 I sent you a few, just a few other sense of the questions and the interest I had. I'm actually also writing a book on digital participation online trying to understand what is happening around the world in the various movements that pledge for their new rights or pledge for whatever battle they bring in forward. One of the topics I wanted to understand with you is what happened to the sunflower movement once you went to government. Is this a transition from protest? I saw you went to parliaments, occupying the parliaments. I think your father also was in the Tiananmen Square. So you are a history of protest and now you are governing a country. Demonstration. Demonstration. Demonstration. Okay. What is this transition? How does this transition work and what were the steps that were passed through in this transition? I emphasize demonstration because I view it as a demo, not as in taking anything down, but as in setting up a new model that works at least for some structural cases better than the top-down model of old. Demonstration in the sense of a demo version of a software rather than as in opposing something. And that is still what I am doing. I am the digital minister working with the government but not for the government, with the people but not for the people. So my role has not changed. I am still in this kind of Lagrange point between governments on one side and movements on the other making sure that they understand each other's viewpoints without getting captured into the gravity well of any particular site. Or if we shorten to very simple forwards, I take all the sides. Okay. Well, that's a good position I guess to translate what people, what movements and what governments needs or wants or can have. And so that's an excellent spot I guess to also view things that are happening. So what has happened to the sunflower movement or to the Gov movement that I drew zero view? Gov zero is still very active, extremely active. And also a lot of the modern day infrastructure for politics for two examples to counter the pandemic with no lockdown. People in Gov zero created hundreds of maps to display availability of medical masks so that everybody have plenty of supply of those masks in a very fair fashion. In other issue the infodemic, which sometimes come with the pandemic, but in Taiwan's cases before the pandemic, we already have a infodemic at this information crisis. Again, it's the Gov zero people that created the co-facts system that makes sure people can report misinformation or disinformation on even end to end encrypted channels such as WhatsApp in Taiwan is called line. And so that the trending misinformation, once that have a R value above one, that is to say when it's about to go viral, people can fact check it and counter it using humorous clarifications like humor over rumor. And so this co-facts system is a lot like the quarantining system in fighting the pandemic so that people can get alerted when there is a trending disinformation. So just these two shows how Gov zero has been so active in countering the pandemic with no lockdown and countering the infodemic with no takedown. So how is actually Gov zero organizing itself? Are they all people from Taiwan or are there people from all over the world that's tackling these issues? Yeah, it's all over the world. It's literally just a hashtag, right? So there is G0V.IT as well. And you can find G0V in all sorts of different movements. It's basically a reimagination of any digital service from the government you don't like or haven't been done yet, something that Gov or the GOV.TW or the GOV.IT, you can reimagine it as something that G0V.TW or that IT or whatever. And so if you join the Slack channel, for example, of join the G0V.TW, then you can very easily find people of all different jurisdictions, Taiwanese but also other people. At the moment it's almost 9,000 people on the general channel right now. In the COVID-19 channel, there is 647 people working on counter COVID and so on and so forth. And so this is basically just a way to meet people online and then go on to meet them in the real world also because there's constant activities such as the Gov.Zero Summit, which is again an international event in Tainan this time. And I'm just posting you the agenda for the Gov.Zero Summit so you can see the diversity of participants as well as the topics. Great, thank you. So do you think this is still something that you should be still opening up from government? I've seen you've done a lot of things, a lot of debating, a lot of cracking out the data of the government. Do you think there are still some steps you should be addressing in Taiwan that are still not done? Yeah, definitely. Two days from now, we are set to meet in a multi-stakeholder forum of half the people in the public sector and half the people as citizens to ratify our open government plan for the next three years. And so basically the topics that's going to be ratified two days from now is going to be our vision for the next three years and for what we are going to go through as a democratic polity to open up even more part of ourselves. Now, of course, because it's not yet ratified, take everything I say with a grain of salt because it may be changed by the multi-stakeholder forum. But there's already some general themes emerging from there. And I think this is important to see the general themes not just individual issues to be opened. For example, there's a lot of pressure now on the legislation to also open the process of parliament, not just the administration. So there's another task force comprised of legislators across all the four major parties in the parliament right now that is not related to us in the administration, but also working to ratify their open parliament plan, hopefully on the same day as we do. So that is one part of it. Now, on the administration side, there's roughly speaking about, I don't know, 18 or so different commitments across all the different ministries. And some of them are, of course, what you have already heard, the open data, the open API end of us, and making the national center for high speed computation. Make sure that there's a civil IoT system for GPU intensive computation, strengthening digital privacy, and also personal data protection. These are, of course, what we have already known, like freedom of information and so on. There's ones that are less known internationally. For example, the e-collecting for national referenda. That's new. For example, the youth participation, systemic participation in all public sector end of us, even before they turn into adults. That's new. Placemaking regional revitalization, like now on the township level, to do open governments, not on the national, but on the very local scale. That's new. Labor union, revitalizing labor unions, using open government principles. That's new. And also integrating open government into the new curriculum of basic education. That's new. And also, there's another branch about inclusion, for example, about gender equality, about new immigrants who don't have voting rights, but nevertheless are affected by public policy. Indigenous nations, that's another part of that branch. Also the Hakka people, that's also another promise. Now, finally, on the accountability side, of course, we did a lot on campaign donation and campaign expenditure, but there's always more to be done, especially on the local level, which is less transparent. And also open procurement, there's the open contracting partnership on it, whistleblowing. That's another part, as well as like anti-money laundering, benefits corporation stuff. And also for the more spiritual institutions, how to make our relationships to them more mutually transparent without offending their sensibilities. That's new. And so that's that word, core promises that we're going to discuss today from now. Okay. So a lot of things I was particularly interested in the referenda, either collecting the signatures, I guess, you mean. Yeah, I've seen that happening in various countries around Europe also. And it's working very well. So that's certainly something that is a good direction, at least for Italy in the future, maybe. And I am analyzing how participation actually works online. And I saw that often people get excited for new things, but on the long run, they get exhausted or they go around and they leave the project. How do you get people enthusiastic in the long run in getting involved continuously? Like recruiting really young people. Yeah, so yeah, that's right. On the participation platform joined the GOV, the TW, the most active ones are people around 15 or 16 years old, and then people around 50 or 60 years old. And maybe both have more time, simply. But also, both are more inspired by longer term thinking for people between those two age groups. They think more about maybe five years from now. But if you are 15 years old, or if you are 65 years old, you can think about 30 years from now or 50 years from now. One side, because they're on the business end of climate change. The other side, because they want something like a positive legacy for their next generations. And so these longer time thinking sustain the participation online. Okay, excellent. Yes. So people with a longer future will think further away. And with more people that they love, they want a better world for them. So I guess that's the meaning of that. I saw that you have created a lot of participation arenas or places or discussion debates places. Do you have ever a minimum level of participation that tells you that that system has worked? Because often maybe a single system has a few tens of people, a few hundreds, and maybe others millions of people. But is there any minimum limits of participation that will say the result of that participation is a good participation? Three people. Yeah, because three people, then you can find synergies. So that's the minimum. Yeah, between two people, it's a negotiation or a partnership. But it's not called participation, right? To participate, you need to bring at least one different perspective from a two person relationship to two people. We call it a relationship maybe, but three people that's participation. So one of the topics that's often gets taken out is if there's too few people participating, it will not be representative of the other people that haven't participated. So this is a topic that is often tied to the result that comes out of that debate or that participation. If you talk about the future of taxis or the future of ABND, I saw you then. And all these three people came, yeah. And then what happens? Right. I think what's important is to make sure that these tools are just setting the agenda for future discussions. In this sense, in design thinking terms, they're just a discovery of various positions and the definition of common values of those different positions, nothing more, nothing less. But too often, the participation is seen on the second diamond, which is developing solutions and delivering on those solutions, in which case, of course, you need to have more people and more binding power. But if this is just about let's brainstorm and find what we all feel about UberX, then three people is good. So people discover a little bit more, they listen more, and that's good. So every step of participation is a good step towards I saw one of your slides in a presentation, you called it activism. Is that the place we should tend to arrive? I saw you actually did a journey from activism to activism. From clicktivism. From clicktivism. The beginning is called clicktivism, literally sending only one bit of information. So like that's the one bit. And it's something, but it's just one bit. Compared to that voting is better, because when you vote for a local city council or a vote for a legislator, you are at least sending maybe three bits of information. But still, it's not much more. So what we are saying essentially is to increase the bandwidth of democracy so that people can participate day to day, sharing more bits of information, especially their genuine feelings and things like that. And what we did here is just to make sure we can listen at scale. Previously, people could not listen at scale. So one cannot have a conversation with tens of thousands of people demonstrating, but still arrive to a rough consensus quickly. But now with assistive intelligence, we increasingly have this capability. Of course, it's a force for good when it's pro-social. It's a force for not so good if it's for polarizing and manipulating people's ideas into ideologically opposite things. I mean, this can be used both ways, but the capability is there. There's no denying that. These tools are creating a new world of what I call digital citizenship. I'm actually advocating around the concept of these tools creating new rights. I was last year at the UN talking about these new rights that are emerging. You've used a lot of tools. You've done the presidential hackathon, the V-Taiwan debating, the exploring the government data with the GOV-0. You've been exploring a lot of ways of getting people involved. Do you see any of these tools creating new rights? Do you see new rights that have emerged in Taiwan, for example? Yeah, I think broadband as a human right is really like for the past four years. That's been a real investment into getting all plays in Taiwan, even top of Taiwan, to get 10 megabits per second both ways, actually, for just 16 euros per month unlimited data. That's called broadband as human rights. It requires a lot of investment, as you would imagine. The end result is that during the COVID education, health care, and all that didn't suffer. We actually grew the GDP by 2.5 percent or something this year, because there is broadband everywhere, including in the pharmacies. It actually became cheaper for people to take their national health card, go to a local pharmacy, which always has a fiber optic line, more than 90 percent do, to the national health database, get a ration mask, and go to a clinic for a full diagnosis, and still that is cheaper than getting a drive-thru test in other countries. And so this obviously has good health benefits that we can see this year, but also more importantly, it makes sure that people are not left out when there is a new participation methodology. Otherwise, we will be sacrificing these people. Yes, you now talked about broadband, so access to internet. I actually think there's other two things that are the basic rights to access this digital citizenship, which is digital education, knowing how to use these tools, what you can use, and digital ID to get recognized for your rights to be able to exercise them online. Do you think these are the three basic rights or do you think there are other rights? I don't think in the term of literacy, in our basic education curriculum, because broadband both ways is a human right, literacy doesn't work because it assumes a one way, like radio or television communication, so that you can understand the information that's pushed to you. But now with bidirectional broadband as human rights, all the primary schoolers are also media workers. So what we build is not just literacy, but competence. We talk about media competence, digital competence, which is the ability to produce information and data, to curate data and wisdom, hopefully, and then also to hack, meaning that you can change the technology to fit the way you would like to use it. And these are active participatory competence. It's not just about education or literacy. So what do you think are the tools that actually worked best in all your history of digital participation? Definitely the World Wide Web. In general terms, I was thinking the tools that you created, like, for example, the presidential hackathon, the debating on V-Taiwan or the opening the data with the GovZero or other ways you've actually hacked the politics in Taiwan. Yeah, but I said World Wide Web anticipating this question, because the World Wide Web has this open nature that all the websites you can see, you can also view source, meaning that if you don't like a system how it's done, like if you don't like how presidential hackathon is done, you can view source and fork that website and make it better. And this is important because we cannot anticipate all the needs of the people. All we can anticipate is that people would want to fork the governmental digital services. And this is the core insight of GovZero in that forking the government is not just possible, it's fun. So people could reimagine their digital services more than 100 different versions of the same digital service. Previously, in a top-down regime, it would be called wasteful, because you're basically using taxpayer money to cater to 100 different special visualizations, the 20 national languages, maybe for chatbots, for VR, for all sorts of different ways. But if these people themselves are wishing to present the interaction information in that particular way, then they should have the freedom to do so and to enable that requires an open web rather than other technologies that go through the internet without the possibility to be forked. Okay, so opening up the government and the government data and the government's maybe tools or whatever can be opened in depth of the government is the thing that has engaged most. You can just view source and then see all the APIs that comprise this particular website. And this also enabled people to reverse procure the government, like they make a really compelling visualization, but they don't have one key piece of data. They can then order the government to build that data or to update it with a higher frequency, which is essentially treating the government as a vendor. So this is very interesting because I call it people-public-private partnership, meaning that a social sector acts first and then the public sector and then the economic sector. Yes, that's a very interesting perspective as it's the people, the social sector, as you say now that should be the initial force that actually then changes things and they need the tools to be able to do that, which often are not available and once they are available, things actually change. Right, the public sector should provide those tools is what I'm saying, yes. Okay, well do you feel so this new rights today in Taiwan that are enabled thanks to technology and digital participation? Well, I think these rights are partially realized now. Well, our basic education curriculum is really new, like it's new as of the last two years. So obviously it has not yet reached all age groups. Similarly, the broadband as a human right, although I think we have 99% or so of residential coverage now, still doesn't extend to the most rural or the most remote of the places. And even if they do, it's not guaranteeing that there's sufficient amount of digital competence companions to make sure that the people there have enjoyed access to those rights. We do have a national ID for healthcare, but there's no other national ID widely used for pretty much anything else electronically. But that's okay because for the pandemic, we will use the health IC card extensively and so on. So I would say it's all there, but it's not 100%. We're still working toward those. So the next step is the digital ID owned by everyone so they can actually recognize themselves for any service that the state can give. There's already the citizen's digital certificate. So we already have a PKI enabled secure ID. It's just that maybe one quarter of people actually use it. We're in a similar place as Japan where for the my number in Japan and the citizen digital certificate in Taiwan, it's not pervasive at all. And a lot of people prefer face to face services, even though there's equivalent ones existing in the digital realm. And we're okay with that. I mean, my own grandma, 88 years old, has not used a ATM in her life and probably she will prefer to remain that way. So it's not like we have a KPI of 100% of people using an ATM, right? But what we are saying is that people who do want to use it need to have access to the digital equivalent of the services without having to go to the over the counter service that we can work on. Do you think that there'll be a digital voting system put in place in Taiwan? As for example, in Estonia, now they have around 44% of people that actually voting online. And I was seeing the demographic and it's a lot of elderly people that actually voting online today. So it actually has changed. In a sense, yeah, in a sense, we already do the participatory budgeting system of many municipalities are voted online. The presidential hackers are voted online. There's many cases like this, but they have one commonality, voting for things, not for people. So in the voting for people part, the elections, that is entirely analog. And this is because in Taiwan, our counting process is a person taking out a piece of paper and people, anyone in the audience can just record it. So it's extremely transparent. You have YouTubers of all the different major parties watching like literally each voting for person ballot being counted. Now for electronic voting system to arrive to this degree of accountability is very difficult. But unless it does, we probably would not augment the voting for people part with e-voting. But voting for things, well, that's fine because there's no exponential return. Okay, well, maybe we will be able to get a confident place also on the voting. We are actually using voting also for people within the movement. So that's something we've exploring. And we're exploring also the voting on blockchain. We're now looking on Monero, for example, a system we've been exploring. So maybe there'll be... I'm quite familiar with those technologies. What I'm just saying is that to compare that with essentially YouTubers watching each paper being counted is a very high bar for accountability. Yes, it certainly is. But we'll work towards it surely. Well, thank you very much for this chat. It was great to speak to you again and keep up the great work you're doing there in Taiwan. I'm always very interested to see any new article or new presentation you give out. So I'll be very interested in today's time to see the new plan for three years from now. Okay, excellent. Yeah, let's keep in touch. And by the way, the final question, would you prefer for this video to be just published to the commons or do we have to make a transcript? Well, what's... As you prefer, I mean... Okay, maybe I'll just publish the video. It's easier. Yeah, okay, perfect. Okay, all right, thank you. Thank you. Live long and prosper. Bye. Thank you.