Usually, when talking with our partners in this region -- I visited Bangkok very recently -- I talk with the people there. I always emphasize not efficacy, not sharing credit was the two main points that I made. I always say this is a way for the mechanism to absorb ...

I would say that all the efficiency or effectiveness arguments that we basically just talk about it doesn’t really make sense if you have a governance apparatus that cares more about reducing risk.

The "party innovations" become the private sector’s "agenda." It’s the same idea about working in opposite directions. I would say that a lot of those technologies are implemented in full force and very quickly, but it’s on opposing directions, is my observation.

On the Chinese continent, the Communist Party have set up a party branch within every enterprises above a certain size, so they can ensure that the party’s agenda become the private sector’s agenda, instead of being set by the private sector innovations.

The previous slide, I talk with the social sector. With the private sector, I talk about that, how people with new ideas, like self-driving vehicles, that our law doesn’t address, is given one year to experiment in the public, and for the social innovation to drive regulatory innovation.

The vertical ministries are sometimes quite authoritarian in their ministry or management protocols. As far as they agree to become more and more open, in the sense of being more accountable to the public, then they will inevitably adopt technology in a way that foster this kind of change, and ...

In social credit, if somebody loses such a credit, there is no due process at all. There is no way to appeal. It’s entirely managed by a close algorithm, whereas here, it’s entirely open. Just open versus closeness, I would argue, is more fundamental than democratic/authoritarianism. Taiwan also had authoritarian ...

It’s more or less very similar visualization, actually. We use the same color palette of green and red and things like that, but it turns out that the direction is completely opposing.

Our commitment to freedom as core value, that takes the same technology but we apply in very different ways. Whereas in Taiwan, you just saw the joint join.gov.tw e-participation platform that makes the state radically transparent to the people, we do see that on the Chinese continent, they are introducing ...

Yes, we are on the frontline of global confrontation with authoritarianism. That’s one of the consensus points in the digital dialogue with the AIT. One can contrast very easily that with our freedom of speech and expression, not even democracy.

This is radically, not just transparent but accountable. This is what people already demanded in 2014. My work as well as my previous work as understudy to another minister, Jaclyn Tsai, is to realize this common understanding and vision of the 2014 Occupy.

Then, how is the KPI procurement and the budget going? Every quarter, the minister of health and Welfare go back and say, "Thank you for your commentaries and feedback. This is what we have changed this quarter thanks to your input."

For example, the most cared about is long-term healthcare, and then sanitation, and then social housing. Then, for healthcare, you can see that it’s 10-year project and they were on the third.

This is the actual interface. You can see all the different 32 vertical ministries, what their projects are, the 2,000ish projects, and how many people care about.

Many people said, "Let this become the new norm. All regulations need to be up for 60 days of deliberation. All the commentary need to be made public and with no exceptions and that applies even for projects of a national any ministry-level projects that runs for one year or ...

The ability for people to form consensus is demonstrated to the entire country. Then after that, there was a national forum.

Because of that and of the Occupy, after the Occupy demonstrated that, even with half a million people on the street and 20 or so different NGOs each deliberating on one particular aspect, we can, nevertheless, agree on a set of five consensus items after three weeks of Occupy.

They have no idea that what are the major arguments or consensus around them. It’s not very effective. That’s an understatement. It’s not effective at all to reassure the people that after those one or two weeks of so-called public commentary, that the administration is taking any of the ideas ...

All it contains is a telephone number or, at most, an email that you can write to during those one or two weeks. Everybody who called have no idea, already 500 people or 5 people have called before them.

The ministry should have the entire authority in making it happen. Theoretically, the ministry need to pre-announce their regulations. At that time, it’s usually for 7 days or for 14 days.

I was one of the people who supported the Sunflower Occupy back in 2014. In March 2014, the main contention was that the Cross-Strait Service Trade Agreement or CSSTA was considered by the administration as a regulation level, not a law-level conversation so the MPs cannot have a substantial deliberation ...

That’s the only thing we do. Anybody else can do that as well. We don’t monopolize this way of legitimacy.

This is all supported by the social sector. The public sector, the only commitment we bring to the table is that if the fact checker asks us about anything, we’re committed to give out a layperson-understandable narrative within 60 minutes.

They interviewed a professor from NTU department of psychology, as well as eye doctors. Everybody builds context based on their publication. It’s not a blind faith or blind trust into the capability of them as journalists, but rather the source and the public transcript of their conversation with the source ...

Sometimes it’s quite ridiculous -- like if you look at this picture and see which four digits then you have nearsightedness, or farsightedness, or something like that. It went viral anyway. Anything went viral is subject for fact-checking. They would say something about spatial frequency about contrast sensitivity function.

This is something that a NPO in continental China have promoted as a campaign. It’s not part of Taiwan. Instead of saying, "It’s not true," they interview all the relevant stakeholders and also publish the entire log of their fact-checking with those stakeholders so that everybody can draw your own ...

Then they always include the entire fact-finding process in their so-called fact-checking report. This is much like, for example, the latest one, if you see a child carrying a purse that is orange, it means that they live with deafness and, please, slow down. It turns out it’s not true. ...

The international fact-checking network, which is entirely social sector and not government-sponsored, have a way of saying, first, that they only accept micro-donations like crowdfunding. It doesn’t accept any money from any party or any political entity. The funding source is transparent.

Sure.

That configuration was the same technology as the one that caused social division is then repurposed to use to have solidarity and collaborative relationship across different sectors and academia.

K-to-12 people can always start programming AI and machine-learning models to make sense of the air quality and the airflows nearby. This is the way to truly teach the children data stewardship that is something that is impossible to teach unless you are, yourself, a data operator.

We make sure that all of this is featured in the data collaboratives relationship so that even people who are very young, like K-12 students, can all have broadband access to one of the top 20 supercomputer in the world that already has these crowdsource data and that already use ...

We can change the contract and say, "Whomever wins the contract must carry airboxes." We’re in complementary relationship with the civil society. It’s all open source and open hardware. People across the world download it.

It’s very hard. If you fly drones, they run out of battery really quickly. It turns out we’re setting up renewable wind plants, wind turbines, there.

They say, "Oh, in industrial parks." They are of the private sector’s lot, they cannot go in even if they suspect the industries there is polluting the air. We’re like, "Oh, we own the land in industrial parks so we can hook air boxes there." People say, "We want a ...

What the government does is that instead of beating them we always join them by saying, "OK, are there places where you think you should have measurement devices and you would love to but you somehow cannot get into?"

The citizens set up those airboxes. Each one is the same $100 US and sometimes even in schools. People can see, at one glance, the digital divide of Taiwan and also the air quality in Taiwan, the trend.

Usually, people who care about air pollution in other jurisdictions have to protest or campaign for the government to set up more measurement stations closer to their homes. In Taiwan, all the 2,000 or so airboxes that you see here are entirely from the social sector.

The three lines of defense is our countermeasure against one of the most destabilizing technology, that is to say, social media, on democracy. The same thing can also be used in a collaborative way.

The final thing is that during election we ban precision targeting sponsored by nonvoting noncitizens. That is treating them as campaign donations, basically.

It’s just that Facebook will say, "A related link was to the fact-checking center." Not unlike how people deal with spam and junk mails.

Unless you only have one friend then they have to show it. If they have two friends, then it’s the other friend’s things on your posts wall. You can also go back to that rumor and you’ll still see it.

The social sector, the fact-check center, can fact check and classify something as false. Once they do that, it’s not disappearing but rather Facebook agreed to make it not preferred to show on people’s newsfeed.

This is one of the three ways. The other two being, we ask people to flag, like flagging email as spam, to flag messages as disinformation.

People still see the disinformation but they see it after this spreads. People become inoculated. Instead of taking down anything, we’re making sure that people get inoculated by making our clarification messages fun and that they can spread.

This is good humor. He makes fun of himself. It went viral, much more viral than the disinformation. It serves as an inoculation.

I didn’t translate this part. This is the now-bald premier saying, "However, if you keep perming your hair multiple times a week, it will damage your hair and you may end up looking like me."

The photo you see here is the premier when he was young. It says, "This rumor is not true. I may be bald now but I will not punish people with hair. Premier Su." The fine print reads, "What we’ve introduced is a labeling requirement for hair products and it ...

A couple months ago, there was a popular disinformation that says if you perm your hair twice a week, you will be subject to a MT one-million-dollar fine. 60 minutes after this circulates, you see this picture, this memetic engineering product being posted by our premier’s office.

It’s always within 20 characters the title, the payload always less than 200 characters means that it fits one single screen, even the mobile phone screen and always contains two pictures. This is a classic example.