 Hello, I'm Audrey Thong. I'm very happy to be here at the Digital Citizen Workshop and about the Open Government Partnership Toolbox hackathon to share with you some of my ideas around data and its relationship to people. Data, as we know, lies at the fundamental core of the OGP Toolbox. Many of the tools attempt to gather the society's data to do analysis and to reflect it usefully to the society. Now, data in the government already has its public uses. The public uses, for example, takes the medicine and healthcare data and tries to work on precision medicine and the other healthcare uses of it. Or, for example, we can use epidemiological data for public health and prevention of epidemics. Or, for example, in Taiwan, we have used a lot of environmental data like earthquakes, prediction, typhoon, and a lot of disaster recovery process that also relies on the data. So all these are the public uses. And when we talk about the data economy, as some people are inclined to say, we think also about the added value of data. For example, based on transport data, we can schedule and make new traffic services or with the financial markets data made public available. We can use FinTech like Sandbox or a lot of new innovations in the financial technologies. Or even micro-weather, the same environmental data allows one to predict with a higher accuracy what kind of weather, whether it will rain tomorrow and schedule your events and logistics and supplies accordingly. And all these are the use of data already in the private sector. However, in addition to the public sector and the private sector's use of data, there's also data's social value. And by social value, I mean, based on the transparent record and the evidence-based data during the government's policymaking, the civil society can add the value of the factual data and to coordinate on the ideas around people's feelings. So if the people manage to have the feelings around the same set of facts, these feelings can gather and can amplify. And once we have these kind of feelings that are amplified, we're much more prone to produce ideas that are actually useful, that can converge and engage in social dialogue. And this has enormous use also in dissolving the potential misunderstanding between the factions on the society, as well as furthering public discourse. As an example, the Green Citizens Action Alliance in Taiwan recently launched this Taoming project. This Taoming project basically takes the measurements of all the sensors of the, like, PM 2.5, like the air pollutants and so on, and presented in a way that resembles a game on a map where everybody can see their neighboring sensors, how it correlates with rainfall, how it correlates with the perceived pollution arrows, and all kinds of divergence between the numbers that are released by the industries and by the governments and by the actual environmental measurements. And so the idea is to calibrate each other's measurements so that we can identify where exactly does the pollution come from. However, all these data are already available before the GCAA project starts. So why does it take so long and a crowdfunding campaign to make use of these data? As we can see, although there is an open data mandate, many a time there's still cleaning and extraction and transforming needed in order to align all those different kinds of data from different data pipelines. Also, the data are often published not as structured data, but as, like, websites and so on, or even PDFs sometimes, although we're mostly past that point now in Taiwan, in different local governments' websites and in different civil society websites, so it's also important to agree on a common format. And finally, many open data or common API portals offers only data up to a day ago or a week ago, and there's no long-term archival of data for a longitudinal analysis. So that also is something that civil society can add value to. So the whole idea is for the project to keep a long archive of all those pollution data and to see which parts of the Taiwan are more interested by the residents. And if it's already measured by the government install sensors and it's over the measured threshold, then the citizen can use this to launch an action either against the industries who should keep their pollution level down or against the government to make much more high-resolution or more stringent environmental regulations. Or if it is beyond the current area of sensors and so on, in addition to deploying one's own pollution sensors, one can also declare those sensors to the government in a way to collaborate with the local city governments to make the coverage much more accurate. So this is a way for everybody to be literally on the same page to see how the pollution gathering is going. So just this simple example, we can see the four elements of the Open Government Partnership. First, we have the transparency, which is first the public sector releasing whatever we have and also declaring what we don't have and then inviting the private sector and civil society to do the same. And then is participation, allowing a way for people to be on the same page and input their own measurements, their own demands, their own conversations around each and every measurement. And then accountability. By keeping a long-time account, one can see what kind of things happened, around what time and due to what reason and so on, so that we can go back and write a postmortem or to adjust the regulations accordingly. And finally, and much more important to me, is the idea of inclusion. The idea of inclusion says we must offer the same kind of data not only as writing, not only as raw numbers, but as interactive infographics, but as even tangible objects or virtual reality even in all kinds of modalities that allows people who specialize in different kinds of communication not only to understand but allow their participation to be automatically translated into forms that other people can understand. But it's not always like this. Without this kind of data-driven, open government approach, we usually have the people making the public policies, talking to the private sector actors and individual scholars and academics using a language that is diverging from the people on the street so that even the same word no longer means the same thing. And so what we are doing now is taking data, but not just data, but the conversation around data as what we call a social object. And by social object, we mean everybody can talk around it to add to it, to share even more nearby objects around it such that people associate one row of data not just as some abstract meaning, but as something that they can talk around just like a discussion thread, just like today's weather, it is a way to have conversation with people. And by keeping a longitudinal archive with not only the data but decision-made around the data, we can show with just one QR code what we call an accountability trail of every regulation that I helped to make. So for example, about electronic sport regulation, we keep this in a folder called esport.pdc.tw that updates with all kinds of aspects of this regulation and down to the original public hearings transcript and how those items from the transcript carries over to the internal dialogue and then to the multi-stateholder dialogue and so on so that people can with maybe 5 minutes or 10 minutes to have an entire trail of how exactly this regulation is being made. So this point is like a thread between all kinds of public records, all kind of meeting records, all kind of transcript so that it gives the context of why having this meeting matters and how it connects to the previous and to the other meetings. Now of course the audit trail itself must also be a social object which is why we're working on this open government platform that in addition to e-petitions and e-consultations we're now also providing e-accounts of all the regulations for the public comment agenda. So in addition to regulations, in addition to petitions, this month we will publish thousands of ongoing and even more completed projects from each and every ministries according to the open spending and open procurement principles so that people can see what exactly each government ministry is using taxpayers' money and what kind of data is being produced by these kind of projects and then where does the government, the private sector and the civil society's relationship in each of those projects. So basically it's an idea that this is the default, not the exception. All the important projects that's using taxpayer money must publish how the stakeholders relate in these kind of platforms. But even just publishing the completion rate and the rate of spending of the budget and the individual projects and the research and procurement in a way that allows this context being presented is not enough, we still need the civil society and the private sector to join the discussion by publishing their thoughts, their data, their evidences and letting us know where did we forget to do or where did we already do but we didn't do it good enough. So all this is just a systematic way to ensure that whatever your interest is, whatever your political concern is, you can always find the related governmental projects and start participation because I believe firmly that only by trusting the collective intelligence of the private sector and the civil society can the public sector regain its balance of trust between the government and the other two sectors. So that's my sharing today and I wish you a very successful event. Thank you for listening.