Audrey Tang

The same day we can go from being super public to exchange our service for money to voluntary sector work and so on. This a way for different sectors to meet somewhere and to extract promises out of each other I think is generally useful. It also provides a … and gives the so-called clicktivists - at the beginning of my talk I said these are people who just spent time to click “like” or “unlike” in the internet - something else to do. If they have 10 seconds more time they can share our deliberation link, if they have more time they can engage in questioning which gets a granted answer and then if they have more time and a laptop computer they could do a meaningful discussion, and then if they even have more time they can do a deliberation. And if they have some time to attend a deliberation for two hours they can participate the agenda setting.

So that’s my talk. Thank you very much!

So the other part is about making citizens voices heard in a much more scalable way. Academically the problem was not that the government doesn’t provide sufficient information. It is that it only provides it to - I don’t want to say it - the lobbyists in the private sector. They are linked together, they have a natural synergy. They have their own industry chain. So any information that is valuable to them is also available to its vendors and its customers. It is very natural, that is how the private sector works. Then the civil society joins this kind of committee with individuals, scholars, committee members and so on.

Hello everyone, today's meeting officially begins. First, let me explain the rules for using the microphones. To avoid feedback, please remember to turn off your microphone after speaking. As for our friends at the middle round table, please take turns passing the microphone around. This is also a concept of shared microphones.

I am very glad to see many friends in the same physical space who were previously exchanging remarks back and forth online.

If you have any thoughts or feelings here, since the topics we will discuss later are also netizen sentiments (all starting with "I feel..."), so it doesn't necessarily have to be on this topic—maybe you have some expectations coming here today, please take a dozen seconds or so to introduce yourselves to us.

If that's OK, we will go in turn starting from the left.

The feelings here right now are mostly "very happy" and "looking forward to this." Now let's look at the feelings around the shared microphone table...

Since we mentioned stakeholders... let's first invite the two stakeholders at the inner table to introduce themselves.

Of course, let's also invite the chief convener of our consultation meeting to say a few words to us.

Let me first introduce today's time structure. After everyone's self-introductions just now, I am also very glad that online there are almost a hundred friends joining us for this live broadcast.

Next, I will spend about ten minutes sharing the experience of our "opinion collection" that the Minister mentioned earlier.

The Science and Technology Law Institute of III has presented an analytical report on the results of this opinion collection, which will also be explained by me. I will try to be as quick as possible without compressing other people's time.

Next, our friends from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications will respond to this report. However many minutes the MOTC uses, I think we will also give Uber the same number of minutes to explain their response. We will also try to give Taiwan Taxi the same amount of time. After these three presentations, we will invite everyone to fully express your views, and ask relevant ministries to make the first round of responses.

After the responses, it will be time for interactive discussion. We will include comments left by netizens on Livehouse.in online, all opinions seen on screen, and even further responses to ministry replies, cross-questioning each other, and so on... let's not call it a free-for-all, let's call it "interactive discussion."

That is today's arrangement. Before I start, however, there is a friend who arrived a bit late just now—would you like to introduce yourself?

Everyone feels that technology and law should advance with the times, and safety is the most important.

On the screen, Irvin says taxis should also upgrade, enabling taxis to use similar methods to obtain better service quality.

Some people think every effort should be made to suspend its business without investigation, but later more and more people opposed that.

Everyone can see the joint recommendations, so I won't read them one by one. Broadly, they say regulation should be fair and should not protect vested interests.

I want to clarify in particular: "vested interests" does not necessarily refer to taxis.

Compared to unmetered illegal taxis in various counties and cities, uberX also has many resources and is also a type of vested interest.

Regardless of how we discuss it, the sense on pol.is is that private cars existing in tourist areas should also be treated equally.

In addition, Uber's tax payment should have a method that is convincing to the Taiwanese people.

As well as "I feel it should be similar to food and pharmaceuticals, with stricter controls compared to general service types."

As you can see, among these six joint recommendations, some are contradictory and some are in conflict, but regardless, these are people's thoughts. Targeting these thoughts, STLI compiled a slide.

The United States summarizes these things into three points: regulatory authorities must oversee, taxes must be paid, and registration must be done (insurance/public disclosure).

Next, we invite the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to respond.

uberX Opinion Collection: MOTC Response

The MOTC just used 15 minutes. I think we will also give Uber 15 minutes, and switch directly to their presentation.

uberX Opinion Collection: Uber Response

Thank you, very punctual.

Please have Uber hand the presentation clicker directly to Taiwan Taxi.

Please begin directly.

uberX Opinion Collection: Taiwan Taxi Response

I think vTaiwan is a multi-stakeholder dialogue platform.

Next, we open the floor for open discussion. But before opening for free speeches, there is actually a fourth stakeholder, our friend from the general association—please speak first.

I see a sense of trying to win each other over, or "you do it, we do it too," as well as other voices of dialogue.

I feel it's not really a dispute; I am very glad to hear many overlapping arguments.

Next we still have nearly an hour. We open it up to everyone present—whoever wants to speak, please raise your hand.

Crowdfunding was discussed on vTaiwan previously.

Issues on vTaiwan require that most stakeholders are online.

So "marijuana legalization" will definitely not be a topic for vTaiwan 2.0, 3.0, or 4.0. (laughter)

...Of course, multi-level marketing is not a topic for vTaiwan discussion either. XD

Just heard a new concept, like a "sharing economy demonstration zone."

Next, we invite the MOTC to respond to questions.

So revising the "Regulations Governing the Approval and Operations of Taxi Passenger Services" was not holding discussions or investigations with Uber, but asking about an "actual current legal status," and defining it using that method?

Meaning it was more of a "determination" rather than an "investigation"?

Okay. Earlier there was another question, which is what insurance company issued the so-called "NT$20 million insurance" and how claims are paid, etc. Please have Uber answer.

How many such claims have occurred so far?