Finally, you are very well connected internationally. I am interested to hear where you think Taiwan is on the spectrum of countries using these new tools for democracy and participation? Is it the leader or are others ahead of Taiwan?

Every space has a different dimension. To reduce this to a single dimension is something as an anarchist I refuse to do.
There are countries like Estonia. The Estonian people founded their constitution after the Internet. They didn’t really have paperwork. They designed the entire government system around electronic systems. Not many can say that, most were founded before the Internet. On that dimension, the electronic dimension, really no other place compares to Estonia. But it also means that when Estonia wants to communicate with other countries, their ambassadors have to figure out how to convert the paperwork into their system. It is oversimplifying things to take one thing in a culture that works really well, and then judge other countries or other places based on that culture.
Taiwan is the best in doing the Taiwan model, but that doesn’t really mean anything. What I look toward to is, “how open we are to share those processes and those tools.” This is why I refer to “processes” as “commons.” That is to say, to make the process public; to make sure people inside the country, outside the country or “people” that are not humans, are still visible in the process.
In this regard, I think Taiwan has a pretty good environmental awareness — including folk religion systems — that allows this culture. Our emphasis on consensus and on emotional intelligence, are not competing but are coming together. Also, the ability to build diversity out of a highly digitally-enabled place. All of these are the strong suits of Taiwan. But then, I refuse to judge other countries using the metrics of Taiwanese culture.