Minister Tang, digital and democracy, these two worlds, how can they fit together? How could you make it fit so well together?

I filmed this entire clip about about bubble tea.

Explained this in depth. It’s an idea of democracy, not as a fixed thing, but rather as a social technology that everyone can innovate on. The thing about digital is that it transcends space and time boundaries, so many concurrent innovations can happen concurrently.

If it’s about paper based voting, for example, the bandwidth is very limited, the latency is long, like once every four years, every two years. You can’t get people to vote through paper voting every day. It’s unimaginable. It’s too much social friction and cost.

It’s easy actually to get people to sign an e petitions and so on every time because it literally just takes a couple of seconds.

You said often democracy improves as more people participate, of course. So how Taiwan was able to improve its people’s participation to democracy?

By making sure that the people set agenda, not just their government because too often online conversations are taken only as a consultative manner, in the sense that the minister already set agenda and they will just want some input from the public.

That sort of publication, of course, people who will get affected as stakeholders will still provide input, but the general public, they don’t really have any interest in that because it’s not immediately relevant.

But through, for example, e petition and participatory budgeting, the people can set their own agenda, so things they consider as important but the government does not yet become aware of it have a way to just ripple through the population.

Making sure that, for example, when people want to change the time zone of Taiwan to that of +9, and another 8,000 people, both sides 8,000 people, another side said no, they’re staying +8, it’s unlikely that the minister will set that as a political agenda but was e petitioned as 16,000 people.

Could you provide, maybe, an example of it?

Sure, sure. As I mentioned, there were 8,000 people petitioning to say we change the time zone to that of +9. They say, “We’ll reduce cost. We will,” I don’t know, “make working hours longer. Better economic activity.” So on.

But actually, at the end of the day, the common value was that they wanted Taiwan to be seen as more unique, and they want people traveling, for example, from Beijing, to have to change their watch…

But the other side pointed out it will actually be a net economic loss, and we actually calculated very deliberately about how exactly it would impact our economy. We calculated it would be a cost, it would a net loss of activity, and the net loss would be recurring. That is to say, we would be paying for it every year.

But if it’s worth it, then maybe we do that, but it’s not worth it. Taiwan maybe gain 15 minutes of fame internationally, or maybe people adjust their watch once, but nowadays people wear a smartwatch anyway.

They adjust themselves so it doesn’t really cause the same kind of cause and effect as the original petitioner thought, but we all agree, both sides of petitioners all agree, that making Taiwan seem more unique in the world is important. We spend our time doing collaboration meeting with both sides agreeing finally.

Maybe we should use the same budget but not to change time zones but rather to promote marriage equality. To make sure our human rights records which are getting much better compared to 40 years ago are well known in the world. Parties being open, governments partnership and so on.

We still agree with what those 18,000, 16,000 people have said but we don’t necessarily agree on the prescription. I think this is a good example because it shows that open government is about setting the priority on the values and the common values not necessarily on the implementations.

What is the digital and technology role in fighting the pandemic and in Taiwan?

Yeah. I think it plays an assistive role. The most important thing as we all know is wearing mask, keeping social distance, making sure contact tracing works reliably, good quarantine system is the one which is not digital as I checked, so is chemical technology. It’s still technology not digital.

While we have contributed for example last year to ensure that people have fair access to masks so they don’t panic, basically. This year to shorten the contact tracing from over 24 hours to less than 24 minutes through SMS based contact tracing.

Vaccination which is of course very important, and we drastically shortened the time that Taiwan reaches three quarters of people vaccinated by identifying people’s vaccine preferences and matching them with the incoming shipments of vaccines.

The digital contribution is to make things more swift and also more safe. When people see that they can reliably get access to a mask and vaccines and so on people don’t panic. That’s as important as the actual supply itself.

I actually many times wrote that on January 3rd, 2020. I came here for following the election. I already experienced that the Taiwan airport there were the thermal scanners.

That’s right. Yeah. We set it up on the first day of January.

In Italy, we tend to think that giving more room to digital and technology could threaten the privacy. Is this true or there is a way to combine the two things. I mean, safety and also privacy?

We call them privacy enhancing technologies, RPTs. There are technology that takes privacy away but there’s also technology that adds back privacy or even design privacy as the beginning of the design.

For example, in Taiwan, when you scan the QR code and send an SMS the telecom carrier doesn’t know what those 15 digits mean, is kept somewhere else. This QR code maker doesn’t know which venue you’re frequented.

The venue owner doesn’t know anything about you, it doesn’t even know about your phone number.

Through what we call decentralized or multi party storage, none of these participants have the full data that can reconstitute your whereabouts. Only the contact tracers can do that. They can get only do that within a limited time span. Within four weeks. After four weeks all the data is deleted. All the checking ins from the telecoms.

The upshot is that by adopting intentionally privacy enhancing technology, in this case, multi party storage, we make sure that people are not lured into giving up their personal data to more centralized solutions. Of course, if you prefer pen and paper you can still do that.

For example, if you trust the venue owner a lot more than you trust everybody else combined then you can still write your names. There’s some innovations there and it will pull a ballot box so that they make sure that you’re queuing after you don’t see your phone number. At the end of the day, the staff will still see your phone number, it’s up to you to decide.

It’s not a top down thing that takes away choices, but rather it adds more privacy enhancing choices.

Would you consider Taiwan a digital sovereign state and what Taiwan is doing about the data protection?

I think .tw, is of course, internationally recognized, even from Beijing. If you type digitalminister.tw, it goes to my machine, not some other machine. .tw exists, it’s not disputed. Let’s dispute it, then the physical. Digitally, it’s less disputed. .tw is a top level domain.

I think what you have in mind in this question, maybe about data transmission, right?

Yeah, I mean that.

Right. Not the domain itself.

No.

[laughs] OK. I think in terms of data transmission, we’ve traditionally been quite open, in the sense that we’re OK to accept the kind of norms that private sector brings to the table. If it’s a European operator, then of course, it has to obey the GDPR.

If it’s the American one, then of course, the cross border rule of the APAC, which is less strict than GDPR, is enforced, but we don’t a priority say that. We prefer GDPR to CBPR. We say that if you want to do business with Europeans who have to follow their rules, and we’re here to protect whatever norms that people agree on.

At this moment, I think we’re a very diverse situation when it comes to data transmission.

In China, we are seeing a crackdown, if this is the correct word on digital and tech platforms. First of all, I wish to ask you if this is the correct word to describe it, crackdown or rectification or what else, and what’s at risk in this process?

OK. Objectively speaking, it’s a restriction. It’s basically saying, there are certain governmental functions that only the state government can do. They do not accept the private law, co governing relationship with those technology platforms.

They want all the algorithm, the code of computers to be obedient to the code of law. That is to say, it has to be spelled out as acceptable by the central government before the coders can actually implement something. It’s a way to look at Internet governance from a very domestic rule of law perspective.

Which is why sometimes people say it’s Intranet. It’s not exactly Internet, in which there’s some inherent values, end to end principle, permissionless innovation and things like inherent in the configuration of Internet itself.

But on Intranet, of course, people are saying, yeah, within a single organization, if they don’t peer with other network providers, then they get to set their own rule. With the great firewall and such that the PRC is basically treating the entire jurisdiction within the great firewall as one large Intranet.

So that, there’s only one system administrator and not many peering operators. I think at stake is the ability to innovate. Basically, to make sure that…for example, I always use the example of Dr. Li Wenliang whose message spread to Taiwan on December 31st, and literally saved the Taiwanese people because the very next day we started those inspections that you saw.

Exactly the same message. NPRC resulted that Dr. Li gets reprimanded by the local police that his post must be taken down or harmonized, or he must publicly disappear his own messages and so on. His message did not reach the people of Wuhan.

There’s a tangible difference of the result. That’s at stake. The free speech, free assembly and so on, all are hinged upon freedom of expression on the platforms that allows a certain degree of privacy law, a private space.

Of course, whether that’s unlimited, of course, I don’t think any jurisdiction says it’s unlimited. There are certain things, for example, the non consensual sexual images about young people. That, of course, many jurisdictions say, maybe the state should do something about it.

Obviously, that’s really one of us not spreading things.

No.

[laughs] There’s this huge gap between things that are generally considered state jurisdiction, and things that are generally considered press freedom. By conflating these and saying, no, everything need to be pre approved, then the room for free speech and assembly is greatly diminished and was the state that we see.

OK. Back into Taiwan, because I think that some companies like TSMC, for example, of Foxconn Hon Hai, sometimes they act as diplomatic actors, for example when in purchasing the…

The Pfizer.

Yeah. I want to ask, what’s the relationship between Taiwan government, Taiwan state and its private companies?

Yeah. I think the Pfizer case is a very interesting case, because it’s not just economic actors, as I mentioned, but also Tzu Chi which is charity, altruistic organization.

In Taiwan, the legitimacy, especially internationally of Tzu Chi or of TSMC, or of Foxconn, could in some cases be considerably higher than that of our representatives. Mostly, because in jurisdictions that do not offer recognition of Taiwan, it differs which domains do they consider Taiwan’s representative.

For example, on the economic domain, maybe people consider Taiwan representative on the cultural domain, maybe. Many other domains, it’s often on a case by case basis, but on those domains, sometimes there’s very large, multinational social sector or private sector organizations carries a kind of gravitas and a kind of weight that lends itself a higher legitimacy.

When added to Taiwan’s representative from the governmental function, it effects a more bilateral negotiation status that can effect a more effective contract.

Another thing is, Taiwan to participate to the democratic supply chains that now US, and I know the US are trying to push excluding China. For example, on some particular sector like technology.

Yeah. I think in Taiwan in 2014 we already decided that, in our then new 4G infrastructure, we need to be wary. Not of certain brand or certain company, but from certain polities.

We didn’t say that this brand or that brand we don’t use for 4G. We say from those authoritarian regimes, any of those brands which are theoretically private sector. They may even pass every security inspections, but the next week, maybe, they get taken over.

Through non market forces the authoritarian regimes can just swap their leadership, and we’ve seen examples. Then we’ll have to redo systemic risk assessment, like every update, every security patch, and so on. We have to reevaluate to see whether this firm has been de facto taken over and amortized. This cost of revaluation is actually much higher.

When it initially looks cheaper, it’s actually not cheap at all when you’re looking in a long term, taking into account the political risk. We might as well pay more, but work with trusted partners. For example, Nokia or Qualcomm and so on, which are very unlikely to be taken over by state actor the next week.

I think that’s a conversation that needs to happen in a general population level, and we had a long discussion around that in 2014. I think the rough consensus is non partisan. All the different parties in Taiwan all agree broadly that we should not allow PRC components in our 4G infrastructure.

Is there still a need of another conversation about this, for example about semi conductors?

I think every jurisdiction need to have their own conversation about that. There is no universal method to set the boundaries, and the boundaries also shift based on the actual state taken over, activities that we see.

The limits of the private sector’s freedom have worsened or increased — depending on what state you are — whether you are this side of the grey wall or not, right? Has really deepened in the past seven years. I think continuous free assessment is needed.

Do you think that the Taiwan international space recognition is increasing recently? Also, how can Taiwan apply digital democracy to help Taiwan to reach abroad the same results as it did on board, to strengthen the relationships and partnerships?

There are two things. One is a very practical thing in that higher level officials in my counterparts around other countries are much more used to being in conference as compared to two years ago.

Previously, if I am attending a video conference, usually I meet younger working level counterparts. So, not really my counterpart. If I have to meet my real counterpart, I have to travel physically, or they have to travel physically.

If it is a multi lateral setting then there is all sorts of things about protests, about passports, about diplomatic fall out and about things like that.

Nowadays, all the senior officials are very used to video conferencing and if we setup video conferencing there is no one protesting or checking our passports. Indeed, there is no difference between member or observer. There is no seating, everybody is just a 16 by 9 box.

In that arrangement, the freedom of movement and the freedom to associate with my counterparts has greatly expanded, because my counterparts, ministers or parliamentarians in other countries, they don’t have to fear retaliation. They can just ping me and we set up a video conference like that.

It’s greatly expanded in a very practical sense and then don’t have to suffer jet lag anymore either. You don’t have to. Only more symbolic, not practical sense.

I think Taiwan’s role in contributing to fighting the pandemic with no lockdown and the infodemic with no take down really showed that there’s a possibility for a democracy to deliver instead of to be seen as a hindrance.

If you look at only the more authoritarian jurisdictions, there’s this narrative that says you have to sacrifice the freedom of assemble, of speech for the greater good during those extraordinary pandemic times. Taiwan, along with New Zealand, is a great counter narrative that says, actually, we didn’t give up any freedom, we did even better.

There’s something in our way of participating in the counter pandemic that’s not led by the state but rather led by the people. The citizen centric democracies and social technology actually pay dividends when we are facing the pandemic and infodemic.

More symbolic level people can and they do cite Taiwan to pressure their democratic governments to be even more democratic instead of declining back to authoritarianism. That, of course, elevated talent status along with New Zealand and friends.

My last question: can Taiwan’s model be applied also somewhere else and be an example for somewhere else?

Yes, definitely. As I mentioned, for example, when Japan cleanses digital agency which is set up this year, and I mean constant monthly talk with the professors there.

They do see that the young people are citing Taiwan, referencing Taiwan, and saying that the government should trust their citizens more. That the young people, and not necessarily young people, people who are new to this whole public policy sign. They could be very old but took on an interest in public participation.

People from the grassroots are actually capable of setting the agenda and the priority especially in the times when it’s very unpredictable and the state doesn’t have the standardized answer to each emerging threat. Especially in these uncertain times. Japan decoded VUCA times or something.

The collective intelligence needs to be trusted and augmented. They explicitly cited our model as an example. I do think our message is resonating not necessarily just in young people, but young people who have had some success maybe locally, maybe they solved a natural disaster, a typhoon, or earthquake, or something together.

They get empowered or successful occupy movement, non violently, and then they want to escalate their decision making power in front of a local community to a larger, like a city government, a metropolitan government or even the countrywide government.

They can point to Taiwan and say, well, they used to have absolute apathy in political engagement, the government was not trusted, the trust level was below 10 percent.

In 2014, in 2013, nobody thought that collective intelligence would be a thing but in a very short span from 2014 to now, it’s just seven years, then we became something that of what I call people public private partnership model.

With effort, other jurisdictions already enjoying some civic spaces they can also make the same commitment and invest in those public infrastructures in the digital realm. Then within may be less than seven years they can pay dividends in terms of the mutual trust and also resilience.

But very often in the Western world we are experiencing a lack of a long view.

Right. I think that the main product of this partnership between the citizens, the private, and the public sector is the norm. It’s a very strong norm. People would innovate ideas that go viral. For example, wear a mask to protect yourself against your own unwashed hand.

This meme is much easier to spread to people who have doubt about the mask because if you wear it, it protects your own face against your own hands, of course.

It links it to hand washing. That is a much more potent meme to go viral than, for example, “Wear a mask to protect the elderly.” If they don’t live with the elderly, or if they don’t respect the elderly that means nothing, and they won’t spread this message.

With this absolute freedom to create, to co create, at the end of the day, the memes that are most pro social that has the highest public benefit, gets amplified. It doesn’t matter which party it’s from. It’s irrelevant to political parties.

Just as the meme that I just described as saying, the 4G infrastructure, if we allow PRC, private sector components, we’ll have to reassess every week whether it’s been taken over.

Once people generally understand this meme, then it becomes something non political. Then, people can move on and think about something more immediate and more longer term. The key to long termism is on the effective resolution of those positional conflicts in the short term.

Thank you, Minister. I think that’s all for our interview.

Excellent.

OK.

Thank you. Exactly half an hour.