from the new company law a revision that's about two months from now. This was a little bit what we talked about today about doing the right thing as a company. In the interview we talked about I was asking Fridl why he did found a company and we talked about does a company have to do the right thing or just a money wise thing? That's right. If you're in for the money or if you're in for a passion that's right. I don't see it necessary that it's great if the purpose of coming is also by law not necessarily that you have to make money and to me in my founding industry I didn't care about the money and was really about fulfilling a passion without the people. That's right. That's enabling the empowerment of the social purpose and it would be good if the company can just declare it publicly to investors so everybody knows what happens. I think it's great to kind of have that in there right. It's possible to also do it without but it's kind of quick work or a work around it. Exactly and always of course when the next year another comes they thought maybe people who call this small amount of shares want to sue you or whatever so it's easier if the government structure recognizes this double button which you put in the money explicitly I think that's what really makes it happen. Yeah and I agree on the wrong one you might start so that's really start up idealistic and have this value but then over time the more money gets in the more investors focus on with the investment the more this gets diluted That's exactly right. So I see if it's the written foundation it becomes another another thing because it's written in the Yeah and it also changed the investors because they already see the corporate social responsibility and things like that but this actually locks them to a specific vision and they can also endorse this vision in addition to the startup team so that one example is I think in the gaming industry of course you know the ID company released as open source to two generations before and I think this is very good for the commons for the whole ecosystem so you can also see this as a social purpose to further the understanding of the industry and even if the game doesn't sell even if the company fails it still has a contribution to the environment and to the society It is kind of you make money with this concept for some time and after all you're willing to give back to the company before you're willing to share that Yeah and we're seeing that in software it's so natural and open source has already won but in other industries they're still learning about this Yeah I don't think it's very comfortable One last question Can you say No You said you work with Apple I work with Apple So I was just wondering comparing like for instance the American startup culture and the Taiwanese startup culture could you just correct me the Taiwanese entrepreneurial mindset That's a great question So I think a lot of this generation of Taiwanese entrepreneurs they really start with some social issues with something that they want to solve with some people they want to enable there's a lot more social mission in the Taiwan startup scene you know in the Silicon Valley but that's not surprising because Silicon Valley is all about the next unicorn nowadays but I think this really reflects something about why people want to start a small or growing intermediate business it's because there's a part of society they care a part of the social problem they want to solve but this also talks about the relative lack of venture capital a very high risk company so it's a double F sort a very good supporting SME network but this also means that for the next union market to happen in Taiwan we really need to get people who want to take more risk into a position where they can take more risk without being seen as too crazy or something so I think there's a cut of people who want to take risk and social entrepreneurs and entrepreneurs in general are already people who want to take more risks but I think we can structure the society and the market so that people don't see failure as much and as people you know share here post mortems or whatever they've learnt doing a failure is to recognize as part of the community the stomping and if we can learn this part of the Silicon Valley culture I think this will also bridge Taiwan's startup scene into something that is even more than us currently it's great I have to say I'm really impressed they're probably just great and if I can think about I would love to see these topics handled in Germany but it's really much like I always thought mainstream media to me is just like you losing all the software analogies but I think in software in this industry it's about coordinating a lot of creative people to accomplish one task for us and accomplishing one task with a lot of people that all have the same mind and also their own ideas it is that you need systems where everybody gets recognized for their idea but still you have to align them how to approach one goal and that's pretty much what politicians should be about so I think it's just a natural thing to do it that way but I never thought about doing that exactly like you described we call that scalable and I think that's just politics and I see the energy it is in the end of the day people want to be seen want to be heard that's the idea of having a democracy so you go for something that's the thing but I think it's missing out on the return channel from the government that you see you make a difference from the government which is something I don't feel always recognized for whenever I do vote if you've done it's just two bits every four years there's a lot of asymmetry you download so much from the government but you upload only two bits every four years I see the concept of voting for people that have then in charge for me doing stuff but still I think the amount of transparency and of the process is something that in the end enables trust so that was also one thing I learned through running a company with a lot of people if I do transparency and I do about the numbers and I tell them about the strategy only then people can follow the way I think the way I want to solve problems I see transparency as a foundation for trust and in the startup world even if they're not open source they all adopted open governance where all the customers see what the priorities are and even participate a lot of structure feedback and so on and we're actually now redesigning our text file and software because of the petition from a designer that says Mac can't really file taxes as well and then we're redesigning the text file and software and I think what's important about this is not just one piece of software but a fundamental rethink of government services into the startup world's idea of working with the people not for the people because previous in our shrink wrap proprietary software idea it's all developing for the people and Redmond knows very good what person computers should do after another every year but now in the Microsoft have moved to collaborate with the customers instead of for the customers so I think there's the follow-up government exchange that is happening to dismantle it I think you can draw the analogy as well as even if you're a commercial producer of software and you're a customer you only can produce great pieces of software if you really know your customer you have to really understand I think the time of not listening to the customer is kind of over exactly, exactly, it's the last entry that's great like I was always saying it's like the purpose of a company is to solve a problem for the customer if they don't solve a problem for the customer there's no, why should the customer company even exist and you could adapt the same principle to the government and sometimes you don't feel that well as a conservative anarchist my ultimate vision of course is for the people who have the kids to run the governance system themselves of course it will take more than a lifetime but the idea is just to make sure that everybody knows transparently how government works and this is the foundation to be able to pay more you can see the living government as if you would show a picture of all the things that are working together and zoom in and seeing this picture off right, I used to use a metaphor of where the politicians are people you know, for example steering a bus and people who are passengers and while of course skilled drivers save a lot of time it would be best if they have GPS systems and everybody have the same transparency map where you can see where what's happening and so on but at some point when people know how the governance system works how Korea Public Service works and how the car itself maybe we will move to the same amount of time where people can then know how governance itself works without having someone to make decisions or you make decisions only when the car is about to ram into something so I think we are gradually moving this way as long as we trust the collective intelligence yeah I think being able to like you don't want to do this all the time, get into the reasons like really dive deep and look at something but you might want to do that once in a while and I would assume if I take a weekend and just take a deep dive and we can see it it's going to lead to a lot of trust and I don't want to do it on an everyday basis but the feeling that I could is a game changer yeah and with machine learning as long as we get sufficient raw materials of course they can adapt interactively to your inquiries or make useful infographics according to your taste and so on, it used to be very expensive people have to prepare them by hand but now we have sufficient machine learning tools so that we don't actually have to prepare them by hand so that's the idea that's great that's a good question thank you thanks so much over here nice cut thank you thank you I'm surprised and I think the surprise is always when you have a level of what you expect the situation to be like and then if you're surprised then it's different from what you expect that's right it's cool and I'm surprised it's a lot different thank you thanks so much thanks just the two of them I think that's the seven so I have an arrow reflection of them maybe you and just stand somewhere there get you in the reflection window