​​Indonesia: 200% China Import Tariffs, Ransomware Attacks 282 Agencies & 27,000+ Government Apps Consolidation with Gita Sjahrir - E446

Gita Sjahrir, Head of Investment at BNI Ventures, and Jeremy Au discussed:

1. 200% China Import Tariffs: Jeremy and Gita explored Indonesia's recent imposition of up to 200% tariffs on Chinese imports like footwear, clothing, textiles, cosmetics, and ceramics. Indonesia's trade minister's remarks "I told my colleagues not to be afraid or hesitant. America can impose tariffs of up to 200 percent on ceramics and clothing; we can too" show that America is serving as a role model for further trade decoupling and is no longer a champion for free trade. They discussed the rationale of "protecting MSMES" - with varied impacts on different sizes and types of local businesses. Gita highlighted Indonesia's historical tendency towards protectionism and the broader implications of such policies on the country's business environment. Jeremy and Gita agreed that while tariffs might provide short-term relief, they do not address the underlying systemic problems around industrial policy or "ease of business" reforms.

2. Ransomware Attacks on 282 Agencies: Jeremy and Gita discussed the recent ransomware attack that compromised the data of millions of Indonesian citizens. Gita explained that hackers held government data hostage and later returned the key due to the government's unpreparedness. She mentioned that ministers and heads of security showed a lack of responsibility and accountability, which highlights the urgent need for improved cybersecurity measures. Gita and Jeremy also discussed the broader implications of such lapses on public trust and governance. They emphasized the importance of having knowledgeable leaders in charge of technology and security to prevent future breaches.

3. 27,000+ Government Apps Consolidation: Jeremy and Gita touched on the Indonesian government's initiative to consolidate over 27,000 government apps into a more efficient system. President Jokowi's directive aimed to reduce redundancy and improve cybersecurity. Gita mentioned that one ministry alone could have over 500 apps, and the government spent around $386 million in the past year creating new apps. They explained that the consolidation effort is intended to streamline operations and enhance security by reducing the surface area vulnerable to attacks. They also discussed the challenges of implementing such a consolidation and the resistance from those benefiting from the current inefficiencies. They emphasized the importance of political will and effective communication in driving these large-scale changes. They also added that the agency responsible for this initiative would be called GovTech Indonesia, similar to Singapore's successful model.

Jeremy and Gita also discussed the potential relocation of Chinese companies to Indonesia, Indonesia’s private sector’s resilience despite governmental challenges, the need for cybersecurity improvements following recent data breaches, and strategies for reducing bureaucratic red tape to foster a better business environment.

Please forward this insight or invite friends at https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e

Supported by Evo Commerce!

Evo Commerce sells premium affordable supplements and personal care electronics, operating in Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong. Stryv brand sells salon-grade quality products for home use and using direct-to-consumer channels through its online retail channels and physical shops. bback is the leader in hangover remedies in over 2,000 retail outlets across the region. Learn more at bback.co and stryv.co 

(01:47) Jeremy Au:

Morning, Gita.

(01:48) Gita Sjahrir:

Morning.

(01:48) Jeremy Au:

Yeah, well, another bright and sunny day.

(01:51) Gita Sjahrir:

As always, living in Asia.

(01:52) Jeremy Au:

The opposite would be like monsoon rain, I guess.

(01:55) Gita Sjahrir:

That's true. That's true.

(01:56) Jeremy Au:

So I think the big news that both you and I were reacting to was the recent announcement by Indonesia for import tariffs of up to 200% on Chinese goods across footwear, clothing, textiles, cosmetics, and ceramics. And obviously this, there's still some parts of the policy that hasn't been shaked out, but I think that's pretty much a direction. How do you feel?

(02:17) Gita Sjahrir:

Well, a direct quote from the article that talks about this import tariff situation, the trade minister of Indonesia actually said, well, if the US can do tariffs, so can we, not really sure, of course, if that really is the way forward that we constantly copy what the US is doing, but definitely it shows that the entire US-China situation does affect how other countries will behave in the future. And I think right now what's happening with the import tariffs is most likely a combination of not only is it seen as a way for China to dump a lot of its products into Indonesia and it makes it very hard for businesses in Indonesia to be competitive in terms of pricing. I mean, very similar story that you hear in other countries across the pond, but also it shows that as policymakers, you also need to think about how do macroeconomic conditions in your neighboring countries or your ally countries or any other countries around you will affect you in the future. I think my big worry with Indonesia is our tendency to also see an issue and put a band aid on it rather than also think holistically. Actually, what is the real crux of the problem? Is it truly china or is it stuff and the system structures within indonesia itself that might make it problematic with or without any China influence.

(03:42) Jeremy Au:

It's definitely a popular topic today, right? Tariffs and the concept of what do we do with Chinese goods. And I think it was interesting for me to read that this is not the first time that Jakarta has tried to do this. So last year had issued regulations to try using import quotas instead of a tariff. So similar product categories of food ingredients, footwear, electronics, and chemicals. But it was eventually changed a lot because, the problem of a quota is that, it makes it difficult for the supply chain to work, right? Because, you can only import a certain number and then you have to find somebody else. Whereas, the tariff view is a bit more straightforward. It's just a taxation of the price, but you can import as much as you want. But I think both of these are different ways to solve the concept of Chinese competition, right? The supply chain, and we talked about in previous episodes between you and I, I think it shows up in EVs and solar cells. Like they have the policy, they're highly competitive. I think the US is calling it "over capacity" today. I guess it was just, I think a nice way of saying very competitive. I think they say that about the Japanese car industry about, 30, 40 years ago. And so I think there's an interesting dynamic, where you're like saying the Chinese industrial policy is very effective, so that companies are very competitive and now what do each country's domestic industry deal? Do we get better competing with them or do we like tax those imports and create a bit of a shelter from that effect?

(04:53) Gita Sjahrir:

I think traditionally, Indonesia just does a lot more protectionist policies. Historically it's been known to do that. It's been known to create restrictions, import tariffs, all of these things in order to protect its own industries. But again, that's a shorter term thinking.

(05:09) Gita Sjahrir:

If you look at the crux of the problem in places like Indonesia, which is very similar to other emerging markets. I think the question becomes more, what is the country's ease of doing business? That really is the question, right? Like how easy is it to do business in Indonesia with or without China? This is what I'm saying. Like with or without other international influences, really, when you're talking about an industry in Indonesia, whether you're talking about what we call MSMEs or UMKM, Or you talk about larger industries, how easy is it to do business there? And for anyone living in Indonesia or attempting to do business in Indonesia, they know it's very challenging. They know that opening a legal entity takes a long time. They know that even opening a bank account can be challenging. They know all of these things to be an issue. So I think again, all these import tariffs in the end, they will address the issue up to a certain point, but if you're trying to go past that point and think long term, then you really have to get back to fixing the system, right? You have to get back to making Indonesia a more pro business, pro private sector, like a pro free market type of policies. And the thing is, there are also ways you can do it without sacrificing certain parts of the constitution that Indonesians really believe it. So there's no one saying that if you're a pro business, therefore you are anti labor and that's a conversation that happens in politics here.

So if you're a pro private sector, you are anti labor. If you're a pro business, you are anti equity. And it doesn't always have to be that way. So I think, again, trying to think outside of the binary view that one has to be one thing or another, and you cannot make your own blend for the system, for your own country is just one of those narrow thinking that the country should learn to move away from. Basically, how do you create policies that both benefit your industries also, and also benefit your people?

(07:06) Jeremy Au:

Yeah. And I think it's really about growing the pie, rather than dividing pie. And I think tariffs, from a pure economics perspective is at least a short term, like you said, it's popular politically because whoever's protected as a manufacturer by the tariff is obviously a strong lobby group, no matter what. So domestic producers must be like, thumbs up. But of course, the cost of it is more diffused is across the consumers of those products. And so I think, for example, Trump is proposing a 10 % tariff on all global imports. And that would be a taxation of, effectively, prices would rise for the average family in America by $2,000, which is no joke because that's a lot of money. And basically, it creates inflation because now you can't use, wear, buy cheap Chinese footwear. Now you have to buy domestic, which is more expensive. And that's the US example. But I think for me, I think the concern is if tariffs happened in Indonesia and more countries, I think the local consumer is the one that kind of has to pay.

(07:57) Gita Sjahrir:

But also the local businessess. So when you think of MSMEs, where are they getting their inputs from? So let's say they're putting a hundred to 200% tariffs on Chinese clothes and then you are, one of the very many hundreds and thousands of MSMEs that sell clothing. Yeah, that's going to impact your business a lot because then it'll be much harder for you as a wholesaler or it'll be much harder for you as an online retailer in your own little shop. And I think these are the questions that again, need to be considered, not just catering to local producers that are of a very large size, but also thinking, how is this going to affect the smaller ones? Because let's say, then they do not take on Chinese imported goods and then they have to buy domestic, no matter what, you just increase their And those are the things that I don't know if this can last for a very long time.

(08:51) Jeremy Au:

Yeah. And I think exactly like you said is when we think about policy, we always use the word MSMEs, right? So like micro, small, medium enterprises, indonesia has 64 million of them. But there's actually quite a large range within that range. And then we also have the domestic conglomerates that are doing a lot of manufacturing as well. And so I think one thing that I do think about, and I've seen this happen in other countries that have tariff structures, is that, it benefits the large, the, I say medium and a large enterprises, domestic conglomerates for import tariffs in general, because they can take on that burden, I think for micro and small which also have a larger percentage of their own household income coming from imports as well cheap imports. Yeah, I think they tend to be disproportionately impacted. So it's not an easy trade off policy wise. And like you said, I think in a perfect world is it's okay to have some tariffs, perhaps, just to give your industry some breathing room, but you know, during that timeframe, you kind of like have a set amount and then you like stagger the withdrawal over the next every two years you drop it, for example, and then you tell your industry, look, you've got 10 years to shape up. And I think that's kind of like one middle of the road approach that economists have discussed but that requires a lot, I think it's a pretty hard political messaging as well.

(09:58) Gita Sjahrir:

Yeah. It's hard political messaging because it requires people to communicate a long term strategy to populace that they will need short term decision making, aka voting for in the future. This will be good for you in 10 years, but I need you to vote for me next year. Okay?

(10:16) Jeremy Au:

Okay. Give me the candidate gives me a one year bump now.

(10:19) Gita Sjahrir:

Yeah. And I think that's, and you can say that as a critique of a democratic system, but no, I think in the end, it's really a critique of systems in general and also how do people view the government and also how does the government view communicating with their populace?

(10:38) Gita Sjahrir:

And what I see a lot in Indonesia is this look of the populace as being the quote unquote uninformed mass. So a lot of politicians make decisions and then assume that they're doing it on behalf of the benefit of the people, but the people won't understand. So no need to explain to them a lot of things, and it's it's totally mistaken by the way. People do understand. So if you need to take a long term view of how you communicate, and that is why communication is so important in public policy, but again, in a lot of emerging markets, when your systems are just still so new, I can understand why a lot of public sector leaders don't see communication as a priority, so they will take a decision that they believe will be good for the masses, and I'm sure they know more than the masses, et cetera, et cetera. And then, they expect the mass to just follow up unless the mass rebels against them and makes it viral. And so I think this import terror thing is another one of those reactive policies that sound good for a short amount of time, and seems protectionist for a short amount of time. But again, the problem will come back in a different way, through a different example, or maybe with a different country in the future.

(11:47) Jeremy Au:

Talking about that, it really goes back to this, the quote you mentioned, which is about, "Hey, the US can impose a 200% tariff so we can do it as well." And I think it's interesting because I think historically in Southeast Asia, America has always been that champion of lower tariffs more free trade. And in fact, a lot of the trade policies that we have, we're built by, American economists, both in Singapore and in Asia. I mean, there's the Berkeley gang of economists as well. I think it's just an interesting dynamic where it's kind of like, now that America is going into more of a protectionist mode and of course, as of today, Trump has a 70% chance of a win based on the betting markets and based on the polling forecasts. So yeah, and he's definitely pro-tariff. He wants to do more tariffs, a global 10 % import tariff and, a 60 % tariff on all Chinese goods as well. So yeah, I think for me, my perspective is we're going to see more tariffs rather than less over time, actually.

(12:38) Gita Sjahrir:

I mean, the irony of having a more globalized world is that every country will also start becoming more protectionist. I mean, look at what's happening literally across EU, right? And a lot of it is when, again, when public policy doesn't grow or doesn't develop as fast as reality, you see this in fintech, for example, right? the rise of fintech crypto, all of these movements and having so many countries just being unable to keep up with the policymaking in terms of these alternative asset classes and all of these modes of payment, because they simply just can't develop and can't grow as fast as these things. That's the same with globalization in a way, right? The trade environment in our entire global ecosystem will change the more people become more mobile, more digitized, people can access information more freely. And again, you have a lot of these policy makers and nothing necessarily against their age, but the majority of them are a lot older than the people they lead, than the populace. And it makes for this information gap.

So what happens when you have, for example look at the US election, what happens when you have nearly 80 and 80 year olds fighting and competing to lead a country where it's, a lot of them are under 80? and you have this information gap and also a gap of interest, like there are differences in interest. So if you're 40 and under, you might have a different interest than if you're 70 and up, right? 70 and up, you're thinking of certain concerns. 40 and under, you're thinking of other concerns. And I think this is what you're starting to see in also a lot of countries. There is this exact argument that was being made during the Indonesian election just several months back, that was why there was this push of let's have more young people in the government, not just the our VP, but literally everyone else, like, why can't we have more young people as a minister or you're more young people in the legislative? Why can't we have more of these? And again, this is the question of what happens when you have very large democracies, not just Indonesia, but India and other countries when the leaders and the populace have both an information and also an interest gap.

So again, these are the issues that I think a lot of public policymakers need to really think about, like, how close are you to the friction that is really happening in real life? It's like, how can Indonesian ministers make decisions about public transportation, if they don't use public transportation? Like, how do you know how bad it gets? And you can say that about a lot of things, too, in the US elections. When you're, you have these leaders criticizing certain things, how do you know? When was the last time you had to rely on pension or on Social Security or on Medicare or all of these things?

(15:19) Jeremy Au:

A hundred percent agree with you about that, and I think it's never an easy balancing the domestic reality versus the economic rules of gravity, because we all know that tariffs impose these costs. We all know that tariffs transfers wealth and welfare from one person to another class of people.

So I think it's all known at this point. Yeah. So it's going to be quite interesting how to see how it shakes out. I guess for me, the interesting part is just I feel like the world is just going to move towards becoming more of a protectionist approach. And I think as a result, I think inflation will stay up higher for longer because, if your cost of living is going to stay high because you're not allowing these cheaper imports. And so if you have high inflation and on average, interest rates would be a bit higher on average as well to control that. And now of course, if interest rates a bit higher than to some extent, the tech sector would do a little bit worse because of the cost of capital for waiting for profits to come out as much shorter, as a result. So actually it's quite interesting to see that weightage first order, second order, third order effects really rippling through the system.

(16:13) Gita Sjahrir:

Including in Indonesia. And another thing is oftentimes you really realize that so many of these countries are making decisions and they don't realize how it spills over to other regions and other countries. And that's why in the end, yes, you should always look out for yourself. You should always make the best decision for your region at the same time. Also, just being very aware that these effects can ricochet it can affect tariffs in other countries which inadvertently end up affecting your tariffs, your country and I think these are the type of considerations that again happens when people make short term decisions without thinking of what are the long term impacts on the populace.

(16:56) Jeremy Au: Yeah. Well, I think one thing that's going to happen, I think I've seen more of it happen as well, is more Chinese companies like relocating operations into Indonesia. And I also see that in Thailand as well. So some level of either JV or they are running the factory where it's technically under a domestic company, but then the assembly line and managers are all Chinese. So definitely seeing that approach and reaction by Chinese companies.

(17:18) Gita Sjahrir:

Yep. And again I'm one of those people who don't necessarily believe if something happens it's good or bad because in the end, the world will just consistently evolve with or without my preference, right? And the more globalized people become, the more they face exclusionary policies wherever they are. They will try to find other places, right? That's just the movement of people. That's just how people evolve. And for me, it's more about, well, when these things happen, how do you prepare yourself that rather than compete, how do you both leverage it so you both benefit? Because for example, in Indonesia, yes, there is more movement of that coming into the country, but then again, if that means that they can upscale local workforce, you can have transfer of knowledge, you can have different new systems in place that end up benefiting the populace more, I mean, why not? And then the challenge there will be, how do you have public policy makers who can actually adjust and even let these new systems thrive rather than be protectionist due to fear or due to some preconceived notion and just see like, where can this new system take us?

(18:25) Jeremy Au:

Yeah. I agree. What's interesting for me is that, in general, it just makes physical things more expensive from my perspective, but, the digital world continues to be a hundred percent, perfect competition, low costs, it's like becoming a little bit like a cyberpunk in my head, cyberpunk in the sense that, like everything in past real is expensive and everything digital is cheap. And I think it's just interesting to see that, in my head, happening more and more.

(18:49) Gita Sjahrir:

If you really look at it again, one of the things that I like about working in Indonesia is how resilient the private sector is. If you think about what they go through, what we do in a typical day, knowing that we face so many, just so many policies that work against private sector. It's amazing that private sector even can go that far. They do all sorts of things just to survive, just to end up growing. But oftentimes I do wonder, what happens if you have better systems in place that allow them to thrive faster? Or at least not go through so much headache just to do one thing So for example, even getting a fund license in indonesia is really hard and it's really long And again, there's a lot of fear on things that people don't understand. There's a big misunderstanding on what LLC's are, or what funds are or what family offices are. And those are the things that end up holding us back.

So again, I think this is where it's very important also for government to start thinking of the importance of communication. With people so that people feel that they are part of the mix of the decision making in the country, and also they know that there's a bigger, greater mission at hand, rather than going, Oh there's a wound that's bleeding. Put another bandaid on it. There's another wound that's bleeding. Put another bandaid on it. And before you know it, you might end up with really bad policies that just affect normal people.

(20:16) Jeremy Au:

Yeah. Is there a push to simplify a cut through the red tape components? I mean, I was just wondering I know, for example, there was a recent push to consolidate all the different apps into a one app.

(20:27) Gita Sjahrir:

Yeah, okay. So I always tell a lot of founders this because founders usually come to me with a solution for a market problem that they see, where they go, Hey, these inefficiencies happen and I can solve them. And before they say anything, I always go a., in emerging markets, and honestly, maybe in other markets too, if there's an inefficiency that has happened for a very long time, always ask yourself, who's benefiting from this inefficiency? Because something must be happening right for some people that they're just keeping it this way. And you see that in a lot of sectors, like you see that in, different market issues and that's why until today there's very little you can do to solve that problem. And again, when you talk about streamlining anything at all in Indonesia, the question is who's benefiting from things being inefficient and why I'm quite ant-tariffs or why I'm quite not fully ant-tariffs, but like ant-tariffs that are very high or anti sweeping restrictions or all those things because for a lot of emerging markets, the administrator will basically use that law for their own benefit. So they can come up with many ways to leverage a certain gray area or they leverage certain hole in the law or they find a way to just maneuver in the system. And so those are the things that end up making these inefficiencies stay alive.

And so I think in the end, the question is more, can the next leader have enough political will to make efficiencies start happening in the system? I think it's a political will issue.

(22:02) Jeremy Au:

Yeah. So it looks like it's already starting to happen, right? I think Jokowi just basically said, Hey he has told all the ministers to stop launching new apps starting this year. So some of the numbers are the Indonesia government has 27,000 government apps, one ministry can have even over 500 apps. And so currently over the past year, about 386 million USD was spent in creating new apps. And so basically there's a big push now to consolidate and make them less redundant and make them more efficient.

(22:31) Gita Sjahrir:

I agree. President Jokowi has wanted a lot of these ministries to stop building apps, which is a good thing. But with our latest cyberware attack in which a hacker literally held hostage hundreds of millions of citizens data and then gave back the key. Yeah, I gave back the key to the ministry because they felt bad that our government was just not well prepared for a cyber attack was just both tragic and so sad that we all laughed about it in a very sad way, when you laugh cry, that's basically all Indonesian citizens that day, we just laugh cry, right? Because, wow, yeah, this is how good as it gets for you. So Indonesia has had a lot of cyber attacks. So many, but the most public one just happened very recently, like a couple of weeks ago in which, a group of hacker attacked our database and literally held hostage hundreds of millions of data. And then in a sad twist, after they realized that no one took responsibility and accountability, it's true. No one took responsibility. We just had ministers and head of securities that just went, we didn't know. It was very embarrassing for the entire country that the hackers gave back the key and open donation for themselves to say hey if you appreciate that we've shown you that your government is not ready, please donate to this link.

I feel I feel those things really just does happen to Indonesia, cause, cause it really just reflected too, right? Again, this question of, does the government have political will? Does the government have political will to actually put people in power that have the background or the technical know how for whatever it is that they're supposed to lead? Is the person in charge of, I don't know, technology, have any technology background? Or, are they known to make interviews literally talking about technological term that every gen Z and millennial know, and they literally don't know about it at all.

(24:32) Jeremy Au:

Oh boy.

(24:33) Gita Sjahrir:

Yeah. So again, this is the question. And you can't simplify it as saying, Oh, that's politics, because, again, if it's politics, just for politics sake, then that's just craziness, because politics is supposed to have a certain end goal or mission, not just politics for politics' sakes, which literally puts hundreds of millions of citizens' well being and safety in the hand of people who don't understand the gravity of the things that they hold. Yeah, so when I say it really boils down to political will, I mean it. Will the next government have enough political will to actually put people in place that can truly lead in whatever sector or whatever the vision they're supposed to lead. Will they put experts in it? Will they have people who are truly knowledgeable that can advise them?

These are real questions because we can't have another rerun of, hundreds of millions of citizens data being held hostage. Oh, by the way, it caused a lot of chaos and immigration. So the auto gate, for example, for just imagine auto gate for Jakarta airport, one of the largest airports in the region, completely being dysfunctional for days.

(25:42) Jeremy Au:

Hopefully, things get better. Yes. I do have to say that the idea of a hacker saying, it's too much work for me to figure out who to blackmail, cause like nobody, and there's no clear point of contact for me to blackmail properly. For me to crowdsource the dishes. It's just hilarious, at a deep tragic way.

(25:57) Gita Sjahrir:

Sad. Yeah, it's tragic though. It's laugh cry, right? You're laughing and you're both just bawling because you're here.

(26:05) Jeremy Au:

Oh boy. Well, I think it makes sense though, because you have 27,000 apps, you create a lot of surface area, not everybody can have the right cybersecurity, so putting them together from a technocratic perspective is actually a good way to increase security. And I think I find it amusing that the agency is going to be called GovTech Indonesia, which sounds a lot like GovTech Singapore, which so, yeah. So it's literally.

(26:28) Gita Sjahrir:

To be fair, Singapore's done a pretty good job with some things, so it's not the worst place to learn.

(26:35) Jeremy Au:

Yeah, Well, touch wood, because, never know.

(26:37) Gita Sjahrir:

Touch wood.

(26:37) Jeremy Au:

You never know, so I wouldn't do a victory lap for Singapore because it's like, for sure it's like next week you'll be like, Oh, 5 million Singaporeans got their identification leaked as well. Anyway, that has not happened and hopefully it doesn't happen, but you know, hackers are getting pretty good these days.

(26:50) Gita Sjahrir:

That's true. Yeah.

(26:51) Jeremy Au:

I guess one interesting thing that you talked about as well is how beyond that your red tape can be simplified because, what do you think are some opportunities for red tape to be simplified from your perspective?

(27:02) Gita Sjahrir:

Again, when you're trying to address any inefficiencies, always ask who's benefiting from the inefficiencies. So rather than the way I look at it, rather than try to go against the system, this is why I'm not big into revolutionizing anything because it's very hard actually to get people who are swimming one way to swim another way. Just think about how do you replace those people's usual sources of revenue, which is, let's say, from an inefficiency in one system, they're able to get leverage and then make revenue from that. How do you replace it with revenue from another system? A revenue that makes sense, that is right. How do you create incentives so that people don't feel that their livelihoods are being threatened if they switch? And I think that's really the big question. Because again, when you're trying to cut out middle people, I always find that to be a very tough war to go for because when you cut them out they're going to rebel somehow.

So more about how do you work with them? So how do you formalize them even? How do you formalize them into a system? So they don't feel that by supporting the system, they are taken out. And I think it's that it's really that question. So rather than cutting people out, find ways to incorporate them, but in a way that makes sense for whatever problem that you're trying to solve and it's that. But so far, to be honest A lot of systems haven't done the best in doing, in solving that problem. They usually find it much easier to just cut people out. Cut people out, cut channels out, and the only question you'll have with that is these people and these channels will pop up somewhere else. It's more about, then how do you find a way to incorporate people? How do you get buy in? And I think getting buy in for whatever problem that you're trying to solve is huge.

(28:43) Jeremy Au:

Yeah. Well, it seems like the only winner for sure is app developers for the government. So.

(28:47) Gita Sjahrir:

That's true.

(28:48) Jeremy Au:

Yeah. On that note let's call it a day.

(28:50) Gita Sjahrir:

Awesome. Thank you so much for another fun time talking about public policy economics and what people are doing on the ground.