That’s the irony. When we had that debate in France, all the older gay rights activists from the ’68 generation, they said, "We are against marriage."

The French are so arrogant.

It’s interesting to have a challenge from a place where we don’t expect lessons in democracy. That would be, I think, a very good idea to have that in France at the moment.

That would be nice. Because I think democracy is in trouble. It’s tired in our countries. I think it’s interesting to be challenged by what you’re experimenting with here.

How does that work, for the robot?

Maybe as a robot? Why not, yeah?

Thank you. That’s very impressive. Would you be prepared to come and explain that in France again?

It doesn’t include citizens, per se. It includes representatives of citizens in the different components, which is a weakness.

We have a system in France called the consensus conference. A consensus conference, for example, on issues like housing or social issues, mostly, we’d take, around the table, organized stakeholders and not individual ones, which is a big difference.

You’re leaving it to until you get consensus?

How do you feel about those changes of skin?

...hats during your short life. You’ve been a developer, a programmer. You’ve been activist. Now, you’re government.

You’ve had several...

Really?

Then you’ve trained them into, because that’s not the natural trend of civil service.

Where do they come from? Are they from the administration, or are they from civil society?

The participation officer, that’s what they’re called?

Then you would be voting all the time.

Only 2,000 people?

You were live here?

What do you mean, in London as a robot? It was a robot, and your voice?

How could that be expanded to those core political issues that are really dividing opinions at the moment?

How could that expand to the key issues that the government is facing? For example, I hear a lot of people are talking about not happy about the labor law, or all the fuss about the same sex marriage, the constitutional court, and all that.

Which was the original idea of the Internet, and got lost in business scale. Probably when Google became too big, it became thinking not about the people, but about the shareholder. This is still experimental, you said, in the sense that you’re dealing with, let’s say, small size issues.

Maybe we should switch to three.

Do you find that that experience fits with what you are saying?

...between being an anarchist and organizing state or government activities?

You mentioned earlier that you are still an anarchist. Isn’t there a contradiction...

Have there been decisions on which you lost? For example, have you lost on some decisions where industrial, political, or lobbying from other sides won over your recommendations, for example?

I see. I didn’t know that. I was at the president’s office the other day with Mr. Wu. They said that you had conducted a cyber security exercise at the presidency. That’s part of your bid to mobilize, make people sensitive to those issues?

They don’t?

No, but I mean, cabinet meetings are not purely...They discuss secret things.

Then if there are security issues, for example?

You take part in cabinet meetings?

That means you are a member of the government with a foot inside and a foot outside?

How did it happen, the deal to make you a minister? You were not a member of the DPP, or did you take part in the election campaign and all that?

That’s a very interesting type of structure. How did you get the government to accept that? That’s very unusual for any government, even radical ideas, to accept this kind of transparency. Some people -- for us, for example, on the left -- talk about the dictatorship of transparency. They feel ...

Anyone who come and...?

You come here every Wednesday?

Impressive. What’s this place?

There is interest? There is people who come and...?

Do you have data on how many people will look at the transcripts and all that?

I’ve never heard that.

You must be the most transparent administration in the world.

They don’t have closed meetings at all?

That’s made public?

That must be pretty strange for your colleagues, no?

This transparency exercise of transcript of every meeting, does that apply about all your agenda, or just Wednesday meetings?

How do you address the drawback of this, which could be that the most digital-literate and active people will have a say, because they can gather 5,000 signatures and petition, and so on, and those who are left out by lack of knowledge of digital methods, or lack of access ...

You got that approved at each level.