 I tried to, with Swedish comments and Swedish on Taiwan, and I tried to write some for you at least once a week. That's great. My daily work is really good. So I don't know how to write it, but it's a bit of a huge thing. So we have to go now. So yeah, I'm going to go on. Okay, so let's proceed. Yes. As far as I understand, you have not only written about Taiwan as a writing country, but also about developing democracy. Okay, so my main work, since 1985-96 or so, is on the idea of scalable listening. A scalable listening technology, broadly speaking, is any way to scale, meaning making more of the experience of people like you and I at the moment having our photos on each other and paying attention to each other's state and having a real and deep conversation. This experience, that is great, but it doesn't scale more to, say, 20 people and end table, right? Beyond which we will need professional facilitators. But even the best professional facilitator can't hold more than, say, 150 people in a town hall that's likely maximum. And beyond which we will need technologies to help us to still listen to people. And there's already technology that enables persons to speak to millions of people, like they mentioned on radio. So it enables one person, sometimes a data, to speak to millions of people. But there's no confidence technology that enables one to listen to millions of people, or for the matter of fact to have millions of people listen to one another. And that is until the event of the internet. The internet's original promise, if you read the manifesto for separate space independence and things like that, was that people can use it to listen to people with different opinions and for reasons, especially. And so on. That kind of happens then on the technical community, in the open source community, in the free software community, and then later on to the free culture community, including Wikipedia and other movements. But more and more we're also seeing echo chambers and further bubbles, and things that reinforce this one another's prejudice, rather than having people to actually listen. They enable more people to have a very shallow, like a hashtag keyword experience of being listened to. But it's not the real authentic narrative or idea of being listened, but just the subscription to some keywords or a shallow opinion. What I mean by scalable listening, I mean by scaling out as more people, scaling in more places, and scaling up, meaning more volumes, more conversations, and also scaling deeply, meaning a conversation of a higher quality. And so that's the three dimensions of scaling listening. And so I have to do this thing, democracy, as a way for people listening to each other to manifest into collective decisions that is uncontroversial to everybody involved. And that can make it beneficial to everybody involved, at least without overt sacrifice for people involved. And so this is an idea currently called open multistakeholder governance. And we use that for many climate change, like things that are so complex, we can't not use this method. By the moment where most of the democracies are not using this method for domestic issues or issues available scale. And there's exceptions, of course, with their referendums, as a prime example. But in Taiwan we're also having a new referendum act that is very Swiss-ish. And actually it was maybe the lower threshold more for a conversation. So in Taiwan a lot of those so-called direct democracy methods are being adopted to be the decisions for a referendum and things like that. And for me I see my main vision as adding to it the depth, the breadth, the inclusion, the quality of conversation, as well as the number of people involved and scaling it in all those three dimensions so as to turn direct democracy into a more participative democracy. That's my main vision. But isn't that the risk when you're talking about future problems in some of that extreme groups? That's right. So it matters how we design our online spaces. So for example in all our online spaces for impetition, for consensus making, and for petitioning, for example, we have people outlining their arguments pro-incom and, you know, assemble into different groups of opinions and reflections but we don't allow replying to each other. So there is no distraction from each other's arguments. The only way to beat, so to speak, argument that you don't agree with is by proposing a better argument. And so that's how we avoid wasting each other's time because time is the most precious resource and with time we can either generate distrust or generate trust and in a collaborative space where people are apt to something that generates trust and in a competitive space where people console each other out that generates distrust. So we design our space as to generate trust instead of distrust. And how does this type of democracy work together with the Parliamentary? Right. So in a moment, because we're in the administration, we see the regulation making which is a function of the administration, a kind of delegated power from the Parliament who defined the basic laws on which regulations are developed. So the regulation co-creation with the civil society and with the private sector and with international friends, that is the main field in which it is undisputed because the Parliament already delegated the power of regulation level policy making to the administration. And so that is in fact our main work. But we also do more consensus making, deliberative polling, this kind of work to prepare drafts version of acts because in Taiwan the administration can propose drafts of the law to the Parliament. So it doesn't have to be MP to propose a draft. The administration can also propose a draft in which case this participatory space is to save the fact of gathering time and the reflection of gathering time for the MPs. So it's like we do the preparatory work for the MPs. The MPs can have a much more deeper reason to debate based on the initial consensus making work that we prepared for the draft act. That played a factor in, for example, the platform economy like Uber lost. But most of the time, let's say 90% of the time, we're working on the administration regulation level instead of the law that we're doing. Okay. And as I understand, all your meetings are public. That's right. That is very revolutionary, I guess, in Taiwan. What do other ministers say? What do the people in your administration say? They don't use this. No. So it is not live-streamed. We very rarely use live-streamed. We use live-streamed early when everybody in the room is comfortable with it. As long as one person opposes to live-streamed, we don't use live-streamed. This is live-streamed? No. It's not. So what we're saying is basically it is a co-created work. So if you have anything that you've said that you don't want to be published, it should be your freedom from surveillance, really, so that you can instruct our colleague doing a camera work to say, you know, this part of the utterance I'm not confident is for this to get to public. And in internal meetings, normally we publish only the transcript, not the video recording. And so the transcript, again, is collaborative edited for about two weeks for internal meetings before publishing it. And so this has three effects. The first effect is that in many meetings, people are so eager to speak, they don't really listen. So after they go over the transcript, they actually listen to the other side. This is very important. The second thing is that it provides accountability. For many people who see a policy being made, the administration is not as transparent as the Supreme Court, the court system, or the parliament, who all has a accountability trail of what discussion led to this decision. But for policy-level meetings, many times the administration just announced a new policy change. But nobody knows what was their discussion that led to the policy change. So we're providing accountability trail much as the parliament and the Supreme Court and the court system is doing the thing. So it established people's trust in the administration to match the people's trust to the parliament and the judiciary functions. So that's the second thing, established trust. And I think the third thing is that it let the professional public servant to share the credit. Because, where as before, when a new policy is made, the ministry takes all the credit. But all the actually working options are done by professional public servants. And if it goes wrong, the ministry can always point a blame to the failure of execution of the public service. It's not very fair. But in this kind of environment, the public servant who proposes a new innovation, they get credit because the journalists can go back to the transcript and see the actual agency and the person who actually proposes this revolutionary new social innovation. But do the journalists really go back? They do. They do. And they do because in all my public speech, in all my interactive Q&A and so on, I do my best to credit my professional public service colleagues. And because this is a newer policy making, if there's any risk associated with it, I absorb the risk because I introduced this mechanism. So this flips the risk reward. Okay, matrix. They can share the credit and I absorb some of the risk instead of like the old battle days where I would take all the credit and share the blame. So it's a different environment and I found that in this environment the public service are much more willing to make suggestions for innovations that could be risky because they know that I can absorb some of the risk. Okay. But do this method now you are controlling part of the government? Does it spread to others? Because in my work in public government or in social innovation it actually crosses easily all the different ministries. So in all the ministries we have participation offices who are like media offices or parliamentary offices part of the administration that talk to stakeholders instead of MPs or traditional journalists and so these peers they are used to this kind of working and they are all over the different ministries and the social innovation tour for example every other Tuesday I go to one of the four regional centres and about 12 different ministry about 20 people are in here in the social innovation lab while I go to the rural or indigenous or whatever places and use live streaming to talk and so they are now seeing with me as kind of investigative journalists of the local social innovators challenges and many challenges are in fact created by outdated regulations and so these people here the ministry people they are not just used to this kind of view conferencing not reporting with me as the anchor but also is used to this kind of rolling co-creation so that they can respond very quickly to a actual problem faced by such an intervener and we make sure that it's on track and like within two weeks they get a preliminary reply and within two months where I go back to the same place it must have been resolved and so this is a rolling system of what is the goal of the government it is not just a white shot thing but is there a new resistance? well still far because we are working on places where there could really be co-creative benefits with met no resistance and the reason why is that I don't really issue commands if people are not comfortable with being published for example I once met a journalist who want to take part of her speech from all the transfers so the transfer looks like being monolog okay and I'm fine with that I don't really impress myself on other people and so people decide for themselves what kind of radical transparency degree they're comfortable with I think because of this I've met very few resistance okay what do lobbyists think? what do lobbyists think? well I think a lot of industry leaders want to meet you and still say the lobbyists are first we have a law that prevents against misuse of power with lobbyists so any minister is really required to keep a record if they meet us anyway we have a lobbying act here so what we're doing is just much more detailed recording the summaries we actually have down to the word level of transfer meeting these lobbyists many lobbyists I think approach me because I'm in charge of most social innovation which means creating a new bias instead of redistributing both resources so they're actually quite open of having their ideas and their business model as long as it's not a trade secret to women public as part of the transfer because they're really using me as a channel to meet people with synergies and so I would often refer people who come to my office hour to previous people who have come to my office hour and say the two of you really have some synergy you can read that transcript and see how you can organize together and so I think many lobbyists see it as a boom because it's like free advertisement for them and if they have any trade secret they can just require to have that part and then let out of the transcript anyway so Taiwan is becoming the most open company in the world because of the government of this country if you just measure the maximum it's not very equally distributed what we're trying to do is to repeat the pilot absorb the risk and let the other ministry see that it really reduces some work and absorb some risk so they can introduce at their own pace so what we're seeing is that in a lot of very controversial role-making, this kind of radical transparency is being adopted by rule makers I would not say that this is now the norm for all public hearings or for lobbying it is slowly being where I'm looking for is osmosis there's a slow osmosis into the ministries and agencies but in many regards the local governments, the city level governments are still leading this kind of transparency over the central government which are by definition and by tradition a little bit more towards stabilized policymaking rather than a real quick response fixed policymaking I understand for me Taiwan is two traditions one tradition is the history of forming Taiwan and the other tradition is the strong protest movement isn't that the correct assessment well of course there's people who remember the martial law I'm like the last people who remember life under the martial law my brother four years younger than me doesn't remember the martial law anymore and so he remembers the protest movements but not the martial law the ban on freedom of speech and assembly so yeah there's two generations if you should describe what the sunflower will be the sunflower movement is a culmination of many different social issues around the Occupy there's around 20 different NGOs each focusing on one particular aspect of the cross trade agreement CSSTA and the CSSTA is pretty pervasive it really touches on all the different parts of the society so that people will focus on the environment focus on labour focus on specific trades focus on the Taiwan independence people and people who work for example the grassroots the deliberative movements all the different NGOs they define their voice being I would say amplified and synthesized as part of the Occupy every NGO kind of had their own corner and the people are like buzzing bees that ideas spread from the NGOs to NGOs and synthesized by the people who participated in the Occupy and recorded and livestreamed and gradually toured a consensus and so it is one of the very rare Occupy stuff because it has a social object at the core there's the trade agreement that everybody want to make sense of so there's many different tools and technologies and websites and other systems that let people for example enter your company name or whatever and it lists in plain readable form how the CSSTA affects you and so this kind of things help the Occupy to focus on this common social object rather than many other occupies where it just become a concomitant of all the different issues so this is a very focused Occupy and so the demonstration is a demo in the sense that it is possible for half a million people on the street and many more online to gradually come to a shared understanding not necessarily completely precisely correct but a shared understanding of where we're going in regard to the CSSTA and so it is sort of a existential proof that this kind of proud consensus making is possible and not just possible it is a lot of fun actually for a lot of people but if I was a traditional liberal I would say that this you elect a parliament they should be responsible to evaporate and now comes a lower occupying parliament and also a parliament transition isn't that? I mean that was a very interesting thing because at the time the parliament was refusing to deliberate the CSSTA like any other foreign trade so it's agreement because they constitutionally interpret Beijing as part of Taiwan and so it's like a domestic agreement they don't really need parliamentary oversight it's at a policy making level rule making regulation level for them it's not at a parliamentary level so they kind of I would say abdicated their duty to deliberate and so the people occupied and demonstrated were mainly liberated in alternative fashion so it is a very specific and unique circumstance where the people are saying MPs are not doing it so we're doing it so the people said co-operating with China is good this consensus of for example that it should be a due process just like any trade service agreement was another country like Beijing should not for the sake of this trade service agreement be treated as a city government it really doesn't make sense and there's many other consensus items that's being brought to the form and I think it's very symbolic that ahead of the parliament at the time the MP wants to meet kind of just a meet on the final consensus point which is why people retreated it's a scene widely seen as a victory because the MPs are kind of picking up the ball from the people saying I understand and we agree with the consensus Does Taiwan speaks mainly at the same time with just China China is going in the world of the Italian rule there are factors to each other there are millions of Chinese troops coming to Taiwan Does this have a new influence on China? Some power I mean on the technology level there's many technologies that deploy it in the samplar occupied and afterwards are deployed again in the umbrella movement in Hong Kong and in fact many technologies participated in both occupied and with a shared technical step so that's on the technology level of course the social circumstance and the outcome are very different but it does create a broad solidarity between the samplar activists and the umbrella activists so that is a direct observation that many people have made in the sense that using the same groups just aligns people with this kind of proud democracy I don't have any evidence that this has influenced activists directly in the Beijing regime but we do see a lot of interest in the specific tools that we use for live streaming for transcription, for coordination for logistics individually as civic technologies from people in the PRC the civic tech movement PRC often refer to our work as a example that they can pick but use in their local context but then the same is happening in many parts of Asia and globally as well so for that matter it is not that different from any civic tech community anywhere in the world I've learned that you describe yourself as a concerned anarchist but anarchist means really digital tech there's parts of different strands of anarchism and they share a common I think that poor in the sense that we don't believe in command we don't believe in hierarchies we only believe in voluntary association and we think any command destroys this peer-to-peer relationship and only peer-to-peer relationship should exist so if there is a governance model that is entirely peer-to-peer open multi-stakeholder it could still cause a government and still be properly anarchist but of course we're very far from there but what I'm saying is that first I'm demystifying how government works so all those transcripts the one is the college education process to let people see the administration not as an opaque box but as a set of mechanisms that people can freely replicate in the civil society so for many social innovators they are free to for example measure the amount of air pollution close to their homes without waiting for the environmental protection agency to measure it and they can also organize using the internet and distribute the ledger technology so that they can share the data and collaborate with people from all over the world and in the sense this is governance and we in the administration work collaboratively with the civil society in many different Asian countries the government will try to control or limit this kind of legitimacy threatening civil association but what we're doing is providing free supercomputing facilities better qualities so that people from all strands of civil society can compare their analysis on the same shared factual basis so as to build trust again that's my main mandate so this kind of collaboration again moves the function from something that used to be people imagine that only a government can do to something that social innovators can also do with the help from the government so this is the model the social innovation model that we're moving to where we solve the problem of the problem solvers but instead of being the solver of all problems here and so any step toward this direction make the society more anarchistic and so that is where the conservative means instead of destroying the state okay okay okay we're saying that we're taking approaches where every step is voluntarily accepted by the people involved so that the government can relinquish power gradually look do you see a lot of your ideas could be used both locally and internationally do you get a lot of interest for what you're doing? yes very much so we regularly hold webinars and there's this kind of social innovation sharing occasion like this there's thousands of people coming to Taekjong for the Tomorrow Asia and the Presidential Hecathlon for example where we work with civil society and the public administration we get an invitation from New Zealand where they want to invite the winner to come to New Zealand to solve the problem with their public service so I think within the framework of sustainable development there's many contributions that we can make individually but the system we're working on is right here in the SDG 17 which is this international and cross sector collaboration and this system is what we get the main interest from civil government worldwide thank you I would like to make a short I just have to do my course thank you cross stage service trade agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement agreement Rwy'r ysgrif hon master i gynnwys ystryf. Rwy'r rai'r ystyrf yn y amgylchol ei fwrdd. Rwy'r ysgrif yn rhanig ar ysgrif. Mae'r maelydd yma. Rwy'r ystyrf yn rhanig ar ysgrif. Rwy'r ystyrf yn rhanig ar ysgrif. can see how I'm approaching my decision-making in any policy-making purpose so that people have the full context of the meetings that I've had, so that they can give me their suggestions or their participation or their opinions in a well-informed fashion. So all this is kind of material for a public well-informed citizen science. So lobbyists that have a meeting with you get a request if it is okay that you record? Yes, so the principle is this. If you livestream this meeting, I'm also livestreaming. If you record this meeting as you're doing it now, then I'm also recording this meeting to be published under a Creative Commons license later. And if you just have a written summary, then I'm publishing just a written transcript. So there's a certain symmetry here. And also for the journalists and the civil society, this provides a very quick way to assess what I'm doing in a day-to-day fashion so that they can understand what kind of policy-making focus I'm currently doing at the moment. So for the lobbyists, if they choose the transcript option, they're free to edit away their trace secret or any improper utterances they may have said or any incomplete sentences they have alluded to so that they can kind of change or edit it for 10 days but just modifying their part instead of my part. So what I'm doing is on a voluntary fashion. I voluntarily publish all my other insistent meetings, but people participating in the meeting can, in this open by default setting, open the parts that they are coming with. So your vision is that Taiwan becomes the most open country in the world? Well, for me, the idea is to have this system where people can deploy and have this kind of transcription, this kind of publishing, this kind of searching and indexing. So it is not to compete with other parts of the world or transcription publication and the other technologies we've learned from other cities and other governments as well. So this is a global network of civil service innovators who will try to use this kind of thing to make our government around the world to be more open. So this is a collaboration project. Thank you very much. Thank you. So, let's go. Thank you. Do you know about the Swedish legislation on public records? A little bit, but not. If I ask for a document from the municipality, they must, according to the law, leave it, remain it, and then they know it. That's right. It's one of the panions of the line. Yeah. But you are more radical than that. Yeah, yes. I'm pushing the limit. Yeah, you're doing well. Thank you. My name is a journalist meeting with a lobbyist. Okay, sir. Who wants to abolish animal rights. Oh, okay, okay. They say animal rights. Oh, okay, okay, okay. So by making zero points publicly, we tend to see that this could be framed instead of a zero-sum scheme as a development of simulations or AI technologies, a development of the biomed industry, and so on. Because if you can simulate part of the human organ, it is more precise than a mouse, right, or things like that. So it could be phrased in a way that is an innovation that is beneficial to the industries as well. And this is why the lobbying people are okay with me putting it on the radar, because they are not trying to take something away. They are trying to forge something that is waiting for everyone. What is the general, when you're on a call to the industry, is obvious for example? Most of the acceptance. It's okay that you're recording. Yes, because you can see I'm a minister of example for the media, I don't have a ministry. So I don't really have any direct budget to allocate. All I can allocate is people's attention. Which is actually more scarce than capital aid money. So of course they want to have the full context instead of just the slowest. Okay, okay. Yes. So, that's different. First of all, you two should take a photo for me. Second of all, they want to take a photo for you. You're a fan. You're a fan. Take a photo. Take a photo. I'll take a photo for you. I'll take a photo for you. I worked. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Before I became the minister, but he was announced as a law minister. I was in Europe for one month before actually going into office. Oh, do you count? Yes. Of course I need visa. mae gydwch fod yn y fاصchwit hwnnw. Dun o'r fاصchwit yn y brifysgol, y ddau ynherbyn hynny. Felly mae'r brifysgol yn cael gyrraedd. Ac yn dweud , ddweud pethau i ddweud, mae'r fonsiad ei ddweud i'w ffysgol. Umroedd yn osud, mae mwywydd am gweithio i ddweudio. Felly mae'r munaw hanfodol. Mae'r munaw hanfodol wedi'u gwybod i ddod yma. Mae yna ddweudio i ddweud i ddweud i ddweudio. Mae'r hwn wedi wneud y gwirionedd a'i syniad hynny'n gwneud am y doddiadol.