This is Article 9. Google Translator does a pretty good idea of translating it, anyway, but the high level summary. The Article 14 says that, from the beginning of this process, within two months, there needs to be a blueprint meeting.

Right. Just to make it clear, it’s like this.

Yes, exactly. It exclusively cites the British Columbia, Ireland, South Africa, and Iceland as its inspirations, so to speak.

[laughs] Yeah. I suppose the designer of this bootstrapping constitutional reform law imagined that one of the not quite binding -- but hopefully binding in the end -- resolution will be to lower the threshold for constitutional change. That’s just how it’s designed.

That’s correct. Because it can’t override constitution the itself for high the threshold from the Parliament is needed to change it...

The idea is that, by involving everyone from the legislative, as well as from the citizen assembly, there’s much more chance for the result, whatever the result is, to pass through the very high threshold that was there to begin with.

No. [laughs] This is to bind the legislation. Because Taiwan has an extremely high threshold for constitutional change, it first has to pass three-quarter in the Parliament for any amendment to go through. Then it has to pass a general referendum-ish vote.

There are three constitutional components. All around, it’s 146 people, where the indigenous people are six, the legislators are 35, and everything else is randomly sampled. It is a hybrid.

The CDCs, I was just reading your reply email. It is true that the constitutional draft bill is more a hybrid. It says basically around half of the button-up constitutional thing is statistically, randomly, very representatively driven, but the other parts are from the legislators, and one from all the ...

...your side. In any case, why don’t we start because we’re recording anyway? You both can join.

OK, right. I’m recording voice. As usual, I’m...

Thank you.

Yeah.

Yeah, thank you.

Cheers.

OK.

It’s part of the bottom-up process. This is how you get presidential letters in the end.

Yeah, right, exactly.

Yeah, everything is in English.

Change your wording into some more amiable or whatever. I think that’s one of the reason I publish all the conversation, is because there’s a lot of synergies between people who are looking for governance, for sustainability. This is why we can send people, like, "Hey, this guy here who ...

Right, exactly. You can pull everything out. You can pull everything out.

Yeah, but you can edit away the parts you don’t like to be published. You can just randomly pull out...

I’ll send you transcripts. You can edit for 10 days, and we’ll publish everything.

It’s a cultural thing. We’re working for the next generation. It takes a generation to fully mature. Cool. You’re good?

Yeah, it’s se.pdis.tw, social enterprise. I’ll send you the transcripts.

That’s one of the concrete things that we can collaborate. There’s many other things.

You don’t have to be a university. Many of those programs work across organizations. It’s just usually, they just talk with organizations they are most familiar about. Actually, you can apply to any of these. This is the call for social innovation list that we’re posting every other week.

We actually align the values first, and say, "You don’t have to be...An organization can be just a person. Just call this number, and tell this person that you are working on such-and-such social innovation." It’s guaranteed that you don’t have to be indigenous person.

We have a lot of experiments. The list of experiments that’s going on, all the reward programs that we’re taking out, the cross-country tour that we’re doing, the actual programs that each of the ministries are looking for.

This kind of promotion on social innovation, as well as, I think, well-being, disaster recovery, whatever, is really aligned with the Minister of Health and Welfare’s core mandate, so there’s a lot of innovative programs here that we assemble under our national platform, se.pdis.tw, social enterprise-dot-PDIS.

Right, smart agriculture. AgTech, as they call it. Each of these minister are tasked to try something new -- it’s like the president hackathon -- and report to us which method actually works. We absorb the risk of them trying these kind of things.

They were as an intermediary. This kind of complex relationship, called pay for success, is one of the procurement innovations that we’re trying to do here. There’s many others. There’s ones tailoring for the co-op movement for, as I said, NPO owning a subsidiary company. There’s ones designing for smart ...

Deliver a profit if the government actually pays the extra budget, and absorb the risk if it doesn’t meet the goal. There is a referee here that tries to bridge the social beneficial goals from the government, as well as the individual social innovators, as well as people from the ...

It will change the procurement. Instead of paying for people to do something, it’s paying for people to deliver some actual value. It doesn’t pay if it doesn’t deliver such a value. What happens is that there is an independent evaluator, and an independent intermediary that absorbs the risk here ...

There’s a lot of it. What we are now trying to do is to bring the new innovative models, like just this today. The AVPN, the Asian Venture Philanthropy Network, here has this workshop on pay for success, which is a new social impact bond thing that changes the procurement ...

Everything else is much the same as other countries’ social enterprise plans. I think the national SDG and international connection, as well as the value-based reeducation across generations, these two, I think, are really Taiwan-specific, and really needs to happen before we can have a truly useful dialogue about participatory ...

The empowerment and education of sustainability values as actually the first goal of our National Social Innovation Plan, that’s what’s sorely missing, and that’s what we need to put a lot of funding and resources into.

They are consumer right protectors or whatever. They’re environmental protectors, but they’re not the loud kind of people, the dissidents. I think there’s a lot of it should now come to the forefront, which is why in the National Social Innovation Plan, we are now actually adding the Ministry of ...

There was people who care a lot about this, even during the martial law era. As I mentioned earlier, Leezen, Union Consumer Co-op, etc., they’ve been working on this ever since the martial law was lifted, but always in a way that seems nonthreatening.

A lot of it is, "The government knows best." The government measures, instead of asks, or works with people. I think we need to wait for a new generation of urban planners, and people who can work in a cross-sectoral way for this kind of new vocabulary to happen.

People who are younger than me, they no longer remember the martial law. I am the last generation who remember the martial law. It really was like that. People who are raised with no memory of martial law nevertheless gets a lot of predetermined thought patterns that came from the ...

It is a philosophical difference. I think part of it is because the people who were raised before the martial law was lifted, the top-down approach was the only approach. Every other dissidents has already fled the country.

Also, preschool education, this is a lot of parenting cues and so on. I think the human element is really missing. It’s like we just measure the citizens. We don’t ask the citizens.

That’s very well put. If you think of an IoT or a personal computing perspective, of course, you will focus on autonomous vehicles, or long term healthcare, sensors. They need a lot of sensors, telemedicine.

It’s a blank canvas?

Too late for that. [laughs]

Fingers crossed.

Wow. When we will know the results?

This is the final panel?

That all takes time to permeate to the local level, is what I’m saying.