 So you're in this session a little bit and we've all held the system of science and to this place is the kind of purpose in some way to promote the SDGs from the social sector and the federal sector that is to say while our governments have our own voluntary national reviews or me and ours just like any other government but actually most of the SDGs as you will know is implemented from the federal and social sector and so how to coordinate with the federal and social sector in this way so that they don't work at odds with each other but rather with together as a collective partnership that is on the way here and so as the digital minister was able to use these principles and so we supported the projections and we'll see how it goes. So our president, when she became our president around three years ago now, she said a very inspiring statement. She said, before we think of democracy, we think of the position between all those insiders, but now when we think of democracy, when we think about the conversation between diverse lives and before the system will develop goals, back in the battle days, many people would think that for example economically development on one side and environmental protection on the other and so on, are kind of at odds with each other. And from the public sector view, just like our ministers, for example, the minister of economy is like a nod to the left side and a minister of environment and so they have to answer to their difference, they call us and also, you know, sort of all the tensions where as our public service in the middle is a non-inspective sort of all the tensions, which is a really bad way. But that kind of went bankrupt when we came to the age of social media because it used to be that we were unique and we used to administer it to assemble, but now it makes anyone who make a strike, you know, on Fridays, on the middle of nowhere, in their schools or whatever, can launch a climate change campaign on Twitter, which you're all very familiar with, I wasn't sure, and things like that. And so we see organizations out of nowhere and that can organize thousands of hundreds of thousands of people. And if we keep adding one knot to them, say one agency, to each emerging topic, we will run out of agencies and also we will not be able to arbitrate between any of those emerging agencies anywhere because they're all structural and they all are related to each other. And so in the social innovation map, what we're building toward is that we're asking a different set of questions. Here we ask, we have three different positions, but do we have some common values that can build on each other? And if we have to establish some common values, can we build innovations that follow those values as if no one was wrong? And so that is the idea of the so-called triple president line. They're just to say, well, we were simultaneously toward the economic and social and the environment schools. And so I'll just use two examples to illustrate and then use on the floor is every year our president organized a presidential hackathon. And so this year's theme is co-enable and sustainable infrastructure. When you think of hackathon, maybe many of you think of a two-day event or a three-day event like a marathon. Nobody speaks for 48 hours and so on. But the presidential hackathon is special. It's actually three months of co-creation process. It's a set of hackathons, basically. And every year we have crowd-source that is to say we pass from the crowd. What are the idea that you think that the president has promised but haven't fully built and that we can do better? And so every year we get hundreds of those ideas. And after a three-month co-creation process we do two things. First, we make sure that each team becomes trially involved in the sense that each team have at least one data and an expert, one domain expert, and one regulation expert, usually public servants. And so these three people together figure out a feasible solution that has a chance of integrating back to the civil service. And that is what we call the proof of concept stage which takes three months. One of the five main teams last year is called Water Safety Services. And so basically, these are the what-hands in the Taiwan Water Cooperation who maintain the world's longest power water pipes, many of them plastic. And so water leakage is a real problem Taiwan's constantly using risk of water shortage. And so they have to send those masters skill what-hands with those hearing aids to listen to the potential pipe leaks and to fix them. But it's not very effective. Like, once there's a new leak it takes an average one year for it to be discovered by these people. And so the Water Cooperation says we have a lot of data, like state data, pressure data, water flow data, things like that. But we really need the machine learning expert. We are the domain expert but we need the machine learning experts and we need the regulatory experts to make sure that we can integrate it into our daily workflow without compromising the use of privacy and things like that. And so after three months they co-created a bot, like what's that bot, that can talk to those repair person whenever they wake up. They geolocate where they are and say, you know, these are the three most likely to leak places to you that you can visit to us. And so it increased their job satisfaction because it's been most of the time on things that aren't actually really co-created thinking. And although the accuracy is just 70%, it still saves massively amount of time. And because we announced to the world that we are solving this system, this particular one is 6.4, right? And so everybody knows this guy, doesn't it? And so you see when after you walk to the central hackathon, one of the five teams combined them over to Wellington to solve a very similar problem because they didn't used to have a water shortage problem, but now they do because of climate change. And so they've also successfully narrowed down the water leakage detection. So this is just one of the examples of how one can help these innovative solutions. But the point here is that the winning team they don't receive any prize money. They don't receive any payments because they have to have a visa in it, right? They're not in it for money. Instead, the five winning teams are the countries that, you know, gets a trophy. And a trophy handed by the president herself is a projector that when turned on projects, the president handed the trophy to the team. And it's very main time to see. But this is very useful. I mean, we're not in negotiation. Most of the time, the public sort of actually really want this to be implemented, but they don't have to really go with it. They don't have the budget. They don't have the communication. They don't have the data communication standards and things like that. But basically, they signify the presidential promise that says after three months of group concept, we do nine months of presidential will. We do whatever it takes to adjust any number of regulation to allocate any number of budget to make group concept into every day public service. So maximizing impact is actually the trophy and what it signifies. And this is basically what we're made by data collaboratives. It means that when we say open data in Taiwan, we don't just mean open government data. We actually mean open system data as well. And so like in Taiwan, we have a lot of people caring about air quality. So they build a lot of air boxes and they're all under 100 euros and people deploy them on their app and in other schools and things like that. But it's not just measuring for themselves. They actually upload it to a public distributive ledger also known as Love Chain by Doreen Stanley. A distributive ledger that makes sure that nobody can mutate each other's land by and people can trust each other. And because of that, the government people and the citizens and the private sector can collaborate and you can at a glance see what the digital gap is like in Taiwan or what the air quality is like in Taiwan. And where there is a digital gap, we actually step in and also make sure that the local people's need like the industrial parks or even the north of Pesca D'Or, where we're building the renewable wind turbines and things like that actually has air box measurement devices in it so that we can collaborate on getting to the bottom of how this data comes from and also how the air quality is affected. So this again is the SDG 1718 in conspiral availability of the local data. And now this year we have a record number of applicants to the presidential hackathon. This is the final 20 things. The great thing about SDG is that they have a lot of pretty icons so you can at a glance see the teams care about for example, you know, good health and well-being about this coverage about combat organized crime and illicit financial development, strengths and resilience, adaptive capacity and inclusive and sustainable urbanization by way of reporting of illegal parking actually and reducing pollution by building models of marine plastic waste and maybe recycling them back into a fuel or things like that. And so all these are very creative and innovative of course, but apparently we actually pick 20 teams out of the 150 teams. We use a very innovative way of voting called quadratic voting. Have anyone heard of quadratic voting? No they haven't. That's right. So I guess you spent 30 minutes pitching. So it's a new voting mechanism invented by Lin Weil and the public ordering, you know, the Ethereum die. And so basically the idea is that everybody gets 99 points and you have 100 or so cases. Now you can vote 99 votes on each of the 99 that you like because one vote is just one point. But if you want to really express your preference and vote two votes on any project, that two vote would cost you four points, three votes cost nine points, four votes, 16 points and so on. So basically if you have 99 points, you can only vote 99 votes a lot if you really care very strongly and you still have some points to spare that you have to distribute. So basically it's a way to make sure that your marginal preference is reflective of the strengths of the points that you want to spend and that is how we can get people to review the private information that is actually how really they care about those items. And so we get more than 2,000 people participating in this QB experiment is the first in the world and it really could use a very nuanced set of synergistic teams because when you have 99 points, instead of voting nine votes on one you tend to think, oh I can vote seven on this and seven on the other and you tend to choose the two that make the most sense synergistic. So it's a social innovation in itself that makes sure that people vote on co-parts that work very well together. This is our team that we're creating now. And so after each of these teams become a sustainable either public policy or a social enterprise or things like that, we also have a listing SI that I want, GOVTW, SI's last first social innovation and this is a national wide website basically we have one for each of the major directions of the president. If you want to know about the AI strategy I want GOVTW. If it's the civil IOC collective intelligence that is CI I want GOVTW the smart I want is smart I want GOVTW someone. So it's very easy to remember and it can aggregate on the every level of the government without actually people fighting over each other's only names and it is basically a concerted SEO. So basically when you're on the SI directory people show that you have the identity and you're seeding just as many of those that you're focusing on and once you're clicking into it you can see the registered SDG oriented enterprises and social sector and even academia that cares about these topics and again so this is target 17.6. So how do we actually curate those 300 or so social innovation organizations that actually threw around time one. And so I go to the rural places, the indigenous places, and have a real multi-stakeholder talk to get people's idea about how to revitalize their county and so on. But the point here is that in Taiwan we have broadband as human rights. So not just internet as human rights, but broadband as human rights. So anywhere in Taiwan if you don't have 10 megabits per second it's my fault you can't talk to me. And so because of that wherever I come there is the vision bandwidth to connect with the social innovation lab which is right here. So basically the 12 ministries related to social innovation sit where we sit every couple weeks or so while I threw around time one and they meet through two-way teleconference how the local people really think about the national reform agenda, how to revitalize their counties and things like that. And so the ministry of interior for example it used to be the battle days that they receive a request and they say oh I have to talk with the ministry of health and welfare I have to talk with the ministry of economy affairs and I'll talk to other ministries but now because those ministers are literally sitting next to the job that they can't do that anymore they have to bring something and deliver a solution right because I'm a radically transparent minister like this talk is being videotaped and will be on YouTube before the end of the day. And actually every single meeting that I chair including those regional tour meetings we have the entire transfer of online so you can see that I have talked to almost 4,000 people over like almost to 100,000 speeches when like after I become the additional minister. And so this is not just a summary of the meeting, this is actually the meeting itself. Like you can actually read the additional ministry if you have time to go through my daily work. And so each and every sentence of URL is included on social media. You can become a social object and talk about this. And so because of this radical transparency these social workers and the public servants they are very much in tune with each other because nobody wants to sound unprofessional when they know that they will be publicly transcribed after 10 days of editing of course. And so if the public servants deliberate innovation in the battle days the minister always gets credit and if things go wrong they always get a blank. And it's not a fair deal for them. But now it's very much transparency. Everybody knows who is the original proposal the career public service. The proposal is innovative idea. So they always get credit. But as far as I know only I'm doing this. And so if things go wrong it's always an employee logic. And so because of that basically it's like presidential hackathon right we absorb all the risk and have the public service get all the credit. So because of that they can get into the path of experiments and ensure responsibility inclusive and representative decision making that is informed by the living experience of everyday people. So that again as they overcome it's goal is SDG67. So in conclusion basically we're not just focusing on one or two SDGs but we're building a new culture where the people can sort of private the public sector and work together to form data collaboratives and basically I believe now this is the ledgers to build effective partnerships and enable this open sharing. And so I've been digital minister for two and a half years now. Two and a half years ago when I became the digital minister because it's a new position to see, our HR asked me to write a job description so that they can explain to the people what does digital minister actually means. And so because I'm also a poet in the comments of the publication. And so I wrote it all in as my job description so I'm going to read it to you in this question time. So my job description follows. When we see the internet of things let's make it an internet of beings. When we see virtual reality let's make it a shared reality. When we see machine learning let's make it collaborative. When we see user experience let's make it about human experience and whatever we hear that the singularity is in here that is always remembered by the morale of the museum. Can you use the time? I think there's still a visitor. There must be questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. I'm in the back. Thank you so much for your talk and I apologize I missed the first few minutes so if you covered this already I apologize. One of the things about open data is that even by making data sets available to the public it's usually predetermined which data sets will be released by the government or whoever produces the data sets. Okay so I was going to ask about policies about which data sets are released and also the other side of it is that even when data sets are available there's a necessary level of skills required to leverage them, to analyze them, to act on them and so on so I was just wondering how you guys are addressing all of that. That's a great question. So basically our open data regulation is built on R and OIA just like many other countries that have information access. So in R and OIA law that basically says the government should proactively make available information as they are collecting it but only of course statistics and also on things that are unrelated to privacy because we don't see private data and open data as any overlap. Okay so if you trust your data for example healthcare or whatever to a government agency it's a fiduciary relationship that basically trusts the agency to act on your best interest and we don't make that open data because that wouldn't be in your best interest. So we only make into open data the statistics of that. And so again I think because R privacy law is a European Union side and we're also getting GDPR adequacy real-time soon now I think and so basically the work firmly of the GDPR school result that is to say by this moment as it is a beginning of a relationship if I trust my data to you it begins a relationship where I can ask how well you're acting at my best interest and I can help you know have data for ability and I can explain ability by do deletion updates you know all the usual things. And so that is not open data that is just data as a relationship. Now what is open data is as I said the air quality, water quality as quick prevention of all those different things right every very little thing that you can create on my private site because they don't want to do measurements like that. And so those environmental data those baseline data that we collect as published as we collect we don't have any restriction on that. We basically say any government organizations if they build an ICT system when they're procuring they have to treat big EIs that is to say machine readability or metability as a kind of accessibility requirement. So just as a website need to be accessible by blind people a website also need to be accessible by Jason speaking people. So it's the same clause in our procurement as the first thing I did as additional ministers to change the procurement law to put open ABI into the same strength as our accessibility procurement. So if any vendor comes and say oh I only can produce you know JPEG files or JPDF and I cannot produce you know Jason mid ABI over ABI they could be disqualified for unprofessionalism. And so that is how we're fixing the data quality issue that we just mentioned. Now once we have the best data still it needs to make a social impact and that's where the presidential hackathon comes in because in the presidential hackathon what we basically have is many people highlight the social issues and the data owners discover how they can use the data to help alleviate those social issues and once they form the data collaboratives across the total length basically we can see all the regulations that stand in the way of maximizing the impact of the data. So that's why I covered by the presidential hackathon case. If you're interested in the concrete steps that we've taken here is a website called Data Collaboratives.org that basically shows how we can create quality value by exchanging data and how we can build partnerships. It's an international thing. So we are part of Data Collaboratives and we're part of CrowdLaw which is proud of that law that covers the co-creation of regulations part. So if you search for CrowdLaw and are better collaboratives you can see the more unique part of how to make this work in a researcher compatible fashion. Thank you so much. You put a closer to your mouth. What would you say is the argument that the co-creation is your problem that you put out so much data that those who look at it actually try to be meaningful and you put out everything you put out everything in place for every meeting eating them. Only those who are specifically looking at those just need to be able to find out if you were actually the best one in this meeting. Most likely no one outside of this group is going to care whether this meeting happened or what happened. So this is about the ready for transparency. It's available. I keep a record of online meetings and how they'll use or how they'll standard those new districts. It's about how people put everything you put out and how this couple actually know which meetings are important. The relative priority or importance. Say that and you say that because every meeting is open and they know if you're being professional or not. But that only applies to everyone. How do I know if someone actually meets those meetings? How do I know if they're open? Your system of making sure that everyone is professional by everyone and they're being open and it only works if someone is meeting each and everyone at those meetings. Yes. So I think I get most of the questions so I'll try to explain if it doesn't work. Let me know. So this ready for transparency means transparency at the root. It doesn't mean that I set up a live stream on every meeting. It's not like that. So the main point of ready for transparency is to provide accountability. The accountability means that we can give in the count of why a policy comes to be. Because in most of the country's freedom of information law it only publishes after a decision is made. But in a drafting stage basically nothing is open or if they're open you get a heavily redacted version and you can't really piece out the context. But this is a squandering of the cognitive resource of public because if people know the why of policy making if people can intervene at the very beginning sorry it isn't Chinese but in the very beginning of the double diamond process if people can intervene here when we're still figuring out what to welcome when we're still asking how might we make things better if people can fully understand this part that they are actually much more motivated to read through the transcripts and to get their ideas out because if we're only opening up conversations on the implementation and delivery stage then actually people as you correctly mentioned nobody really follows everything right and so only people who are stakeholders are likely to follow the conversations especially in the planning that is to say discover and define stages and out to that is that the topic that we care about as I say the regional tour is determined by the regional people or if I travel somewhere by e-petition it is determined by 5,000 people petitioning for something and so those 5,000 people will at least be interested in getting basically the e-signatures that they have joined in e-petition and follow it through to see where their proposition actually became a public service so we're not basically saying that everybody have to read everything we're basically just saying when people go back to find who is the key person who are getting the innovative ideas out and so on they can find the right person and they also talk to the right people to make sure that we meet in the middle of it is to say to determine how my request is to better so a radical transparency is just an instrument it's not a goal in itself the end goal is to better trust that out as it's some part of your request the hackathon in the four years of 2019 every year if you invite people from other countries or localities or state leaders and is there a plan to include all of the goals of sustainable development each year or is it something that you try to get or focus on particular ones? That's a great question so this year it depends on what we call our challenge sponsors if you year we choose a different challenge sponsor it could be more than one of course that joins the international curation and so this year we're focusing on SDG 16 and especially the accountability arm and so we're partnering with the open contracting partnership that basically use the public procurement data and public spending data and things like that and I think we're in a uniquely good position because in Taiwan the administration publishes the entire agenda of almost 2,000 yearly or more projects of each and every ministry so you can look at a long time healthcare social housing food safety and things like that and see exactly which procurement which research reports which public spending have done and how well they have met the original rules and you don't have to be a MP you don't have to be a journalist you can just type your question here and the public service will answer to you at least once per quarter and so basically it's an ongoing relationship with the public spending and public procurement as the topic of discussion and this discussion then feeds in to this open contracting partnership and so we call for participation basically to maximize the efficiency, transparency and innovation based on those data so this is this year's scheme and there's a sub theme of AI so we're also inviting you to say open AI or deep mind or whatever that can use the coming-edge machine learning algorithms to make sense of this like very complex auditing data and so this is to this year's scheme and something but if you're interested every year we have a person in Shanghai doesn't so any challenge that focus on any of the other SDGs can apply to be our sponsor for the next year. Very much for a very interesting presentation and it's a really interesting social innovation model. My question has to do with the link between socially innovative ideas and strategies and obtaining the resources so in any form of collective action one of the things that either tends to reinforce and build broad based social action is the experience of success and that basically means going from ideas to actually being able to do something. So could you talk a bit about the link between social innovation and then the resources to implement these ideas? So there's two kinds of resources, the mobilization, the good way of the people who really want to try this out, going vegetarian once per week or something like that, vegetarian on Friday or vegetarian on Monday I think that's the good thing here in Shanghai but anyway the other good thing is impossible part, not impossible week, that's the other good thing but in any case, so one thing is mobilizing people and the other thing is mobilizing financial resources and these two cause for different strategies obviously. In Taiwan we have a really good crowdfunding program that basically makes sure that you can simultaneously get people and get money for it so here's the point, I'll just use one concrete example so here you can see you can see right outside after this talk you can see a multi-final wheelchair, so he used to be that in Taiwan there's many places that are street vendors who are happy counts, who are on wheelchairs and vending basically these things, tissue papers or chewing gums and very little margin and so there was a social innovation a couple years ago that did a comprehensive market analysis on these street vendors so not treating them as people who are disadvantaged but treating them as vendors and did an analysis and they found three pain points but not many people know where the money flows, so there is a lack of transparency and their interaction, their customer relationship management is a part because every time they just say sorry or man I just do some kindness or whatever but the next time you visit they say something so it's not very dizzying and also they don't have a really good supply chain management so their margins low and they don't sell those chewing gums and they lower price then compared to other convenience stores and so on and so what it is it's such a good launch, they make sure that they are partnered with people who do training like tool CD4 guys and things like that they make sure that they have good people skills, they work with people who are very innovative designers to make those wheelchairs into mobile stations that are kind of still charging that can do display a large LED sorry LCD board advertisement that even books into infrared sensors that they know roughly how many people are in front of it and they can show the advertisement and then they also source like fair trade coffee and tea and visionist you know high martin products for mental care but the point here is that they even when they only have these paintings which are from people who stand syndrome by the way so basically people with treatment differences down syndrome they paint things in a way that were very memorable because they look at the world in a geometric way so a lot of designs you see here in the social meditation lab like this sort of fields that used to be here are from people who stand syndrome so using this very memorable pathway that launches successful products on the campaign and they originally just you know won a sub-million but they very quickly raised a million but more important than that you can see that whenever people put money into it they really want to succeed so they also cross those ideas like in places where there's no wifi they can serve this wifi password like if you're a tourist and your phone always runs out of battery this can be your fast charging station or they can make you some coffee or tea that are fair trade and they also observe that here you can have a lot of food and umbrella so they can also be a community umbrella and drink standard and things like that but along the way you can see that the CSR mindset became a business development mindset people stopped seeing these people as kind of disadvantaged people we need to help but rather a very efficient last mile delivery for socially impactful products and services and so by the end of the program I can see that people's idea about these people have changed and then that is the real social innovation we wanted to see and so these are now really operating in Taipei city and things like that and so this is just one example but basically what I mean is that we need to make it actionable just like putting $5 through it and connect it that is to say once we put $5 into it I want to contribute an idea that makes me look good on my social media friends and then it is extensible so that it is not limited by the original vision and it could be extended in every which way and that is what opening the vision means and it gets replicated very quickly without having to seem more otherwise restricted in the idea so actionable, connected, extensible I think is the way to mobilize the resources. So my question is how do you educate our brain awareness among the public especially the ones that are not exactly remotely part of the industry or aware of what is happening in here to let them know that they have a voice or they could express their agreement into what social initiatives would be implemented. Okay great question, yes so it's two-fold first is we get the idea of social entrepreneurship into a lot of different ministries project as I'm the coordinator of the social innovation plan in Taiwan where unique in I think most of the countries in depth in our social innovation plan there really is no one owning one owning ministry I was just looking at an English version but there's no English version so you have to bear with me. So basically of the social innovation plan that has this as simple as a top priority we have a ministry of education and interior in charge of redesigning the curriculum making sure that sustainability is part of the curriculum and then in the higher education we make sure the university have the university social responsibility program just like CSR we call it the USR so that people get undergrad degrees by solving a local environmental social economic problem with SDGs and I think that is very helpful because we observe when people in the senior high in the university if they get their school credits by solving a local problem when they move on to higher education like graduate studies it's more likely that they will choose to learn something that's relevant to their local social community if they learn something in a very abstract way chances are that they just move out and lose connection and so at the curriculum level it's very important and of course the financial part, social financing and things like that we mobilize all our low term pension funds and things like that to basically do patient investment things that have a provable environmental and social dominance value and we also do regulatory co-creation to make sure that if you're an innovator everybody now gets the idea that you can go to this website called sandbox.org.bw and identify a outdated regulation that you want to abolish or amend or change and basically say I have a social information the regulation didn't anticipate so how about let's just try our version of regulation for a year and see what happens and so this is called sandbox we see it in finance industries in the UK and Singapore but here in Taiwan you easily see 12 ministries a year so we have a general purpose on the regulation level that anyone can apply for a one year exception so basically it's a one year semi monopoly but in exchange you have to be open on your data innovation and things like that so if it doesn't work we take the investors but everybody else learns something and try a different angle but if it doesn't work then your regulation becomes our regulation so our regulators don't have to regulate something that we don't have first time experience of and that massively erase the awareness of significant participation because they don't have to wait for four years or two years to cast a vote they can just propose a innovation on sandbox RGPW and just change the regulations like that or through even addition that's another very popular way and that is again very popular in Taiwan it gives 23 million people about 5 million that participated in the e-participation platform which is like one quarter of the population and now I require a lot of you say a fine print that while you can challenge regulation and even in case you're not allowed to start an experiment on the laundering of funding barriers these two are out of the question because we know what will happen there's no need to experiment but everything else is fair game and so I think that and finally I think it's just a matter of getting the voice of people who cannot vote parent like the most popular e-partitions in Taiwan are done usually by people who are 15 years old or 61 years old these two groups of people have the most time on their hands and care the most about public welfare right and so the 15 years of for example one of them petitioned all those two years ago to gradually ban all plastic straws or whatever in time experience and now if you go to McDonald's in Taiwan they don't give you straws anymore they encourage you to just drink directly and actually our environmental protection agency now has a plan starting this year to basically ban non-recycleable straws in indoor settings and gradually to outdoor settings as well and it's all started by a 15 year old and then she's basically just doing her civics class and her teacher says you know find something that can mobilize people and then she finds something that can mobilize people so which is a great story but that shows how even before the age of voting they can mobilize people and we found that people who are 15 years old who reaches the most number of people they really know how to do social media and things like that and so that really gets the idea of social innovation and entrepreneurship out of social innovation and do you think like that the gift of straw is going to happen because it seems like this is going to happen out of the hands of social capital so how long has it happened even if money was in the end? So here I cannot really take credit because in Taiwan it's been going on for more than 20 years Taiwan has a special innocence that we were in the martial law, the martial law was lifted in 1987 and the civil society only needed to grow after that but they have 10 years to grow because our first presidential election is 1996 and so it's 10 is a decade between the freedom of press and assembly and so on and the first presidential election so that makes all these number of profits like the Children's Arts Foundation who work with the people who's down syndrome that I just show you or the co-ops like the Homing Christian or the charities like the Citi for disaster relief or even the company like the viewer and they all have more than 20 years of building legitimacy and in their areas they are more legitimate than the government and so whenever there's a natural disaster, if Citi publishes a number and our Ministry of Health or Interior publishes a number and so because of that the government is in a unique position of we have to join the social medias, otherwise we don't get legitimacy because they are more legitimate and so this is a unique Taiwan situation that has borne out of our relatively new democratic situation and what my contribution I think is that it used to be that different organization styles, co-ops credit unions and things like that, foundations associations, companies and so on, they have their own culture they don't really look at each other thinking that we're working on the same thing and now we're saying no, you're all social innovation organizations, you're all SIOs and once they're all SIOs that means that's very good, this one, right? So basically if you're all SIOs they share the same resource on impact and entrepreneurship and design and that is how we can effectively move people from early-stage solutions to the mature to the impact-stale solutions because different organizational styles and different communities specialize in different stages in the same route and only by uniting these people I'm doing the same I'm doing a lot of social innovation organizations on SIOs instead of some people calling a word co-op movement, a word pre-core movement or the youth's movement and things like that, they're still respectively here in movements so I think that is my connection. Question is since the term distributed that there were blockchains being thrown around how does the technology and maybe other technologies like vitally-booter and decentralized autonomous organizations be used to foster transparency and civilization? Okay, great question. So I wear actually these two hats, so I always stress that I'm working with the government, I'm working as a conservative and I'm just working with the government, not working for the government, right? So in my additional ministry hat I'm saying that the government is being very careful in only using ledgers and the other innovations that you mentioned in a way that promotes accountability and we use it in addition to those air pollution measurements and things like that also to track for example, oversee human like foreign aid in the cross-sourcing that is a popular so-called gender rest here called do-do-cur, I don't know whether they can make the English page, but we'll find out in a quick video. Okay, so basically it's a blockchain crowdfunding platform but you don't need a Ethereum or whatever, you know, wallet to use it. Basically what you're doing is that they make sure that if you care about people you can call people in, this is what you call it I think, about the Na'vi case and how to improve their relationship after the flow and things like that. So for any, for each and every case you can see the flow and this is about indigenous I think, so you can track it in Ethereum of how exactly the funding has done like where, which intermediaries they have gone through if they're overseas like in Nepal, which intermediary organization they have gone through and things like that. Now of course you can hire KBMG and PwC or whatever to do the same thing, but first they are kind of slow and also because they're very thorough and also they don't have the same you know, participatory nature in it because of this you can independently audit you don't have to depend on this even if this website goes down you can still reconstruct the flow from public Ethereum data and so because of this is the additional accountability layer that makes sure that people are committed to see that actions is kind of disinvertification before the annual report comes out and so to speed up that accountability process is the main application of the distributed ledger here there's other exploratory projects of DOTs such as making sure our regular workers who came from a different country when they signed a contract there and when they arrived to Taiwan they're actually working on the same terms that in itself is also SDG, SCO10 and things like that. So there's many ways but we don't use them as cryptocurrency that is my main answer. Now where in my other head? I've been working with Spitalik and so on to form this foundation called the Radical Exchange and Radical Exchange basically use the same ideas but try to do like a traffic flow attack like a different set of like auction-based mechanisms of design to make sure that people when they participate in democracy for example a councillor can say we proud stores my votes and only when I get sufficient number of votes do you actually need to vote for me otherwise you're just wondering about you really should vote for somebody else and then there's a city councillor hearing in Taiwan who adopted this idea and really gets elected and he actually changed his name to councillor Cho before he gets elected as a reader of the PR stunt but they wrecked and they take the crowd-stores their votes and then make sure that he actually can get he knows that he will get voted into the city council before actually people going to the local groups so this kind of pre-commitment collective action in a lovely way for collective action I think is really really powerful and that is like my mother has my city councillor has Thank you To ask you more about your two hats and the balance between those as your government minister had or working with the government minister had how do you look at understanding that the mission is supporting social entrepreneurship and social innovation how do you look at the negative externalities that come with a lot of industry in general and maybe the tech industry in particular Sure So there's the traditional industries like candles unknown impact which is called word for negative that creates socio-environmental challenges that's a disturbing question so in Taiwan we're shifting gradually actually quickly from non-renewable energy to renewable energy from traditional high pollution industry and new circular economy and things like that so there's a general realization that we have to do things this way but this realization only comes from a quantifiable negative externality so that is my main point as official minister is just to make sure that people know exactly how bad it is for the environment and hence the citizens on its air pollution measurement devices many, many different I went to many different UN as you're related foreigners people in Asia usually is very anxious about citizen science projects like that because they challenge the if you have a friend that measures the water quality and the EPA publish of course we trust your friends even though we're of lesser precision but in Taiwan we really get that idea we can't feed them so we join them so we set up things like industrial parks because this is a scientist cannot go into the industrial parks because they're private property and things like that but the lamps here are owned by the public sector so we can hang the airboxes on top of the lamps and things like that that is how we get food from the community but even more importantly that is how we prove to the capitalists that instead of with unknown impact they're actually creating an active impact and then we of course at Waze in the SQC accounting and things like that to make sure that these capitalists change their ways in their report because we make sure that all public leaders and companies have to use SDG combined way to do reporting I think over half of it you now and so this is at the capability part so I am less concerned about the environmental challenge because this is really strong here now the social challenge is harder the tech companies the semi-sovereign international basically sells addiction and use surveillance capitalism data as the concerns and so the social externality that they create the filter bubbles lowliness addiction and things like that they're much harder to quantify and so what I'm doing is two-fold first step I make sure that I whenever I do a public speech on a university or whatever I advocate the idea of a filter that is actually I would also recommend you to use which is called Facebook feed your educator and this is just one of my favorite ideas but this one takes less time to explain so I'll just use this one so basically it eradicates the physical feed as it says on the tin and it's on a lifehacker and so on and so once you install the physical feed eradicator basically it's replaced your physical feed with a motivational speech from Adler or something and then what it does is that you can still use the other interesting parts of Facebook which are pro-social but the end as such a part which is a parasitic AI maximizing your time spending on it as long and so because of that people don't get addicted anymore and so our relationship with Facebook is that we encourage them to use the more benefit stakeholder or contributed solution part of it is part of that that are pro-social but we also make sure that people are aware that there are negative psychological externalities coming out of the use of social media and we teach of how the children themselves may be YouTubers they may be the air box containers that makes them a data steward so basically by putting them into the place of the media they then can understand how does it like to feel to make moral choices about these things so instead of banning their use of social media things like that we make sure that as early as possible understand the negative externalities and do it a more healthy way a more healthy relationship with those tech companies and it's not a perfect answer because Facebook and Google and so on there's limits of what we can do but I think in particular we are making everybody aware of the negative externalities by way of a very popular film that I encourage you to to see when it airs on HBO Asia it is a publicly funded TV series of ten installments called The World Between Us or when you know the truth and it very clearly shows how the negative externalities of popular media social media how media frame things how media may reformulate itself of how the viewer actually has the determination if they do for collective action and things like that so they say really the media electricity tool but that does as a 95% approval rate in the TV series that is extremely popular here and it's funded by public money so I think at the end of it media electricity and curriculum is really the solution but we really need to have these funded national companies thank you very much so that's the another quote once you install it your taste becomes a another quote every day going back to the background is there any public participation by Taiwanese citizens in the evaluation of judging of the population or people with residence they can register and get 99 points and that's where the project of voting comes to place and we have more than 2,000 people vote and so I really think this QV because we have other public voting before but people tend to just vote on one thing but not which is the higher policy so I think that's the main thing of course you can also volunteer as a team member to any of those funding teams and we do get people like 10 people or so who are just coming out of nowhere that says I really like this idea and joining those funding teams and we also get like five different companies joining in so maybe if you have other questions you can just go around and ask some of these thank you very much Mr.