So when the White House was built in the early 19th century, it was an open house. Neighbors came and went. Under President Adams, a local dentist happened by. He wanted to shake the President's hand. The President dismissed the Secretary of State, whom he was conferring with, and asked the dentist if he would remove a tooth. Later, in the 1850s, under President Pierce, he was known to have remarked — probably the only thing he's known for — when a neighbor passed by and said, "I'd love to see the beautiful house," and Pierce said to him, "Why my dear sir, of course you may come in. This isn't my house. It is the people's house."
當白宮在19世紀初建成時 它原本是個開放的建築 鄰居來來去去。當時總統是約翰亞當斯 一個當地的牙醫來辦訪 他想要和總統握手 總統打發了正在與他交談的國務卿 然後轉身向牙醫詢問 他是否能夠拔牙 然後,在1850年代,當時的總統皮爾斯 他以曾說過的這句話著名 -這或許是他唯一讓人留下印象的事- 一位經過的鄰居問他「我真想參觀這棟美麗的房子」 然後皮爾斯回答 「先生您何需問,你當然能夠進來 這不是我的房子,這是人民的房子」
Well, when I got to the White House in the beginning of 2009, at the start of the Obama Administration, the White House was anything but open. Bomb blast curtains covered my windows. We were running Windows 2000. Social media were blocked at the firewall. We didn't have a blog, let alone a dozen twitter accounts like we have today. I came in to become the head of Open Government, to take the values and the practices of transparency, participation and collaboration, and instill them into the way that we work, to open up government, to work with people.
2009年初歐巴馬任期初始 我第一次踏入白宮 白宮一點也不開放 窗戶的窗簾是防爆窗簾 電腦還在跑Windows 2000 社群媒體被拒於防火牆外 我們沒有部落格,更別提能夠像今日一樣 有好幾個推特帳號 我當時主掌開放政府計畫 希望把透明化,參與,合作 等 的價值與作法 導入 我們的工作方式,開放政府 與人民共事
Now one of the things that we know is that companies are very good at getting people to work together in teams and in networks to make very complex products, like cars and computers, and the more complex the products are a society creates, the more successful the society is over time. Companies make goods, but governments, they make public goods. They work on the cure for cancer and educating our children and making roads, but we don't have institutions that are particularly good at this kind of complexity. We don't have institutions that are good at bringing our talents to bear, at working with us in this kind of open and collaborative way.
我們知道的一件事是 私人企業非常善於讓人們 在團體、網路的環境下工作,讓人們能有辦法生產 非常複雜的產品,像是車、電腦等 而一個社會所生產產品的複雜程度越高 越能夠看出這個社會進化成功的程度 私人公司生產產品,ˊ而政府 生產公共財,他們致力找到癌症療方 和教育我們的小孩、或是鋪路 但政府缺乏擅長應付 這般的複雜度,我們缺乏那種機構 能妥善匯聚我們的才能來做事 在這種開放、共同合作的方式下工作
So when we wanted to create our Open Government policy, what did we do? We wanted, naturally, to ask public sector employees how we should open up government. Turns out that had never been done before. We wanted to ask members of the public to help us come up with a policy, not after the fact, commenting on a rule after it's written, the way is typically the case, but in advance. There was no legal precedent, no cultural precedent, no technical way of doing this. In fact, many people told us it was illegal.
所以當我們想要創造我們自己的開放政府政策 我們要怎麼做,當然,我們會詢問公共部門 問裏頭職員該怎麼樣讓政府更開放 結果發現這從來沒有先例 我們想請大眾來幫我們 找出新方法,而非做事後諸葛 事後才對既成規則批評,我們現在就是這樣。 而是要在定新政策前就想清楚。此事(開放政府)在法律上 文化上俱無先例,在技術上也窒礙難行。 事實上,很多人跟我們說這樣是非法的
Here's the crux of the obstacle. Governments exist to channel the flow of two things, really, values and expertise to and from government and to and from citizens to the end of making decisions. But the way that our institutions are designed, in our rather 18th-century, centralized model, is to channel the flow of values through voting, once every four years, once every two years, at best, once a year. This is a rather anemic and thin way, in this era of social media, for us to actually express our values. Today we have technology that lets us express ourselves a great deal, perhaps a little too much.
這個障礙的癥結在 政府的存在,主要要處理兩件事: 把社會價值與專業能力導入與導出政府 把來自公民的價值與專業導引到政府決策 但我們政府今天的設計,反應自18世紀以來 集中中央的模式 藉投票來掌握民間價值 四年一次、兩年一次,最多 一年一次。在現今這種社群媒體的時代 這種表達我們民眾價值的方法,非常貧乏而且薄弱 今日的科技可以讓我們隨時表達自我 非常多的科技,或許還有點太多了
Then in the 19th century, we layer on the concept of bureaucracy and the administrative state to help us govern complex and large societies. But we've centralized these bureaucracies. We've entrenched them. And we know that the smartest person always works for someone else. We need to only look around this room to know that expertise and intelligence is widely distributed in society, and not limited simply to our institutions.
然而在19世紀,我們依賴執行公共事務的政府 及官僚體系的概念 來幫助我們治理複雜且龐大的社會 但我們官僚體系都採中央集權制 我們把他們和大眾分隔,而我們也知道 最聰明的人總是替別人服務 我們只需要在這個廳內四處看看就看得出來 專家和智慧在這個社會到處都有 不是僅僅存在於政府機構裡
Scientists have been studying in recent years the phenomenon that they often describe as flow, that the design of our systems, whether natural or social, channel the flow of whatever runs through them. So a river is designed to channel the flow of water, and the lightning bolt that comes out of a cloud channels the flow of electricity, and a leaf is designed to channel the flow of nutrients to the tree, sometimes even having to route around an obstacle, but to get that nutrition flowing. The same can be said for our social systems, for our systems of government, where, at the very least, flow offers us a helpful metaphor for understanding what the problem is, what's really broken, and the urgent need that we have, that we all feel today, to redesign the flow of our institutions.
科學家們近年來在研究 他們常描述為「流動」的一個現象 就是我們系統的設計,不管是自然或是社會 會引導所有經過系統的流動 所以河道設計來引導水流 透過雲端而來的閃電 引導電流 ,樹葉 引導養分進入樹幹 有些時候甚至必須繞過障礙 只為了讓養分能夠流動 同樣的流動方式也可以用來描述我們的社會系統 我們的政府系統。 這麼做,至少 流動是個有用的比喻可以幫助我們了解 問題在哪裡、哪裡出了岔子 為什麼我們都覺得有迫切需要 重新設計政府機構的流動
We live in a Cambrian era of big data, of social networks, and we have this opportunity to redesign these institutions that are actually quite recent. Think about it: What other business do you know, what other sector of the economy, and especially one as big as the public sector, that doesn't seek to reinvent its business model on a regular basis? Sure, we invest plenty in innovation. We invest in broadband and science education and science grants, but we invest far too little in reinventing and redesigning the institutions that we have.
現在是個資訊爆炸、社群網路蓬勃的時代 我們有機會重新設計這些機構 這些都還不太老舊的機構 想想:有哪些行業 或是經濟體中某些部門,特別是那些 和政府機構一般龐大的部門,那個不 經常重新改造自己的商業模式? 沒錯,我們大量投資於創新。 在寬頻,科學教育,科學研究基金上都投資了許多 但我們在政府再造和組織更新上 的投資卻是少之又少
Now, it's very easy to complain, of course, about partisan politics and entrenched bureaucracy, and we love to complain about government. It's a perennial pastime, especially around election time, but the world is complex. We soon will have 10 billion people, many of whom will lack basic resources. So complain as we might, what actually can replace what we have today? What comes the day after the Arab Spring?
要抱怨我們的政黨政治以及 獨立不受人民控制的官僚體系很簡單 我們也的確喜歡抱怨政府,是個歷久不衰的娛樂活動 在選舉時更是如此 但世界如此複雜,很快會突破一百億人口 很多人會面對基本資源的缺乏 所以我們抱怨的同時,對於現況 我們有甚麼替代方案? 阿拉伯之春之後呢?
Well, one attractive alternative that obviously presents itself to us is that of networks. Right? Networks like Facebook and Twitter. They're lean. They're mean. You've got 3,000 employees at Facebook governing 900 million inhabitants. We might even call them citizens, because they've recently risen up to fight against legislative incursion, and the citizens of these networks work together to serve each other in great ways. But private communities, private, corporate, privatizing communities, are not bottom-up democracies. They cannot replace government. Friending someone on Facebook is not complex enough to do the hard work of you and I collaborating with each other and doing the hard work of governance. But social media do teach us something. Why is Twitter so successful? Because it opens up its platform. It opens up the API to allow hundreds of thousands of new applications to be built on top of it, so that we can read and process information in new and exciting ways. We need to think about how to open up the API of government, and the way that we're going to do that, the next great superpower is going to be the one who can successfully combine the hierarchy of institution -- because we have to maintain those public values, we have to coordinate the flow -- but with the diversity and the pulsating life and the chaos and the excitement of networks, all of us working together to build these new innovations on top of our institutions, to engage in the practice of governance.
我們學到網路是個既明顯 又吸引人的選項,對吧? 像臉書,推特,小而精悍有力 3000名臉書員工 管理九億個使用者 我們甚至能把他們看做是公民 因為他們才剛奮起對抗政府以立法侵權 這些網路公民團結一致, 以極棒的方式彼此協助 但私人社群、私人企業 私人化的社會,不是一個由下至上的民主社會 人民無法替換政府 在臉書上結交朋友不難 遠不如你我攜手合作 從事治理這麼複雜 但是社群媒體的確教了我們一些事 為什麼推特如此成功?因為它有開放式的平台 它開放應用程式介面(API)讓數十萬的 新程式在平台上開發,讓我們能 用嶄新、令人興奮的方式讀取及處理資訊 我們需要去思考如何開放政府的API 以及開放的方法 下一個強權是 能夠成功結合不同層級的政府機構成一體 因為我們必須保有公眾的價值 我們必須協調這樣的流動,用網路的 多樣性 生命脈動,渾沌和激動 我們所有的人一同致力 在我們現有機構的基礎上,建構這些創新 實際參與治理
We have a precedent for this. Good old Henry II here, in the 12th century, invented the jury. Powerful, practical, palpable model for handing power from government to citizens. Today we have the opportunity, and we have the imperative, to create thousands of new ways of interconnecting between networks and institutions, thousands of new kinds of juries: the citizen jury, the Carrotmob, the hackathon, we are just beginning to invent the models by which we can cocreate the process of governance.
這事有先例可循,亨利二世 在12世紀,發明了陪審團制度 一個有力的、實際的、具體的模式 讓公民分享政府權力 今日我們有機會 有使命,去創造數以千計 各個不同網路與不同機構的連結 上千種新形式的陪審團:像是公民陪審團 胡蘿蔔暴民、駭客大會。我們才剛起步 發明各種形式讓我們得藉之共同創造 治理的過程
Now, we don't fully have a picture of what this will look like yet, but we're seeing pockets of evolution emerging all around us -- maybe not even evolution, I'd even start to call it a revolution -- in the way that we govern. Some of it's very high-tech, and some of it is extremely low-tech, such as the project that MKSS is running in Rajasthan, India, where they take the spending data of the state and paint it on 100,000 village walls, and then invite the villagers to come and comment who is on the government payroll, who's actually died, what are the bridges that have been built to nowhere, and to work together through civic engagement to save real money and participate and have access to that budget.
我們還不清楚全貌會如何 然而,我們見到某些局部的演進 發生在我們身旁-或許甚至不是演進 我甚至開始叫它是革命、治理的革命 有非常高科技的工具 也有一些幾乎沒有用到任何科技 譬如MKSS在印度的拉賈斯坦邦執行中的計畫 他們將政府支出的數據 張貼在十萬個村莊的牆上 然後邀請村民前來觀看並加以評論 誰收了政府的錢、誰真的已經死亡 哪些橋是無用的,造了只是為了消耗建設經費 透過公民參與、一同協力 節省開銷,參與制定以及實際使用預算
But it's not just about policing government. It's also about creating government. Spacehive in the U.K. is engaging in crowd-funding, getting you and me to raise the money to build the goalposts and the park benches that will actually allow us to deliver better services in our communities. No one is better at this activity of actually getting us to engage in delivering services, sometimes where none exist, than Ushahidi. Created after the post-election riots in Kenya in 2008, this crisis-mapping website and community is actually able to crowdsource and target the delivery of better rescue services to people trapped under the rubble, whether it's after the earthquakes in Haiti, or more recently in Italy. And the Red Cross too is training volunteers and Twitter is certifying them, not simply to supplement existing government institutions, but in many cases, to replace them.
但這不只是監管政府 這也是政府再造 英國的Spacehive平台,向群眾募款 讓你我籌款 建造足球門、公園長椅等 讓我們能提供這些真正用於社區的東西 能號召人們一同提供服務 最厲害的莫過Ushahidi 這樣的組織也不是處處都有 2008年肯亞選舉後發生暴動,Ushahidi成立 這繪製災難區地圖的網站及社群能夠 依賴一般民眾提供訊息,精準找到 困在瓦礫下的人們,提供更好的援救服務 他們在海地的地震提供協助 也在最近的義大利地震提供協助 紅十字會正訓練志工,推特的傳訊讓我們確認成效 他們不只協助現有的政府機構 在很多案例中,更取代了政府機構
Now what we're seeing lots of examples of, obviously, is the opening up of government data, not enough examples of this yet, but we're starting to see this practice of people creating and generating innovative applications on top of government data. There's so many examples I could have picked, and I selected this one of Jon Bon Jovi. Some of you may or may not know that he runs a soup kitchen in New Jersey, where he caters to and serves the homeless and particularly homeless veterans. In February, he approached the White House, and said, "I would like to fund a prize to create scalable national applications, apps, that will help not only the homeless but those who deliver services [to] them to do so better." February 2012 to June of 2012, the finalists are announced in the competition. Can you imagine, in the bureaucratic world of yesteryear, getting anything done in a four-month period of time? You can barely fill out the forms in that amount of time, let alone generate real, palpable innovations that improve people's lives.
我們看到許多例子,很清楚的 政府公開資訊的例子 儘管還不夠多,但我們開始 看見人們利用政府的資訊 產生創新的運用方法 有很多相關的案例 但我選 Jon Bon Jovi 作例子 有些人或許知道他在新澤西有家免費食堂 專門提供免費餐點給遊民 特別是照顧那些無家可歸的退伍軍人 今年二月,他找上白宮,表示: 「我要設立獎金獎勵那些創造規模及於全國的大型的,小型的 應用程式來幫助遊民,也幫助那些服務遊民的人 讓他們能提供更好服務」 從2012年二月到六月 4個月後就公布了競賽的贏家 你能否想像,在昔日的官僚世界中 在4個月內能辦成什麼事? 連填完一堆申請表格的時間可能都不夠 更別提產生真實的,具體的創新 來改善人們生活
And I want to be clear to mention that this open government revolution is not about privatizing government, because in many cases what it can do when we have the will to do so is to deliver more progressive and better policy than the regulations and the legislative and litigation-oriented strategies by which we make policy today. In the State of Texas, they regulate 515 professions, from well-driller to florist. Now, you can carry a gun into a church in Dallas, but do not make a flower arrangement without a license, because that will land you in jail. So what is Texas doing? They're asking you and me, using online policy wikis, to help not simply get rid of burdensome regulations that impede entrepreneurship, but to replace those regulations with more innovative alternatives, sometimes using transparency in the creation of new iPhone apps that will allows us both to protect consumers and the public and to encourage economic development.
我要表明,開放政府的革命 並不是將政府私有化 因為在許多狀況下,我們願意 開放政府能提供更進步 更好的政策,勝過那我們今日 依賴法規,立法以及採用訴訟等策略 所產生的政策 德州政府管制五百一十五種職業 從鑽井工到花商都列管 現在,在達拉斯、你能帶把槍進教堂 但請不要無照插花 因為這要吃牢飯的 所以德州現在怎麼辦? 他們要每個人 以線上維基百科方式,提供政策意見及集成,不只要取代 讓創業者卻步的錯綜複雜的法規 更要用更創新的替代方案取代那些法規 利用開放的政府資訊,開發iPhone 應用程式 能夠讓我們 同時保護消費者和公眾 也刺激經濟發展
That is a nice sideline of open government. It's not only the benefits that we've talked about with regard to development. It's the economic benefits and the job creation that's coming from this open innovation work. Sberbank, the largest and oldest bank in Russia, largely owned by the Russian government, has started practicing crowdsourcing, engaging its employees and citizens in the public in developing innovations. Last year they saved a billion dollars, 30 billion rubles, from open innovation, and they're pushing radically the extension of crowdsourcing, not only from banking, but into the public sector. And we see lots of examples of these innovators using open government data, not simply to make apps, but then to make companies and to hire people to build them working with the government.
這是公開化政府的附加好處 不僅是剛才講的有益經濟發展的好處 開放的創新工程 也同時帶來經濟利益和創造新的工作機會 Sberbank,俄羅斯一家最古老最大的銀行 俄國政府是銀行的最大股東 已經開始採取行動,向大眾求援 讓它的雇員和公民都參與開發新的創新 去年他們透過開放創新省下十億美元、三百億盧布 他們也很積極推動 推展動員民力的作法,不只是銀行業務 也導入公部門 我們看見許多例子,這些創新者 運用公開的政府資料,不只是做個APP而已 而更要創造企業、雇用員工 創造與政府攜手合作的企業
So a lot of these innovations are local. In San Ramon, California, they published an iPhone app in which they allow you or me to say we are certified CPR-trained, and then when someone has a heart attack, a notification goes out so that you can rush over to the person over here and deliver CPR. The victim who receives bystander CPR is more than twice as likely to survive. "There is a hero in all of us," is their slogan.
所以許多創新是在地的 在加州San Ramon,他們發行了一款iPhone APP 讓每個人受過人工心肺復甦(CPR)術訓練,有執照的人 用此APP登錄,當有人發生心臟病時 你會收到通知,然後 你能趕到患者所在地 施行心肺復甦術(CPR)救援 接受醫院外心肺復甦術(CPR)的病患 生存的機會因此提高了至少一倍 「我們中都有英雄」是他們的口號
But it's not limited to the local. British Columbia, Canada, is publishing a catalogue of all the ways that its residents and citizens can engage with the state in the cocreation of governance.
但這也不僅限於小地方 位於加拿大的英屬哥倫比亞,發行了一個型錄 載明了所有讓居民或市民能夠 參與協同共創治理國家的方式
Let me be very clear, and perhaps controversial, that open government is not about transparent government. Simply throwing data over the transom doesn't change how government works. It doesn't get anybody to do anything with that data to change lives, to solve problems, and it doesn't change government. What it does is it creates an adversarial relationship between civil society and government over the control and ownership of information. And transparency, by itself, is not reducing the flow of money into politics, and arguably, it's not even producing accountability as well as it might if we took the next step of combining participation and collaboration with transparency to transform how we work.
讓我非常清楚的表明 或許這有點爭議性 開放式的政府並不是 透明化的政府 單單揭露資料並不能改變 政府的的工作方式 光是資料公開並不能讓人 改變生活、解決問題,也無法改變 政府 反而會讓政府和公民社會之間 對於誰該掌握與控制資訊 產生對立關係 而光靠透明化,不能減少流入 政治的金流,也有足夠理由說 對責任歸屬的釐清也不理想 如果我們能進展到下一步:結合參與 合作、和資料透明化,改變我們做事的方式。
We're going to see this evolution really in two phases, I think. The first phase of the open government revolution is delivering better information from the crowd into the center. Starting in 2005, and this is how this open government work in the U.S. really got started, I was teaching a patent law class to my students and explaining to them how a single person in the bureaucracy has the power to make a decision about which patent application becomes the next patent, and therefore monopolizes for 20 years the rights over an entire field of inventive activity. Well, what did we do? We said, we can make a website, we can make an expert network, a social network, that would connect the network to the institution to allow scientists and technologists to get better information to the patent office to aid in making those decisions. We piloted the work in the U.S. and the U.K. and Japan and Australia, and now I'm pleased to report that the United States Patent Office will be rolling out universal, complete, and total openness, so that all patent applications will now be open for citizen participation, beginning this year.
我想,這個演變過程有兩個階段 開放政府的革命,第一階段是 將更好的資訊將由外圍的群眾 傳向中心的政府 2005年開始,這是在美國真實發生的過程 開放政府開始了 我當時還在為學生上專利法的課 向他們解說,官僚體系中,只要單單一個人 就有權決定 那一個專利申請可以獲得專利許可 所以就這樣的一個人,在過去20年間 壟斷了這整個發明領域中的活動 那我們要怎麼辦?我們說,我們能架設站 我們能架一個專家網站,一個社群網站 和政府這機構連結起來 讓科學家和科技專門人士能夠提供 更好的資訊給專利局 幫助他們作專利許可的決定 我們在美國、英國、日本、和澳洲做了試行 現在我很高興能夠報告 美國專利局自今年開始 推出一個全面、完整、完全公開的 所有公民都得以參與的 專利申請的程序
The second phase of this evolution — Yeah. (Applause) They deserve a hand. (Applause)
第二個階段- 他們應得這些掌聲鼓勵(掌聲)
The first phase is in getting better information in. The second phase is in getting decision-making power out. Participatory budgeting has long been practiced in Porto Alegre, Brazil. They're just starting it in the 49th Ward in Chicago. Russia is using wikis to get citizens writing law together, as is Lithuania. When we start to see power over the core functions of government — spending, legislation, decision-making — then we're well on our way to an open government revolution.
第一階段是要讓更好的資訊匯入中心 第二階段是要讓決策力量外放 開放公眾參與預算編列 已經在巴西的阿雷格里港實施已久 芝加哥第四十九區也正要開始做同樣的事 俄國利用維基概念與系統讓市民一同編寫法律 立陶宛也是。當我們開始看見 民眾有全影響政府核心功能 -開支、立法、和決策- 完全開放政府的革命的成功也就不遠了
There are many things that we can do to get us there. Obviously opening up the data is one, but the important thing is to create lots more -- create and curate -- lots more participatory opportunities. Hackathons and mashathons and working with data to build apps is an intelligible way for people to engage and participate, like the jury is, but we're going to need lots more things like it. And that's why we need to start with our youngest people. We've heard talk here at TED about people biohacking and hacking their plants with Arduino, and Mozilla is doing work around the world in getting young people to build websites and make videos. When we start by teaching young people that we live, not in a passive society, a read-only society, but in a writable society, where we have the power to change our communities, to change our institutions, that's when we begin to really put ourselves on the pathway towards this open government innovation, towards this open government movement, towards this open government revolution.
還有很多我們能幫我們自己一把的事 明顯的,開放資訊是一個 但重要的事是去創造更多- 創造和組織-更多參與的機會 駭客大會,圖書資訊大會, 設計運用資料的APP都是很聰明的方式,讓我們 接觸並且參與、就像陪審團制度 但我們將需要更多類似的事 也是為什麼我們需要從年輕人開始 我們在TED聽過有關 生物破解,用Arduino系統駭入植物生化系統 Mozilla的軟體公開平台讓世界各地 的年輕人架設網站、製作影片 當我們先教導年輕人,讓他們知道 我們不是住在一個消極的社會,一個只供讀取的社會 而是可改寫的社會、一個我們有力量 去改變我們的社區、改變我們的政府機構的社會 我們才真正走上 開放式政府的創新大道上 走向開放式政府的運動 走向開放式政府的革命
So let me close by saying that I think the important thing for us to do is to talk about and demand this revolution. We don't have words, really, to describe it yet. Words like equality and fairness and the traditional elections, democracy, these are not really great terms yet. They're not fun enough. They're not exciting enough to get us engaged in this tremendous opportunity that awaits us. But I would argue that if we want to see the kinds of innovations, the hopeful and exciting innovations that we hear talked about here at TED, in clean energy, in clean education, in development, if we want to see those adopted and we want to see those scaled, we want to see them become the governance of tomorrow, then we must all participate, then we must get involved. We must open up our institutions, and like the leaf, we must let the nutrients flow throughout our body politic, throughout our culture, to create open institutions to create a stronger democracy, a better tomorrow. Thank you. (Applause)
最後,我想很重要的是 我們該討論而且要求這個革命發生 我們尚未有確切的字眼能夠形容這件事 平等、公平等字眼 或傳統選舉、民主,這些都還不夠棒 它們不夠有趣,不夠振奮 不足以激勵我們介入這等待我們的偉大機會。 但我認為,如果我們想看到這些 不同的創新、這些我們在TED聽到的 許多令人期待且令人振奮的 在乾淨能源,乾淨的教育上還在發展中的創新 如果我們想看到這些創新被實際應用 如果我們想看到這些新方法被大規模採用 看到它變成明日的治理型模 那麼我們每個人都必須要參與 我們每人都必須要涉入 我們必須開放政府機構,像樹葉一樣 我們必須讓養分在政治的體中流動自如 流過我們的文化,創造開放的政府機構 創造更強的民主,一個更好的未來 謝謝各位 (掌聲)