In Brief: Digital Minister Audrey Tang — Taiwan
In Brief: Audrey Tang Digital Minister
—Taiwan
IN BRIEF WITH AUDREY TANG
9 November 2020
By successfully containing the coronavirus at home, Taiwan demonstrated that it is capable of not only solving its own problems but also extending support and inspiration to other countries across the globe.
Our Taiwan Associate, Dr Zsuzsa Anna Ferenczy sat down with Taiwan’s Digital Minister in charge of Social Innovation, Audrey Tang, at the Social Innovation Lab located in the heart of Taipei. The Lab, where Minister Tang is available for public consultation on a weekly basis, is a one-stop venue of government services, a space designed to empower Taiwan’s civic sector through innovation, transparency and mutual trust.
This collaborative approach facilitates the identification of new solutions to social issues, and even to global crises, as the world has witnessed with COVID-19.
ZAF: Taiwan sits in the middle of a vibrant and rapidly changing region, attracting increasing global interest for its successful containment of COVID-19. In Europe, developments in the Indo-Pacific are seen very differently and often remain misunderstood. In response to this, 9DashLine seeks to help Europe get a better understanding of Taiwan, and at the same time contribute to Taiwan’s better understanding of Europe. As Taiwan’s Digital Minister in charge of social innovation, four years into your role, with a global health crisis unfolding, what are your main ambitions for Taiwan’s global relevance? How do you see your role?
AT: My ambition is written on my business card: ‘Taiwan Can Help’. Every year Taiwan focuses on contributing to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG). Understandably this year we focused far more not only on health but on pretty much everything, including open governance, digital governance, data norms and human rights. In each of the 17 SDGs, we are now much more confident that we can help and we are helping. The digital dimension helps not only in ensuring accountability but it is also an important factor in norm shaping. This is also a core EU concern, in particular when it comes to GDPR and finding ways to make it actually work. There are various propositions, like data trust, data coalitions, data cooperatives but the core idea is how not to fall into authoritarian intelligence on one side, and surveillance capitalism on the other. This is where Taiwan can help, it is my ambition, and, I think, is also an ambition for the EU.
ZAF: Norm shaping is at the core of the EU’s identity as a normative power though it is challenged (especially) by China’s increasing ambition to shape global norms. Let’s talk about the Taiwan Model, in this context. Worldwide, Taiwan is getting a lot more attention because of its successful containment of the virus, domestically protecting the health of its people, and externally helping others. In April European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen thanked Taiwan for its generosity in providing masks. For the future, maintaining this momentum will be crucial. How can the Taiwan Model go beyond global health and become a soft power tool for Taiwan? How can Taiwan promote the innovation in the Taiwan Model and what are the elements in the Model that can help soft power projection in the future?
AT: You mention the virus. But there are two viruses simultaneously: the virus of the body, which is SARS 2.0, and the virus of the mind, which is the infodemic and the conspiracy theories — these two are intertwined. When people buy into conspiracy theories, they become less capable of acting in a way that helps the scientific knowledge to prevent the epidemic in the first place. On the other hand, if the government sees the citizens as not trustworthy, maybe because they buy into conspiracy theories, and they impose very stringent top-down, lock-down, shut-down procedures, this makes the conspiracy theory even louder. People understandably see this as a move toward grabbing state power and people will rebel against anything that is top-down or new data collection.
These two are in a vicious cycle dynamic, and underlying both in the Taiwan Model is the idea that if the government trusts the citizens, there is no false dilemma between freedom and human rights on one side, and public health, either mental or physical, on the other. This false dilemma only appears if the state wants to do everything. In early February we understood that if three-quarters of people wear masks and wash their hands, the virus will not replicate and our (R) value would be under 1. Now we see hand sanitisers everywhere, but this is not because of any top-down measure, it is because we made sure that science is explained in a way that incentivises people based on the idea that you wear the mask to protect yourself against your unwashed hands.
This is an entirely individualistic incentive and, thereby, it is easier to spread than the collectivist incentive that you do this to avoid a fine or to respect your elders. Just get the incentives right, anyone calling 1922 in Taiwan gets the science explained to them in a very empathetic way and this can be amplified on the next level, through the Central Epidemic Command Centre livestream. This (fast) operation enables collective intelligence and, fair distribution enables mutual accountability. People queuing in line can take into account the availability of masks, so they can indeed see that the system works without any top-down surveillance or control.
Finally, there is nothing fun about COVID-19, but there is everything fun about the cute ‘Spokesdog’ for example, or our Premier addressing rumours of toilet paper shortage in a humorous way. We call this ‘humour over rumour’, part of our ‘fast, fair and fun’ approach. All this helped put a stop to conspiracy theories and panic buying. These elements are easy to adapt in other jurisdictions. The Taiwan Model is not a one size fits all thing. It is rather a very gentle idea that if governments trust their citizens more, citizens can innovate better than governments. We apply it in various ways, fast, fair and fun.
Digital Minister Audrey Tang and Dr Zsuzsa Anna Ferenczy
ZAF: Speaking of China’s increasing clout in Europe and the infodemic. Europe has a rich toolbox to fight mis and disinformation, such as East Stratcom, focusing on Russia’s attempts to undermine Europe, the 2018 Action Plan Against Disinformation, the European Media Observatory Project, which is a hub for fact-checkers and many more. But could countering disinformation be an area where Europe could learn from Taiwan? How would you assess Europe’s approach to Taiwan, mindful of the EU’s internal fragmentation?
AT: You mean short-term or long-term, or Taiwan switching to the Euro, as a currency? I wasn’t entirely joking about switching to the Euro. Because I do see that our data norms are very compatible and you would probably struggle to find a more European data norm in this part of the Indo-Pacific. Although the fiat cannot be converted to the Euro anytime soon, we are working on digital currencies — on digital fiat.
For example, in Taiwan, our central bank is planning research on exactly this (digital fiat). As they design the system, one of the criteria is that unless you are wiring a money-laundering level amount of money, all transactions must be anonymous, just like with cash. But you will not find that norm in the People’s Republic of China, or in many nearby Indo-Pacific countries, because they think more state intelligence is a good thing. But I can easily imagine that from a European single economy, nobody wants the central digital fiat to know all the shopping habits of all European citizens. Our systems are compatible.
Although we may not call it the Euro, if the algorithmic governance is the same principle, then they might as well be compatible and interchangeable. It is a very concrete thing we can work on. It also has similar applications when it comes to disinformation. In Taiwan we look at fact-checking organisations and we make sure to empower them. We have this idea of the/a ‘social sector’ which is gaining currency in the EU as well. Of course, various EU countries use different terms, some say civil society organisations, a banned term in the PRC by the way.
ZAF: Could you elaborate on how Taiwan fights disinformation?
AT: The empowerment of the social sector really is at the core of Taiwan’s counter-disinformation playbook — if we say that the state can take down anything, hate speech, you name it, then journalists and fact-checkers have no way to expand their reach in that particular regard. Because it will be something between the surveillance capitalists and the state — it will be a kind of bargain. But the social sector will be less empowered if we adopt such a model. Instead, we say the social sector has higher legitimacy and our playbook is to make their fact-checking fun and amplify their voices.
At the end of the day, it is the Taiwan Fact-Check Centre, people in the social sector (including middle schoolers and primary schoolers fact-checking each and every sentence in our presidential debate) because they last longer than any four-year government. Ultimately, they are more trustworthy than any surveillance capitalist. It is the empowerment of not only research and academia but also the social sector, including very young people. This is at the core: a framework about digital competence, not digital literacy, about media competence, not media literacy, meaning that people are no longer just receivers but co-producers of epistemic input.
This is something where the EU and Taiwan have a lot in common and, in fact, we actually learn from one another. When it comes to citizen consultation or an e-petition website, ours is a carbon copy of ‘Better Reykjavik’ from Iceland. Our participatory budget model learned a lot from the Barcelona and Madrid models, and our digital consultation platform, vTaiwan, learned a lot from the French government and their national consultation. There is a natural affinity toward empowering the social sector through co-creation against the infodemic.
ZAF: With China as an important trade partner, European countries don’t want to engage Taiwan openly because they fear consequences to their trade relations with Beijing. As you point out, we are natural partners with Taiwan. The EU openly said in June, with the backing of all member states, that Russia and China are the biggest sources of disinformation in Europe. Inspired by your views on disinformation, Europe and Taiwan should definitely counter this together. The other element of the Taiwan Model is trust — the government empowering the people to counter disinformation. In Europe, the nuance between mis and disinformation are not always clear. Can you share Taiwan’s experience in this regard?
AT: Europe has become subject to China’s disinformation later than us! For decades the PRC has been saying that they can take care of Taiwan’s 23 million people’s health in the WHO. This is disinformation. We have been subject to this for decades. My point is that it is not just about the vaccination against disinformation. It is also about testing, fact-checking, and about the cure. We work with global platforms, such as Facebook to make sure that there is real-time, open data when it comes to election-related social and political targeted advertisements. You really need to nip it in the bud. You need to say that foreign people should not make precision advertisements during our election season. They conformed last year. The vaccination, the testing, the cure are all important and we are happy to share this just as we shared the biological version of testing, tracing and curing.
Audrey Tang discusses open government, civic tech, government transparency and citizen participation. Image Credit: Flickr/My Society
ZAF: In a ‘battle of narratives’, throughout the pandemic, the Chinese leadership has tried to prove that it is not democratic governance that can effectively fight the virus but an authoritarian government. Europe now considers China a ‘systemic rival’ putting forward an alternative model of governance. This makes it even more urgent that we work with democratic countries in the region — such as Taiwan. This is the moment to push for more cooperation with Europe. Your voice has weight in Taiwan’s social sector. How do you think you could help bring more Europe into the discussion, particularly concerning the issue of public trust? Europeans do not trust their governments, even less so because of their failure in containing the virus. Europe doesn’t have Taiwan’s experience with SARS though COVID-19 looks set to be our version.
AT: Public trust has something to do with how masks are advertised in the first place. When the authorities say the mask protects you from your own unwashed hands, it is individualistic and helps avoid the unnecessary debate on exactly how much it protects against a respiratory disease. When we came up with this idea in January or early February, the idea of asymptomatic transmission was just being investigated. Nobody disputes the fact that if you touch a surface and then touch your face, this is a very likely vehicle of transmission and masks stop that. It then reminds you to wash your hands. At the time the WHO was saying not to wear a mask because it can lead to a false sense of security and then you probably wouldn’t wash your hands as much, that is the main problem. And they are not wrong — it is the same research, you just interpret it in two different ways. You either say you don’t trust the citizens and you don’t bother with masks, or you trust the citizens so wear a mask to remind yourself to wash your hands. We chose the latter to very good effect.
ZAF: One side of the coin is the government trusting its citizens. The other side is citizens trusting their government. What can the world learn from Taiwan embracing the latter?
AT: To give no trust is to get no trust. It is very simple. We also thank those citizens who don’t trust the government. For example, concerning our quarantine measures, many people were ok with these, but many were not — nine per cent. Those who were not ok reached out to parliamentarians who held a public hearing on this issue. Taiwan has no emergency status, so everything we do must be pre-approved by parliament. In an interpellation the department of cybersecurity explained the digital fence very clearly, saying that after 14 days there is no constitutional basis for data to be kept, so no need to worry about advertisements targeting you. Also, telcos have the data anyway, and they are processed within the telcos, just like our earthquake and flood warnings. Again, they are not shipping the data to any commercial vendor. After we explained, the approval rate grew to 94 per cent, so three per cent more people understood the explanation but we still thank the other six per cent, because they keep us honest and accountable.
ZAF: What about Taiwanese people’s fear of data management, and misuse of data by the government?
AT: This is why we haven’t introduced any apps. Because the telcos already know to a very rough degree, (maybe a 50m radius) where your phone is. But it doesn’t need to know which room you are in, this would be a breach of your privacy, so the whole point is that we do not collect data that we were not already collecting before the pandemic. Just by reusing the data in a way that is pro-social, instead of asking people to wear Bluetooth for example. Anything that is introduced after the pandemic is subject to more scrutiny, for very good reasons and because people did not know the security and privacy properties.
ZAF: It really comes down to transparency, including data management, which is another pillar of the Taiwan Model. The daily press conferences during the pandemic served the same purpose. In this context, how do you see Taiwan’s soft power as a concept in the post-pandemic world?
AT: We basically say that Taiwan can help and Taiwan is helping. Nowadays if we say Taiwan can help, it is something more, not just about culture which (like bubble tea) did a lot of good for Taiwan. The point is that on more serious topics, like social innovation, Taiwan can also help. It extends beyond the idea of soft power, which is why I translate Taiwan can help into Mandarin as ‘warm power’. It is the power to help with no strings attached. This is the main distinguishing factor. In social innovation, like in countering the infodemic, every innovation only gets stronger when more people practice it. It is not like a rival good, it is a common good. It is in our best interest to relinquish all the copyright, trademarks and patents around it. Taiwan’s soft power is defined by open innovation more than any particular product or process.
ZAF: What challenges and opportunities do you see for Taiwan’s soft power?
AT: There are opportunities — for sure. Open innovation thrives if more engage in the digital commons. The pandemic has convinced even the people who ten or twenty years ago had a really bad experience with video conferencing to re-evaluate the digital commons. They found out that it is pretty good. We get to meet more senior journalists, more senior decision-makers via cyberspace, simply because we can see each other clearly. If we meet face to face, we have to wear a mask. The point is that the diplomatic norm has changed. It used to be quite a stir when I spoke through a telepresence robot at the UN in Geneva (at the internet governance forum).
Despite the protest of the PRC ambassador, he did not leave the room and my words are on the record and this is a new norm. According to a certain UN resolution, if the PRC delegation can’t expel our representatives from a UN meeting, they have to leave the room because of the ‘One China policy’. By tacitly remaining in the room and through me finishing my talk, it means that they don’t see the robot as a representative of Taiwan, but rather, as a representation ‘of’ Taiwan, literally re-presenting and, therefore, more akin to a PowerPoint presentation. I think these norms are now being reinforced by video-conferences, by immersive realities and by extended realities. Multi-stakeholderism is now augmenting multilateralism and while Taiwan has no seat in the Westphalian arrangements in many organisations, those same organisations are becoming hybrid and also multi-stakeholder.
When I entered the UN building in Geneva, my robot entered without requiring a passport, bypassing multilateral norms. But once they are in the internet governance forum that works on a multi-stakeholder basis, of course, we are a stakeholder to the internet. My name card does not actually have a country on it, just a domain name. Obviously ‘.tw’ resolves to my machine, not a machine in Shanghai or Beijing, so the stakeholder status is undisputed. Even if you type ‘digitalminister.tw’ into a browser in Shanghai or Beijing, it connects to this machine, it doesn’t go to theirs. The opportunities people might think of (in a multi-stakeholder kind of way) could truly tackle global problems. Whereas, the pandemic may be the first global problem that has the same level of urgency more or less in all countries, but, of course, the infodemic and data norms, climate change all these are in the same category of truly global problems that can only be tackled in a multi-stakeholder rather than multilateral fashion. This is a tremendous opportunity for Taiwan.
ZAF: What is the biggest challenge in switching to this new norm?
AT: If people subscribe to authoritarian intelligence, if they say AI and think the government should know everything, then this model won’t have breathing room (because all the data will belong to the state). If surveillance capitalism expands unchecked, and, if the surveillance capitalists say they know the people better than they know themselves, then why bother with people power or collective intelligence if AI can predict everything, then there is little room for the social sector.
Basically, for the social sector to grow, we need to think beyond it being just the third sector, otherwise, the other two sectors continue to dominate. For the social sector to work there has to be a robust understanding that there is strength in plurality. If plurality is the strength, then the social sector maximises strength and the communicational powers of the various actors. Whereas a single state or a single multinational company would just be more homogenous. If we truly believe plurality is power and diversity and inclusion is needed, then the social sector needs to be the dominant player. I would say the Taiwan Model is the social sector first approach.
ZAF: In light of growing US-China tensions, how realistic is the prospect that Taiwan could define its future for itself? How could Europe help?
AT: Taiwan offers a third way outside of the ‘state knows everything’ or ‘companies know everything’ dilemma. In this vein, we show every person on the planet that you don’t need to trade economic growth to public health or the other way around. It is very realistic because we make this argument without alluding to US-China tensions. This argument has nothing to do with it. It is universal, so I am optimistic. And how can Europe help? Europe can be resilient and hold to the humanistic traditions of empowering not only individual human dignity, which is what the EU is about anyway but also the social sector, that is to say, not just an individuals dignity but individuals as an association, as a unity, as a union — but still plural.
Like many different joint data controllers (in GDPR parlance) Taiwan has many such data coalitions already, like around airbox for environmental measurements, the civil IoT and collaborative fact-checking systems. These are the kinds of joint data controllership that GDPR is designed to empower. Whereas the EU is still figuring out how to make such data co-ops and unions work, we already have some working models. The EU can help first of all by listing us as a case study and also the other way around when we are negotiating for GDPR adequacy (which we are doing right now), think about how the key GDPR clauses could have a Taiwanese contribution and interpretation.
ZAF: In Europe, the debate on the coronavirus is the economy vs. human health, in an enormous contrast with Taiwan, as you described.
AT: Indeed, it is a false dilemma. It is important to empower the social sector, namely community pharmacists that are trusted by the elders and make sure our mask rationing is the same experience as renewing chronic prescriptions. It is a lot of care that we put into empowering the existing social relationships because we understand this is the only way that people would voluntarily devise new ideas, i.e. using traditional rice cookers to disinfect masks without any top-down measurement.
DISCLAIMER: All views expressed are those of Audrey Tang and do not necessarily represent that of the 9DASHLINE.com platform.
Biography
Audrey Tang is Taiwan's Digital Minister in charge of Social Innovation. Audrey is known for revitalising the computer languages Perl and Haskell, as well as building the online spreadsheet system EtherCalc in collaboration with Dan Bricklin. In the public sector, Audrey has served on Taiwan’s national development council open data committee and the 12-year basic education curriculum committee; and led the country's first e-Rulemaking project. In the private sector, Audrey worked as a consultant with Apple on computational linguistics, with Oxford University Press on crowd lexicography, and with Socialtext on social interaction design. In the social sector, Audrey actively contributes to g0v (‘gov zero’), a vibrant community focusing on creating tools for the civil society, with the call to ‘fork the government’.