If not already being considered, there are other matters as well which the present session can delve into. Like taxes, IP, data and sovereignty:

Taxes

For instance, what if the west tries to impose a global carbon tax and a global digital tax in the same way it had lobbied for a global minimum corporate tax?

What are the implications for the economy and country besides the small to medium-sized companies and subcontractors?

Will any carbon tax affect the carbon credit market being tried out at the moment?

Won't any digital tax affect exporters listed in e-commerce portals and e-marketplaces, and by additional token of which, jobs and resource deployment?

Should the counter-response be to reduce export rebates, but increase gate prices by formulaically incorporating both taxes but without affecting the future role of the currency?

If gate prices are increased, will there be permanent loss of market shares and rise of future downsides, furthermore magnified by workforce aging before chip autonomy is achieved?

Are there any other things which the country must now prepare for to avert difficulties later?

IP's

If the country's technology IP's are contested or broken by foreign entities, are there measures which can be immediately and strategically taken to effectively crack down on them?

In publicizing new discoveries, has enough care been exercised prior to publication to avert the heads-up use of the discoveries by other outside entities that will end up causing loss to the state and domestic industries in the near future besides demotivating researchers to continue their labors (in the country)?

While generally the global scientific community shares findings openly in recognition of peer achievement, technology applications of those findings are more restricted.

Since the country is now starting to realize fundamental (basic) research is the foundation of future applications, won't keeping the publicity valve still stuck open only benefit those who are less benevolent in nature and more distrusting and mean in actions?

This of course shouldn't be the way to improve the world but the same world has already been twisted out of natural-cooperation shape by western forces who meanwhile laconically profess they have some higher 'human values'.

One other troubling matter - as alluded outside, why was it necessary to announce military-private sector fusion would be tapped knowing full well it will give the very ammunition for the west and its eastern allies to increase distrust and decoupling?(see 4. below).

Furthermore, the same west was reported to have pinpointed a local law saying the local private enterprise must cooperate with the state, the same state that the same west is trying to incite against. Why was that law announced if it was so, or written in such a way, knowing full well the west would use it against the private enterprise, hence the state, in short the country?

Data

The west has been secretly cyber-spying on others since the days of Bush (as in Vannevar the MIT engineer). But it never accounted for Snowden who exposed the subterfuge.  Which is why the west has been trying to snuff him out.

Now the same west is accusing the state of recently hacking some western commercial software even to the extent of parading four names of locals who were named much earlier than the event.

Two simple questions then: one, if the four were already named before the event, how could they have been still active on the new event knowing they were already identified earlier? Two, the pioneer hacker identifying the later presumed 'hackers' must mean the pioneer hacker has been hacking the state which is a more credible conclusion since earlier charges against most others have been thrown out in the pioneer hacker's own courts.

And that is why chasing new capital and dividends through foreign IPOs can dangerously lead to foreign powers identifying locals by accessing their data through some future application to target them for subversion. That the CIA had penetrated HK schools and colleges and also the administrative offices in Xinjiang in the past leaves no room for doubt of this possibility.

That out of the way, what legal foundation can be laid now for big data usage into the future that also impinges on socio-economic reengineering on the one hand and the institutional reforms being structured for future progress on the other hand?

Shall one start with a simple vision? One that says everything in a country can be digitally and automatically tracked in real-time through the IoT backbone and Sensor dendrites (read: surveillance and big data analytics) which both form its national big data ecosystem?

Such an ecosystem need not be construed as some insidious and dystopian Matrix but as an ubiquitous and comprehensive tool to support policy formulation for socio-economic reengineering towards a moderately prosperous and hummingly harmonious society.

The need to quickly introduce the 3-child policy so soon after the new census would imply the census took time to collect, amass and analyze, in short late to alert; this may be understandable for a big and diverse country but it still doesn't solve the problem of how to get updated data fast enough to make informed policies to avert future challenges.

So, what if all future surveys, not just of population growth but also everything else that affects a citizen whether young or old, working or not working, etc, is captured by the ecosystem tool in realtime and all the time?

Then any census or survey on any matter for any policy planning can be an ongoing exercise that automatically updates itself whatever, wherever and whenever any change takes place affecting anyone, furthermore relieved from data tweaking by locals to hide weaknesses and nonproductively increase funding budgets.

The changes can be income, spending, savings levels and recurrents, work-education synchronization, health-life balance equilibrium, mobility-location patterns, project costs and returns, i.e. the sort of factors which affect demographic policies.

Depending at which angle one slices the data mass, new insights can be derived which, when coupled with findings from other areas, can form a richer set of information leading to better informed and more accurate actions - in any sector or matter.

Say, a simplified example. Mobility-location showed increase in population in one suburban place. Another slice showed the place has not yet experienced a natural disaster like an earthquake or a flood when, according to some geographic model, it lies on a fault line or has underdeveloped drainage. Putting the two together, appropriate emergency recovery resources can be emplaced so that less losses will be sustained should anything bad strikes.

It is a wonderful thought if there is a realtime digital map which can depict everything so that the right amount of capital and resources can be channeled at the right time to achieve the fullest result in benefit to people and state. Like a traffic map but to n-dimensions.

Sovereignty

These days it is necessary to respond in like manner because if one doesn't do so, it will be taken as weakness and thus open to further exploitation.

Take the matter of military-private sector fusion. Who pioneered that arrangement? The US military-industrial complex. So if the state's airlines still buy commercial airplanes from publicly-listed Boeing which had also made military B-52 stratofortresses for the US Airforce that can drop mines onto the China (Taiwan) Straits and render it impassable, doesn't it say the notion of military-private sector fusion is not considered such a big deal in Asia yet it can still be advanced as an existential threat by the very country which has been practicing its greatest skill - the skill of gaslighting any nation which doesn't toe the US line? Gaslighting is to lie by accusing others of doing what one only has been doing.

Take another example: these days the US has reduced its approach to the state by diplomatic heckling, media baiting and desperate stalking under the umbrella of some oxymoronic 'rivalry partnership'.

While doing so, it tries to slip in its commitment to a 'strong, unofficial, relationship' with Taiwan with which it has signed a number of congressional Acts.

How is all this defensible if it really recognizes China as China and Taiwan as part of China?

It is really playing with fire since if China doesn't respond to the creeping salami approach to embolden the island's separatists, then the island will ultimately become a US-militarised rock at China's doorstep for target practice by its drones which has to be done since if the US could not countenance Russian missiles on Cuban soil, how can China countenance US-militarized industrial complex war machines on Chinese soil of formosan vintage, especially when the Manila Trench abutting the island and so near the coast is deep enough for US nuclear submarines to traverse undetected with only a few minutes warning before launch?

Which is also why the Trumpista's-Bidenido's have tried to kill off Huawei because its IoT's 5G is the industrial gamechanger of the 21st century.

Lastly (and mercifully), read the following carefully:

"Honestly, auditing suppliers in Xinjiang is just about impossible,” said Virginia Representative Jennifer Wexton, a Democrat. "It’s a police state, and forced labour is so systemic that it’s hard to determine if there’s forced labour in the supply chain.”

As she has a JD and was trained as a US lawyer, she should be asked if it's hard to determine if there is forced labour in Xinjiang and of Xinjiangers, on what legal foundation then did the US accusation of forced labour arise against the state?

Furthermore, if it is hard to determine forced labour, what more genocide (and vice versa)?

If that's the quality of the US legal and political profession which populates the US congress and department of justice, one worries about the legal recourse Sabrina Meng can really get from the Canadian court toadying to the same department under the auspices of the US congress.

Maybe the US' Wendy Sherman should contemplate this conclusion more carefully before accusing the state of holding in custody drug criminals as bargaining chips.

To ease her contemplation, she should ask Trump what he had meant when he said he could make the extradition charge go away if the state bows to the US' demands in other areas.

Meanwhile, the US' Blinken called a separate meeting with Indian activitists and on Indian soil, portraying himself as some self-proclaimed doctor of democracy and probing into a number of contentious issues to embarrass Modi, even while admitting 'the US and India are democracies - in progress'.

Indeed, the US is still in progress as a champion of democracy - it snoops on allies, deserts partners and legitimizes its hegemony by lying about others.

One asks - how can 'autocracy' then be a consequential threat to a 'democracy' that has not fully been formed? Or informed, for that matter.

Yes, sovereignty is even more precious these days.