In the beginning when we’re ramping up the production from 2 million a day to 20 million a day with a country of 23 million people, we worked with the pharmacists across the island, more than 6,000 of them. Not only they have professional credentials, but were trusted in their neighborhoods.
Then he said to the NHIA right there that we need to trust these people with open data. That’s why they started publishing 30 seconds at a time the stock level of all the pharmacy. It also enabled decision-makers to look at these civic tech dashboards. There are people who analyze.
We also saw that there were some summons handed out to people who had made potentially false social media posts that came from police. There was quite bit of pushback about this. Once again, though, that ended up being contained in a certain sector. It didn’t lead to a break of trust .
If the private sector can act in unison, in a sense of common purpose, and if the government can be trusting of the private sector contributors to honor the nationalized mask economy until we have a steady supply of 15 million mask a day, the rest of them can be bought and sold.
People voluntarily forming data collaboratives and governing it alongside the government, allowing government to use people’s data in a creative way. This obviously requires a deep trust from the citizenship to the capability of the government, and also to the unlikelihood for the government to use it for invasive or malicious purposes.
Because our Environment Minister only have less than 100 measurement stations when this began, but when the civil society, the citizen scientists pooled together their data and formed the data collaborative they gained more legitimacy, because obviously you’re going to trust your child’s primary school teacher, not a faraway measurement device.
Of the 17 goals, my personal interest is definitely at the 17, which is why I put it in the middle. Acting towards the goals relies on reliable data so as to build trust , effective patnership, so that each sector will not monopolize the work but, rather, work across sectors to form collaborative.
They use the same word. It’s just different, simplified characters, but the meaning is opposite. When we say, here, social entrepreneurship and to improve people’s trust and build social credit, we mean something like credit union. There, social credit means something else entirely. It’s a state scoreboard and state surveillance.
Another winner works on telemedicine, that works with the smaller remote islands like the Green Island, Orchid Island, and so on. Many people there did not trust as much the local clinics, and insist on flying though helicopters their loved ones when they’re sick or suffering from major trauma back to Taiwan.
It’s such a good idea, I really won trust . Within three months they build a prototype system, again on a very small island. But because they won the presidential trophy, the president’s promise extends to the Ministry of Health who would say we have to change the law, actually, for that.
EPA also give people legitimacy by participating and supporting, but do not take control of those data coalitions. That is the usual way in Taiwan that we’re forming those data coalitions. Once people trust each other enough, they may evolve to become a data cooperative to govern this in a democratic fashion.
Maybe another follow-up question. Germany is facing more and more fake news and there is a new challenge. Our society doesn’t get to have something like Line. Do you have any advice on what is a good strategy to set up this kind of trust and facility that is clarifying stuff?
As usual, when we look at any Polis conversation, we see that previously, if you only look institutional media, you tend to see just these divisive statements about, “If you open up the mountains, people will leave a lot of trash, we cannot trust the average tourist,” and so on and so forth.
By making all the regulations, no exceptions, up for two months of online public debate, people anticipate what is going to change, and can even call a stop if the regulation doesn’t fit people’s needs. All these three, combined together, makes the people feel that they are trusted by the government.
We’re making a similar shift. Starting next year, when university engage in regional revitalization, they have to index both by the SDGs they create, but also on how many organization that previously didn’t know each other that they introduce by virtue of being a university and therefore have some public trust .
It’s really a radical trust for the Wellington Water Company to be sharing all their SCADA data, like pressure measurement, or whatever, with the Taiwanese AI team. It flows pardon the pun both ways, because then we co create the solution around mitigating climate change, which is a new thing for everyone.
It’s a very interesting kind of Lagrange point between the social sector and the public sector. Academia Sinica people have traditionally worked on this, citizen science on one side and government data on the other side, and they’re seen as a trusted point between the public sector and the social sector.
That, in fact, one of the points that we’re looking for in the Grand Challenge at the end of this year is to get the researchers a set of data and develop a way that could increase the net trustworthiness of the diverse data sets. That, too, is part of the challenge.
The government is essentially setting up a space for the people to work on mechanisms to do trust in a sustainable way vis a vis people who have a lot of resources in terms of money and other non-blunt resources like [laughs] expertise and try to not marry the two worlds together.
There’s a lot of it that are just cross-sectoral dialogue, by having a generally trusted system for people to independently publish their observations and work with the cities’ observations and work with international bodies’ observations. It’s not just on air pollution, but on all kinds, water quality, you name it.
