Amen. Good evening, everybody. Good evening. Are you awake? Good, good, good, good, good, good. It's good to have you back with us for our evening worship service here at Nairobi Central. And again, I'd like to extend a warm welcome not only to those of you who are here, but for those of you who are watching online, wherever you are from the folks back home in the Cayman Islands, you're just waking up, starting the Sabbath when we are closing the Sabbath. So we want to welcome all of you, and wherever in the world you are watching from, we're delighted to have you with us this evening. Were you blessed this morning? Amen. Amen, amen, amen. The power of God's word. And we will be diving into it a little bit, a little more this evening again. And I just want to say I hope blessed my wife and I are to be sharing this meeting with you. This is my second trip to Nairobi Central, Pastanbuchi. Ten years ago, courtesy of your pastor, I was here. And as I watched the youth choir a while ago, I was wondering, how many of those young people were here ten years ago? How many of you guys were here ten years ago? All right, I want to see all the hands that you were here ten years ago when I came here. Look at that. Oh man, come on, give me a road. Oh, you don't clap, I'm not too sure if you clap. All right, well, we're delighted to have you back. And I'm happy that you remain faithful with the Lord, amen. You remain faithful with the Lord. Tremendous stuff, tremendous stuff. I don't know how much longer the Lord will keep us here on earth, but for every day we are just so grateful. All right, I'm going to share with you what's going to happen for the rest of this week. Tomorrow evening and Monday morning. Today we dealt with that subject, the stone is coming. And in the next few minutes we'll be doing with the next, can we put up the next one for them? The next slide, good. In a few minutes we'll deal with this big subject, blundering on the borders. That's coming your way in a few minutes. And then tomorrow evening when you get here, the subject is now hiring, get involved. That's part two of our theme. All right, so heaven is now hiring. We're going to talk about that tomorrow evening. Don't miss it, make sure you are here. But the big question is what's the qualification for being hired? We're going to talk about that. And then on Monday morning, the big presentation. Let's go back up there Monday morning and just hit the button again. And the year ago. Monday morning it is the subject becoming. Make sure you're here on Monday morning for that big presentation becoming. And then Monday evening, Monday evening. Big subject for us on Monday evening. Why some people will not make it home because of procrastination. It was a big subject on Monday evening, procrastination. You don't want to miss that one big presentation Monday evening. Then on Tuesday morning, Tuesday morning. Yeah, call me. You like that one? Yeah, you laugh. Yes, yes, yes, yes. Call me Peter. Get involved. That's what we're going to talk about on Tuesday morning. Tuesday evening when you come, we're dealing with this subject. Tuesday evening, next one. This is what we have for Tuesday evening presentation. Call me Paul. That's on Tuesday evening when you come. Yup, these are going to crack the Bible to see the folks that God enlist to help us in his second coming. It blows your mind away. It gives you an opportunity to tell you that you can make it. And so on Wednesday morning, Wednesday morning. Let's see what we have for Wednesday morning. Wednesday morning, next slide. Let's see what we have for Wednesday morning. Birth pains have begun. The birth pains have begun. That's a big powerful presentation on Monday morning. Yup, sir, that's a sign that the coming is already on the way. And then right after that in the afternoon, spot check at the pearly gate. Spot check at the pearly gates. There's some stuff. God has to tick off. I wonder if we all make it through. That's going to be on, I think that's on Wednesday evening. All right. And then Thursday morning, yup, the last church. That's our big presentation Thursday morning. The very last church. What does it look like? Do you have membership in it? Is this it in Nairobi? The last church. We're going to talk about that. And then in the evening, let's see what evening. Yup. Even the last sign. I'm going to say hello to AI. The last sign. That's going to be on Thursday evening. And then on Friday, and then on Friday, let's go Friday. Friday is it just a verse. Are we, how close is Christ coming? Just a verse away. We'll tell you which verse it is.  And then I think this is Saturday morning. The silence in heaven. The silence in heaven. All the silence in heaven. Your Bible says there was a strange silence in heaven for how long? Anybody remember? There was a strange silence in heaven for half an hour. We're going to find out why. Join me for that one. All right. I think that's a lineup. And then we're going to start our presentation for this evening. Please join me as we turn our attention to the blundering on the borders. Your heads are bowed. So Lord, we cannot open your words without we ask for your help. So please Holy Spirit, speak to our hearts now. We pray and give us understanding in Jesus' name. Amen. You choose to miss any of those presentation at your own risk. Make sure your hair. Blundering on the borders. Blundering on the borders. I am particularly concerned, maybe concern is a light word, worried that some of us who want to make it into God's kingdom will not be able to make it in. And I'll share with you the reason why. The Christian journey is often characterized in various forms. Stay with the preacher. One of them is it's a race that we're running. We use it as a race. But more popular is the story in the Bible of the journey of the children of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. And we often use that journey to illustrate our current experience journeying on this planet Earth, looking for the day when we will be taken from here to the promised land. Is the church still with me? Yes. If it is so, then that's where my trouble lies. That's where my worry lies. So come with me. Let's just recap a few things about that journey of the children of Israel from Egypt to Canaan. Question number one. Does anybody know how many people were in that crowd that Moses was leading? What was the membership of the church at that time? Because that was God's church, yes? Yes? Yes, that was God's church. What was the membership? Anybody know how many people were in that crowd? Come with me. I'm in the book of Exodus. I'm in chapter 12. I'm in verse 37. Just to keep you awake, what book did I say? Exodus. I'm in Exodus. Second book. I'm in chapter 12. I'm in verse 37. Exodus, chapter 12. I'm in verse 37. Exodus 12, 37. Here's what the Bible says. Then the children of Israel journeyed from Ramesses to Sakkot. Ramesses is that district in Egypt that they were living. That's community. They journeyed from Ramesses to Sakkot. And let me read. How many? About 600,000 men on foot. And beside men were what? Children. No, no. So where were the women? Uh-oh. The lift. Ladies, they left you out. They tend to always do that stuff. You're not in the census. Stay with me. 600,000 men. Okay? I assume that some, if not most of these men were married. Yes? Yes. And I further assume that most of them had more than one wife. Is that okay? Yeah. Because Jacob had two. Am I right? Yeah. He married the two sisters. Are we together? And these are all Jacob's sons. So I assume that the men, the 600,000 men. Watch me, watch me, watch me. If each of those men had one wife, that would be another 600,000 women. That would be a total of 1.2 million. If they had more than one wife, it is even more. But let's stay at one wife. Amen? Amen. So it would be at least 1.2 million. Now let's add in the children. Now how many children you think each couple had? Well, well to give you a starter, Jacob had how many? 12 boys. And a girl. So if each of these married couples have children, I think it would be, can you imagine? Maybe 8, 10, 12, 13, 14 maybe? So if you have 600,000 couples plus their children, how many people is that? So can you see then that we are way over 2 million? Is that all right? Because I'm about to give an estimate based on this. Just an estimate. I'm telling you, it's about 2.5 million people in everybody leaving Egypt. Is the church with me? Good, good, good. Verse 38, verse 38. Verse 38 says, verse 38 says something else. Can we put 38 up there? Genesis 12 verse 38 says something else. Henry, it says a mixed multitude went up with them also. No, mixed multitude. What's that? That it was not just the children of Israel who left. When they were leaving their Egyptian neighbors and coworkers and friends, some of them decided, hey, we're not staying in Egypt because all these 10 plagues that just passed through here, they may come back again, so we're leaving town. So some of them left because they were escaping the plague, LNY tells us. Others left out of mere curiosity. They're just tired of living in Egypt and so they want to go where these folks were going. I went together and the rest of them left because they were believers in God. So it was a mixed multitude of both the children of Israel and Egyptian together in the church. Is the church with me? A huge group, 2.5 million or more, and they journeyed from Ramesses. They crossed through the Red Sea. Oh, you know the story, got opened the Red Sea. I love them to cross over and dry land. Pharaoh's army coming after them. And when the army was in the middle of the Red Sea, God closed up the water, destroyed the army. So they get rid of their enemies and they left town. Now remember, remember, remember, remember if you can. Not a single person in that group knew where they were going because all of them were born. Come on, preach it to me. All of them were born in Egypt. And even Moses himself knew where he was going because he was born in Egypt. So how will they know where to go? Oh, there was a pillar of cloud by day. Is the church with me? Yeah, because God was their pathfinder. God was their leader. And so they... When the cloud moved, they moved. When the clouds stopped, they stopped. In the day, that cloud formed a shade of the sun so they could walk in sunshade. And in the night, it turned into a pillar of fire and gave them both light and warmth. Are you with me? God is taking care of them on their journey. When food ran out, God sent manna from heaven. When water ran out, God spoke to Moses. Moses spoke to the rock. At least he struck the rock. Water flew. All their needs were taken care of by God. Amen. So the folks in Nairobi hear the preacher. They journeyed under the pastorship of God. Is the church with me? Oh, you didn't get it. They journeyed under the leadership of God. And they came to the end of their journey. I won't Nairobi to listen to me. They came to the end of their journey. They camped out on the borders of Canaan at a place called Canish Barnea. They could look over and see the promised land. Then something strange happened. In the book of Numbers chapter 13 verses 1 to 3, something strange happened. Numbers. Turn your bibles here.  Numbers chapter 13, something strange happened. The Bible says, and the Lord spoke to Moses. Next verse. Verse 2, send men to spy out the land of Canaan, which I am giving to the children of Israel from each tribe of their fathers.  Stop, brethren, stop. When you read Bible, when you read Bible, you must stop and question it. Is that all right? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. Interrogate it, interrogate it. Question. This, this does not make any sense at all. What, what, what? That verse does not make any sense at all. Nothing, no sense at all. Why? Ask yourself the question. It is God who promised these guys the land. Amen? It is before they left Egypt, God already know what he's bringing them. Why does God need somebody to spy the land that he already have prepared for them? Does God not know who is over there and what is over there? Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, by the way, from where he sits, he has already had a good view of the land. So who needs this information? Not God. God knew the Amalekites over there and the Jebusites over there and all the Alakites over there and all the Aites over there. So who need this intel? It was troubling until I went to, until I went to, to the book of Deuteronomy. I think it is one verse 22 where, where Moses was recording. Moses says, all of you ask me to send spies. So the idea of sending spies was not God's idea. God don't need no spy. It was, it was man's idea. God says, okay, since you all need to send spy, then send spy.    They're going to spy out the land that God promised them. Look who they chose. You must choose a man from where? Each tribe of their father, you shall send a man. And not just any man. You shall send who? The leader. Hey, hey, hey, stay with the preacher. Stay with the preacher. You're not going to send any and any man for every tribe, 12 tribes of Israel.  Substitute the word leader for an elder. Am I coming home to you? This is the church of God sending on the borders of Canaan. And we're going to spy out the land and we can't leave, hey, hey, hey. We can't leave this responsibility to any careless, uncommitted member of the church. Amen. We want to find somebody who is a leader. Hey, somebody who is well respected among his tribe. Yes. Yes. Somebody who have experienced walking with God. Somebody who the people look up to. Is the church with me? Hey, hey, hey, hey. So that when that leader come back and say over there is red, everybody will believe him because he's a respected member of the church. Verse three. Verse three. So Moses sent them from the wilderness of Paran according to the command of the Lord. Oh, help me read. Help me read. Oh, help me read. All of them. Men who were heads of the children of Israel.  Are you having fun like me here? I'm having fun up here. Who are they? Head elders. 12 head elders. Senior elders of the church. Senior elders of the church. Well, well, some of you know the story. They went over and they searched the land for 40 days and they came back to Moses. With the report. I mean verse 31 of number 13. Verse 31 gives a synopsis of their report. Verse 31, the Bible says, help me read. But the men who had gone up with him said, we are not able to go up against the people over there. For they are stronger than we are. It says, Moses, we went to look at the land. The land is really good. It is flowing with milk and only but there are some problems over there. The people over there are strong and we cannot stand up against them. So we have a problem on the borders. Stay with the preacher. Stay with the preacher. I mean verse 32. Let's go verse 32. Let's go verse 32. Look at what the text says. And these elders, well you soon find out, 10 of them, they gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land that God promised them. Are you with me? These 12 leaders, well not 12, we found out that two of them were not in agreement. 10 of them gave the children of Israel a bad report of the land that God promised them. Is the church still with me? Yes, yes, yes. Saying, here's what their report. They said, the land through which we have gone as spies is a land that devours the inhabitants. What is that? In other words, the land that we go check out, it's a very serious, not only is the people big and strong, but the very land eat up the inhabitants. Ellen White says if that were true, they wouldn't come back over alive. Not only that, they said, and we saw in it men who are giants. There we saw the giants, the descendants of Anak. Goliath is a family member of the Anak. And we were like grasshoppers in their own sight, so we were in their sight. So the men said, hey, this mission that we have of possessing the land that God has promised is not going to work. Every side mission, if we ever go over there. So when the people heard that, there was trouble in the church. There was trouble in the church because the people said, all these years we have been traveling and God has been leading. How is it we come to a cul-de-sac? What do we do now? What do we do now? Because these are elders of the church. So what they say must be true. And it's not one of them, two of them, three of them, four of them, five of them. It's not six of them, seven of them, eight of them are nine. Ten out of the twelve. So, oh dear God, it must be true. Ten holy men in the church leadership can't be lying like that. Must be true. So what do we do now? Well, chapter fourteen verse one says, when the people heard it, you know, these people are tired of walking, man. They want to go home. And just on the borders, you're coming to tell us that we can't occupy the land. Anger stirred up inside of the people. And chapter one, chapter fourteen verse one, let's turn there. Numbers fourteen verse one, here's what the Bible says. Numbers fourteen verse one. Bible says, in Numbers fourteen verse one, turn your Bible. Look at the response of the people. Numbers chapter fourteen verse one. You'll be, when the people heard it, the word of God says they wept. Can we get that on the screen? Numbers fourteen verse one. Here's what the text says. So all the congregation lifted up, have you seen that? They lifted up their voices and they cried and the people wept all night. They bawled. How could it possibly be that we were led all these years? How could it possibly be that we were led, deceived, and they wept? And verse two says, let's go verse two. Verse two tells us they did something else. And all the children of Israel, and all the children of Israel in verse two, they complained against Moses and they complained against Aaron and the whole congregation said to them, oh if only we had died in the land of Egypt. We wish to God we never left Egypt. Only we had died in this wilderness.  Why has God brought us here to punish us on the borders? And they cried. Why has the Lord brought us to this land to fall by the sword that our wives and our children should become victims? Would it not be better for us, they said, to return to Egypt? And the next verse says, verse four, can we read it softly? One, two, three, like kindergarten children. One, two, three. So they said one to another. Let us select a new leader. We're going back to Egypt. The folks led by God, listen to the preacher, reach the end of their journey and on the borders just to step over. The devil set up a trap using the leadership of the church. And because the people put their trust in the leaders, the whole congregation, 2.5 million of them, rejected Moses, rejected God. He says we're going, we ain't going to Canaan anymore. We ain't going to heaven anymore. Take us back to Egypt. The problem they have, I don't know how they plan to get back through that Red Sea because God ain't opening it again for them. Is the church with me? And God was angry. God was angry with them. You could hear, you could hear the hunger coming out of God. I'm in verse 11 of chapter 14. I'm in verse 11, chapter 14 verse 11, chapter 14. Then the Lord said to Moses, then the Lord said to Moses, how long will these people reject me? How long will they reject me? And how long will they not believe me even for the things that I've done? Look at what I've done for them. Why is it that they can't look at what I have done and put their trust in me? All these years I brought them through the Red Sea and devour their enemies. I fed them in the night and day and carry them. And now one little test and they forgot everything that I have done for them.  How long will I put up with this Moses? How long?  Moses says, no Lord. This is when man counsel God. Oh, you didn't get it.  Moses says, no Lord, you can't do that. If you do that, the Egyptians will hear.  You want to look too good for your reputation. Oh, Lord. This is when man counsel God. Watch me, watch me. And as big and mighty as God is, God humble himself and took the counsel from Moses. What amazing God! He took the counsel from Moses. He says, okay, Moses, here's what I'll do. Read the chapter when you go home. Turn around the camp. Turn them around. Head back into the wilderness. Is the church with me? Yes, turn around the camp! Head back into the wilderness. And for every day that the spies were in the land spying, I'll give them one year punishment in the wilderness. 40 days they were over there spying. 40 years they're going to be in the wilderness. Until, until, until the carcass of every one of them wrought in the wilderness. Moses turned around the camp into the wilderness. And God says, here's what I'll do.  They will never enter the promised land. They will use their children to go in but not them. Except two. Two. Caleb and Joshua. 2.5 million people left Egypt. Only two made it in. Let me repeat that for you. Two, approximately 2.5 million left Egypt. Only two made it in. The whole church was lost on the borders. Even though God was above them in the day and night. Even though God fend them with manner. The whole church was lost. Except two. So preacher, why is that important for Nairobi today? Because, because you and I are again on the borders. Our journey is all but over. We saw it this morning in the prophecy. Is the church with me? And the devil has set up another trap again for the church. And that's why I'm sharing with you. So come with me to the book of Hebrews. Hebrews chapter 12. Your scripture reading. Hebrews 3. I'm going to take my babbles over there. Hebrews 3. I'm reading from verse 12. Hebrews 3. Take your time. Verse 12. Paul is the author of Hebrews. There's a lot of arguments as to who the author is. Well Ellen White settles it for me. Paul is the author of the book of Hebrews. Hebrews 3 verse 12. Here's Paul writing. Beware, brethren, let there be in any of you what? An evil heart of unbelief, of unbelief, of unbelief in departing from the living God. Verse 13. But exhort one another how? Daily while it is called today, unless any of you be hardened through the deceitfulness of sin. Paul warns. Verse 14. For we have become what? Partakers of Christ. If we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast to where? To the end. While it is said today if you will hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion. As in the rebellion. I mean verse 16. Then Paul asks. For who having heard rebelled? Indeed was it not all who came out of Egypt led by Moses? Paul is referring to that same tragedy. Verse 17. Now with whom was God angry? He in capital letter. Who with whom was he angry 40 years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose corpse fell in the wilderness? Verse 18. And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest? But to those who did not obey? I mean verse 19. So we see that they, help me read. So we see that they could not enter because of unbelief. So we see. Paul says. These guys came to the borders of eternity, came to the borders of the promised land, came to the end of their Christian journey, but could not make it over because of one thing, unbelief, unbelief. Then Paul makes the stunning statement. Because they didn't. What's the preacher? Because this is where you come in. Because they did not enter into God's rest. Canaan was supposed, Ellen White jumps in the picture again. Canaan was not just a literal place. It was a symbol of God's eternal rest for the Jewish people. And because they did not enter into God's eternal rest, Paul says that promise of entering into God's rest still remain for anybody who wish to enter. Is the church with me? I mean, look at it. I mean, I'm in chapter four of Hebrews, Hebrews four verse one. Therefore, Hebrews four verse one, look at it. Look at it. Look at it. Look at it. Hebrews four verse one. Therefore, since a promise, are you there? Look at the screen. Therefore, since a promise remains of entering his rest, let us do what? Fearless any of you seem to have come short of it. I mean verse two. I mean verse two. I mean verse two. For indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them. Here's the text. But the word which they heard did not profit them not because it was not mixed with what? Faith. I mean verse three. I mean verse three. I mean verse three. For we who are believed do enter that rest as he has said. So I swear in my wrath they shall not enter my rest. My rest although the works were finished from the foundation of the world. I mean verse four. For he has spoken in a certain place of the seventh day in this way and that God had rested on the seventh day from all the works that he has made. In other words, what Paul is saying, God still has a rest remain for his people because those people did not enter it. That rest is open for you and I. But the problem is the very same way they failed on the borders you and I may make the same mistake. If we don't believe, in other words, put simple, what will cause some people to lose their way is their inability to trust in God. We're at the end. We're at the end. Let me wrap up this sermon for you so you understand what I'm talking about. Where did on the borders of Canaan, what was the source of the mistrust? Talk back to me. What was the source of the unbelief? Hey, you're silent. Talk to me. What was the source? Who was the source? Who were the elders? Now I notice I'm coming home to you because you have a problem coming up. This is Bible. Who was the source of the problem? The elders. Who were the elders? The leaders of the tribe of Israel. What's the message? Answer. Read my lips on the borders of Canaan. You cannot trust your leaders. Oh, you still don't get it. The borders of Canaan, your trust must only be in God because the arm of flesh will fail you. Satan only need to infiltrate one leader and the church is in trouble. Oh, let me say one. On the borders of Canaan, your example is not your pastor. Your example is not your leader. Your example is not your officer. Your example is Jesus Christ and him only. So when the leaders stumble, you can still remain faithful to God. Oh, you still don't get it. Let me help you. Let me help you. Let me help you. When Jesus came here in person to save the Jewish people, there was another problem. What was the problem again? The whole nation of the Jews were lost as a nation. Why? Was it because salvation came? No. What problem they had? Belief. Somebody said it, belief. The problem they had was belief. Listen, watch your pressure. It does not matter how often Jesus come here. It doesn't matter if God himself. If they don't believe in him, they cannot be saved. You get that? That's why Jesus says, whosoever believeth in me shall not. So when Jesus came, Satan could not stop Jesus from coming. So when he came, he worked on the people's heart for them not to believe in Jesus. And if you don't believe in Jesus, you can't be saved. So quiet, quiet, quiet. Who was leading the campaign for the people not to believe in Jesus? Who was the source of the unbelief? Huh? What your Bible says? Who was teaching the people not to trust Jesus that he's a fake? Who was saying to him, you kept me the son of God because we know where you were born.  So you are illegitimate. You can't be God. Answer. Chief priests, elders, Pharisees, Sadducees. Who are these guys? Leaders of what? The church. If you don't believe the preacher, read this text. Matthew 2741. Put it up there. Matthew 2741. Matthew 2741. Matthew 2741. This is Jesus hanging on the cross. If you don't believe the preacher, then read what the text says. Likewise, who? Priests. This is the clergy. And by the way, it's not just any of them. Which of them? Chief of them. Mocking with the scribes. Those are the secretaries of the church. And who else? The elders. This is the leadership of the church. And said, I mean, said, he saved others. That's why Jesus hanging on the cross. This is the church leadership. He saved others himself. He can't save. If he's the king, if Jesus, if he's the king of Israel, let him now come down from the cross. And then we believe him. And when the pulpit says so, the brethren tend to say amen. In these last days, you have to be careful which pulpit you're listening to. You have to know the only reason. Hey, hey, hey, hey. The only reason why Caleb and Joshua went in, because they had a personal experience with God. Ain't no leader can tell them anything because they walk with God. They trust that God. So when things didn't look right, and they said, hey, the people said, we can't go. Caleb and Joshua said, I don't hear who's over there. God brought us this far, and God can carry us through. The leadership of the church caused the people not to believe in Jesus. Do you know who actually believed in Jesus? The people who were not in the church. The thief on the cross. Not a church man. Those good for nothing fishermen that Jesus uses as disciples. By the way, have you noticed that when God was choosing 12 disciples, he didn't take one of them out of the church. He went on the seaside, and he picked up just ordinary men. They believe in Jesus. You know who believe in Jesus? Hey, the rejects of society. Hey, hey, hey, Mary, Mary, Mary Magdalene, go through in the church door because she was just a prostitute. She believe in Jesus. You know who believe in Jesus? The centurion. He's not a church man. Ha! But he believe in Jesus. Go through the list of people who believe in Jesus, and you'll realize they're nowhere near the church. Because the church people were fed a doctrine by the chief priests and elders that this man isn't God. Satan, Paul talks about the great deception. Satan says on the book, Satan has it set up on the last days. He will use church. Are you hearing the preacher?  Every time I have a crusade, I tell the people, church is a dangerous place, because that's where the deception is placed. Hang on, hang on people, stay with the preacher here. That's where Jesus says, take heed that no man deceives you. They'll come in. They'll come in. My name. Where do people preach in Jesus' name? Church! And Jesus says, be careful of those who preach in my name. Where do they preach? Church. Jesus says, be careful of church you attend in the last days. That's why before you choose any church, you want to make sure you know it's the right church. Don't go to a church because it's near you. Or they're singing it sweet. Or that's what you grew up into. Because that's what the devil is going to use in the last days. Find a church that is anchored in the word of the living God. That's why I'm still in the Adventist church. Hey, hey, hey, can I say that one? That's why I am still here. And I tell everybody, I have no allegiance. I have no allegiance to the Adventist church. No, my allegiance is to the Lamb. Anytime this church mess up, I'm gone. Because my allegiance is to the Lamb. But so far this church remains the only church I know that is walking according to the word of God. That's why I'm here. It's a church with me. Unbelief. I close by telling you. Unbelief. Unbelief is what caused the people in the last days to be lost. They didn't believe the preacher. So they died. Unbelief is what caused Lot's family to burn up in Sodom and Gomorrah. When Lot went down there to call the boys, they didn't want to come. They didn't believe it. So they died. Unbelief is what's going to happen in these last days. People don't believe what pastors are saying. People don't believe what churches preach. People don't believe. People don't believe. But thanks be to God. You have the word for yourself. Study the word. Is the church with me? In these last days, study the word of God. Thanks, the Lord. We have it in different versions. You have it on your phone. You have it on your iPad. You have it. You have it. You have it left. You have it right. You have it. You have it. David said it's a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our pathway. The only way you can stand up against deception in the last days is if you study the word. So when you hear rubbish from any pulpit, you can say, that's not what my Bible says. Is the church with me? If you don't know this word, you will be the first victim of the deception on the borders of Canaan. So my challenge to you then, my challenge to you then, as we come to the end of this journey, understand that the great deception is coming. Understand that if it was possible, even the very elect would be deceived. Oh, if you ask Ellen White, she's worried about it. She's worried about it. She says, not even, not one in 20. Have I seen that he's ready? She's worried about it. And you should too, because this deception is great. And what is happening in these last days, a lot of hey, hey, hey, a lot of people not reading Bible for themselves anymore. No, no, no. They come to church and hear a good sermon for the past. I went back home. If that is your forte, you're going to be in trouble. You're going to be in trouble. You can't walk in my light. You can't walk in my light. Amen. You need your own flashlight. You need to study the word for yourself. And so as we get ready for the end, let us do like Caleb and Joshua. Amen. Ten against two. Ten against two. And those two men stood up and says, Moses, watch your preacher, watch your preacher. What these men say is true. Guys over there are big and strong. Watch your preacher. What they say is true. The guys over there are big and strong. The city is well fortified. It's true. But they say, but if God, if God has brought us here, I sure know it didn't carry us here to leave us. Amen. God who brought us here know that the people over there are strong. Amen. Amen. He knows that the cities are fortified. And therefore, if we put our trust in him, he will carry us through. My challenge to Nairobi in these last days, there will be giants in the cities. There'll be difficult times to come. You'll get some turbulence in the church. Don't let that shake you. The God that has brought us this far, we carry us. Is the church hearing me down here? Yeah, yeah, yeah. You'll get some big surprises and among church leaders, some will shock you, but don't let it shake you out of the church. The God who brought us this far will carry us through. Don't fall victim of the unbelief. We are marching to Zion. And I tell myself, whatever happens on planet earth, I will be in the number. Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I will be in the height and our dead principalities are paused. Nothing will separate me from God. I have suffered too long down here. I'm going home to be with the Lord. I will be in the number. I'll be in the number. And I don't care what happened in this church or outside the church. It's neither here nor there to me. I'll be in the number. I fast my seat belt in the church of God. Gonna be rough time, rocky time, but my eyes are fixed on Jesus. I'm going to be in the number when the saints go marching in. How many of you want to be in the number? Oh, Lord, I want to be in the number. Stand with me.   When the saints go marching in. I want you to go home hearing me saying this. Whole church journey with God. Whole church pass through the Red Sea, the mighty hand of God. Whole church see manifold every day. Whole church had all the experience. And yet none of the experience that they had with God helped them on the borders. Too troubling to me. To my brothers and sisters. It's not good enough just to be a member of the church. You have to ensure. You have to make that commitment. It's God. It doesn't matter what happened in this church. It is you and I. I'm not going to give up my trust in you.  Even if the devil throw you down and you get slip up, get up and come back again. As often as you get, throw you down, get up and come back again. Because I'm going home. Don't let nothing, no job, no relationship, no infighting and outfighting, no criticism, nothing. Let nothing separate you from God. It's when the role is called up yonder. It's one hell we're living in down here.  We're finished. We're tired of suffering. We're going home in the name of Jesus. And I want when that day comes, every member of Nairobi Central, every one of you listening by the Internet, every one of you will be able to make it home with the Lord. Bow your heads with me as we pray. Oh God, it's a challenging time when we come to the borders. We know the devil has camped out at the borders, setting up another big deception trip for the church of God again. But in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, we apply for the help of heaven. We ask you, God, to help every single one of us that we will remain focused on you and you alone that will clasp your hands, God, that will walk with you, Jesus. Oh God, it is our prayer that when that big test comes, you will give us your strength and your power to overcome so that we too can be in the number. Thank you for your people, bless your church, every one of us who linger a little longer tonight. May you help every single one of us to make it into your kingdom is my prayer, I ask in Jesus' name.


Thank you very much, Chairman, and thank you to John and the other organisers for the very kind invitation. I must say that when he asked me it seemed like a relatively easy assignment to respond.  So I'm just going to make, and I should say this sort of in a cemetery in my response in that I was fortunate enough to see John's paper in advance, but I hadn't seen Philip's presentation, so I'll probably focus more on what John said and try to integrate some responses to Philip's presentation. So I'm going to begin making just a few fairly general comments and then focus mainly on the example of monetary union, hopefully bringing out some of the themes that both John and Philip mentioned. I should begin with another apology in showing you some economics, but it's very difficult to read John's paper about spillovers leading to the case for collective action without thinking of the prisoner's dilemma game. This is not just a tool used by economists, it's probably the most commonly used tool by social scientists in establishing the case for collective action. The basic idea is that each player can act in a non-cooperative way or a cooperative way, but if it's just left to pure self-interest each player has a dominant strategy to do the non-cooperative thing. And you get bad collective outcomes, and this will often be the case where there is spillovers, one party's action to another. So there's a strong case for coordinating, cooperating, engaging in collective action to get to the good collective outcome. So you can see that the payoffs for each player are higher and the collective payoffs are higher if you can coordinate on those actions. And I think the game also sort of brings out the different aspects of nationalism that Philip talked about. If the payoffs really do follow this structure, from the point of view of national interests, there's a strong case for cooperative action, for collective action, for getting together in something like the European Union. But another aspect of nationalism beyond national interests is national control. So you could actually recognize that your interests lie in dealing with problems in a collective fashion, but you want to retain that control. So there's a sort of distinction between analysis more focused on the consequences, which is related more to the interests, and to the actions themselves, and another distinction within philosophy of the Kantian variety between a more deontological action-focused approach versus something more focused on the consequences. Just picking up an example where the payoffs may be different, and of course an example that's been very much in the news over the last week, and that's the whole issue of the taxation of multinational profits. And this was partly motivated by one of Philip's columns earlier this week. Now he wasn't focused on Ireland, but actually focused on Google, and sort of asking the question, even if Google is following its interests in a sense the particular interests of its shareholders, and also in full compliance with the law, might there be obligations to act in a more collectively responsible way in any regard. So we can sort of turn this around also to look at it from a country point of view. I know Philip is far too polite to bring it up in present company, but we can think about what the payoff structure looks like, and we could actually argue potentially that Ireland would actually be better off in the non-cooperative outcome, not having some collective agreement to have some common corporation tax and a broader common tax regime. But then you can ask the question, essentially like Philip asked in the case of Google, might there be obligations to do the cooperative thing that's better collectively in any case. So I just sort of throw that out as something that might be picked up in discussion, and it would be good to hear Philip's response. Next I just want to pick up on the other question asked by John, which is really who decides. And there's really two dimensions to that who, in a sense, should decide, and who legally has the power to decide. So I've no expertise on the legal side, so I'll focus on the more normative question. And what John is looking at in his paper and in his presentation is having those decisions made effectively by direct democracy, or having them made by representative government. And typically in the European context that's representative government, engaged in negotiations with other governments through councils of ministers, but also of course with key roles of the European Commission and the European Parliament. And I think John brings out sort of very well the vagaries of the direct democracy approach, talks about things such as other issues that are not related to the particular question at issue coming in to the debate and actually affecting people's decisions. So I think we've all seen those vagaries in action. But I do just want to sort of put the other side, and this relates partly to what Philip said about the perception of elites making decisions and leading to a backlash against European Union. And one thing we have seen over the last couple of years is a significant increase in the number of rules, particularly relating to fiscal integration. We had the six pack, which was very much done by agreement of representative governments. Then we had of course the fiscal treaty or fiscal compact, which did go to referendum. And most recently we have the two pack. And though I expect many people in this room will know, I doubt if the general public more generally knows that the two pack came into force yesterday. And significantly affects all of us in terms of the ability of governments to pursue fiscal policies with the most obvious one when the budget has to take place. It will now take place in October. And that draft budget effectively will be examined by the European Commission. And also those various restrictions on countries that are in financial difficulties. So these are big constraints. These are decisions that are effectively made by elites. And I think it raises questions of legitimacy when this builds up. So at least with the occasional referendum. And in many ways sort of impressed by the quality of the debate during the fiscal treaty. And at least it gave people the opportunity to understand what was going on and hear these debates. So while there certainly are risks associated with direct democracy, I think there are risks on the other side as well. And how that balance works out is not that clear. I think there certainly are risks with the path which is mainly the one of representative governments that we're on. So I want to take just another example of the various themes that we've been looking at. And that is the importance of creditworthiness is how it's affected within monetary union. And this is I think a very good example of something that really relates to true freedom of action as stressed by John. So sovereign creditworthiness and particularly international sovereign creditworthiness is critical to freedom of action, particularly when you have a progressive welfare state. When the economy goes into recession, which is going to happen more often when you have a volatile economy such as the Irish economy, the deficit is going to get very large and your borrowing needs are going to get very large. And so there's huge value to be able to smooth your consumption to be able to continue pursuing high return investments and indeed to push a counter-cyclical fiscal policy. So the creditworthiness is incredibly valuable to countries. So how has that been affected by monetary union? Well, one thing that we have seen and I think it wasn't fully recognized in the initial debate about monetary union is that a country, particularly when it has a large debt and deficit, faces highly fragile creditworthiness when it doesn't have its own independent central bank that can act as lender of last resort in extremis. So there's debates about whether the Irish problems with creditworthiness related to underlying solvency, but there's almost certainly sort of a clear liquidity element where you can fall into essentially a bad equilibrium where people begin to worry about default, push up interest rates, making the actual probability of default become a reality based essentially validating those expectations. And this then becomes a significant problem when you don't have this domestic lender of last resort. And I think this is a key distinction between the UK and Ireland in terms of how each country has responded to the crisis. Ireland with not so dissimilar fiscal numbers had a major creditworthiness crisis. The UK did not and much of this I think goes back to the fact that Ireland didn't have its own domestic lender of last resort. In a sense this is a case of a negative spillover associated with monetary union where one of the things that has to happen as you enter monetary union is that you give up this domestic lender of last resort. So here we see what's actually happened to Irish creditworthiness through the crisis. This goes back to 2007 and up until earlier this week and the grey line is the Irish 10-year bond yield. The red line is the German 10-year bond yield and you see this major creditworthiness crisis really erupt in 2010 and actually reached its peak in the middle of 2011. And it was a combination of concerns about the Irish fiscal position and also concerns about the lack of a lender of last resort that led to the spike in bond yields. And then on the improvement side and the improvement as you can see has been dramatic and I think an underappreciated element of the Irish story so far but it was essentially a combination of the Irish government being able to demonstrate that it could undertake the fiscal adjustments required to be in good standing essentially with official lenders who had effectively become the lenders of last resort. And also gradual improvements in the structures of those lenders of last resort including the development of the ESM and also more recently the European Central Bank's OMT programme. So that interaction between that lender of last resort which is a conditional lender of last resort being there and being able to demonstrate that you could meet the conditions has been central to the improvement in Irish creditworthiness. But I just want to end on this. Essentially is another example of spillovers and here I'm just looking at the dynamic between the lender of last resort and the development of fiscal rules. So even at the beginning of EMU where there wasn't really an explicit lender of last resort in place clearly the designers were concerned that in a crisis that they would have to bail out the countries in trouble. And so this is an example of a spillover once you're in a monetary union where one country's bad policies could have implications for you. This was behind the development of certain fiscal rules within monetary union particularly the rules of the stability and growth pact. But I think what we're seeing more recently and I don't feel that this is always appreciated to the extent it should be is the link back from the development of fiscal rules to a strengthened lender of last resort. Because really what the fiscal treaty was about was putting in place rules that would give confidence to develop the lender of last resort and that's something that I just didn't think came out well enough in the fiscal treaty debate. Now it came out in one way in a very sort of explicit way which became known actually as the blackmail clause that you wouldn't have access to the ESM unless you passed the fiscal treaty. But the very fact it was called the blackmail clause showed I think a sort of a misunderstanding of why the fiscal rules were sort of necessary before that lender of last resort would be developed. So we're seeing elements of the dynamic that we saw before. On the one hand these fiscal rules are being put in place externally perceived by elites and I think leading to a backlash against the European project at least with the fiscal treaty debate people had a better chance to understand what was going on. I don't think it came out as clearly as it should have but you can see I think the advantages of engaging people more and having a more legitimate process. Just to pick on just just one final point that actually relates to Philips comment today in the Financial Times where he spoke about the danger of populist backlash and on both sides here there is a danger of populist backlash in the countries facing austerity which are feeling sort of the brunt of these fiscal rules. There's a backlash against austerity generally but partly against the fiscal rules and you see then pressure to ease the implementation of those fiscal rules as we've seen with the extension of deadlines for reaching deficit targets in a number of countries. But we shouldn't forget about the potential backlash on the other side which is the strengthening of the lender of last resort function or more generally the strengthening of fiscal union. If that strengthening is conditional on these fiscal rules being put in place the development of those crucial institutions of fiscal union could be made more difficult and just as austerity is something that we don't want in present circumstances for the Irish economy we also do need the development of that strong lender of last resort to have the continued improvements in Irish credit worthiness that we've seen. So again, attention between the two. Thank you very much.


Good morning everyone and welcome to the 14th meeting in 2017 of the Standards, Procedures and Public Appointments Committee. I remind everyone to switch electronic devices to silent as they may interfere with broadcasting. Our first agenda item today is a Declaration of Interest. Welcome Jamie Halcro Donson to committee and invite him to make any relevant declaration to the committee. The only thing that I would add is that the interests and shares that I have in campaign house should be completed by the end of this month. Thank you very much and welcome to committee. Agenda item 2 is a decision on taking business in private. Agenda item 6 and agenda item 5 are both, for consideration, agenda item 5 is a discussion of the work programme and item 6 is to consider two complaint reports from the Ethical Standards Commissioner, so we've agreed to take those in private today. Agenda item 3 is for the committee to decide whether to take future consideration of reports from the Commissioner and its own draft reports and complaints in private for future meetings. Thank you for that. If we move to agenda item 4, which is on the Lobbings Scotland Act 2016, we're going to take oral evidence this morning from the Lobbing Registrar on the draft direction and draft resolution under the Lobbing Act 2016. Welcome to committee, Billy McLaren, Lobbing Registrar, Charles Garland and Neil Ross solicitors, all representing the Scottish Parliament this morning. I would like to invite Mr McLaren to open the discussion. As outlined in your committee paper today, the first set of commencement regulations under the Lobbings Scotland Act came into force yesterday. That allows the Parliament to use certain provisions delegated to us under the act. Essentially, those administrative areas that we thought would be useful to have in place prior to the full commencement of the act in the first quarter of next year. I mentioned last with the committee, just before recess, that, as of that point, we had only identified two such areas to bring to the committee, and I'm happy to say that that remains the case. In addition to the committee paper that you have, we thought that members would also find it useful of our to briefly outline the background and purpose of both those. The first is a direction to the commissioner for ethical standards. This new direction is made under powers contained in section 31 of the Lobbings Scotland Act, which sets out a number of areas that we might make directions to the commissioner. We have, of course, consulted the commissioner on the content of the draft direction, which is at Annex E of your paper. It covers administrative issues, as follows. Firstly, in your paragraph-headed information as to the name of a complainer, this sets out the process to be followed by the commissioner in considering whether the name of the person who makes a complaint should be supplied to the person who is the subject of the complaint. This includes considering whether the person complaining may be a vulnerable person, or whether the release of the complainer's name might prejudice the investigation into the complaint. Secondly, in the paragraph-headed interviews at the top of page 2, the direction sets out the commissioner's responsibilities in terms of the following. Firstly, what information should be provided to a person before being interviewed for the first time? The rights of the person being interviewed to have a third party present and to have their views conveyed through an interpreter. Again, as before, consideration is about a person appearing to be vulnerable. Finally, the paragraph also provides that a copy of the draft interview summary is made available to any person interviewed, and that they should have an opportunity to provide representations on that. Moving on, still on page 2, the paragraph-headed documents and records sets out the record-keeping obligations on the commissioner in relation to investigation, including the retention of copies were required, the minimum period of retention and when documents can be destroyed, the paragraph-headed criminal offences on page 3 outlines the commissioner's responsibility in terms of further handling in relation to potential criminal offences. The paragraph-headed reports under section 2412 and 254 of the act on page 3 briefly sets out that the commissioner should also send any report sent to this committee to the complainer and the subject of the complaint unless it would prejudice the investigation. Finally, at the top of page 4, the paragraph-headed inquiries about complaints indicates what response can be provided by the commissioner where he has received an inquiry about a complaint. That takes you through it a little bit. A direction to the commissioner is not a new process. For example, there are current directions in place issued by your predecessor at the committee in March 2012 relating to other investigatory functions carried out by the commissioner. At annex B of your paper, we have the draft lobbying resolution. The committee will remember considering new standing orders, setting out the parliamentary process for this type of new parliamentary resolution earlier this year, which was subsequently agreed by Parliament as a whole. This is the first lobbying resolution to be drafted by the Parliament under the act. It is brief, but it covers the core matters on which the need to make provision has been identified. It has been made under section 41 of the act, the terms of which we are obliged by means of a parliamentary resolution to make provision about. In this case, it is on the procedures to be followed when the commissioner submits a report to Parliament. Essentially, the resolution does three things. It makes clear that the commissioner will provide reports specifically to the committee for consideration. In providing the reports, to be made in writing, it allows the commissioner to send reports in an electronic form, which is an obvious efficiency. It sets out the role of the committee if the Parliament were to exercise its power under section 40 of the act to censure a person who is the subject of any report from the commissioner. It is worth emphasising on that point that the commissioner can only be imposed by the Parliament as a whole. If censure is recommended by the committee following consideration of a report by the commissioner, a motion to that effect would be considered by Parliament. Such a motion can only come from a member representing the committee. In relation to the sections that refer to vulnerability and potentially the need for names to be withheld, I was just wondering if you could say to what extent equalities in human rights organisations have been consulted in the drafting to ensure that any issues that they might have or concerns that they might have have been taken into account? Not as far as I'm aware, Mr Harvey, but we have, if you like, copied over from the previous direction the same set of requirements, so we could easily check with the commissioners how that process has been working in terms of the other investigatory powers. That would be helpful. In broad times, it looks familiar in terms of the processes that the committee is familiar with in terms of its relationship with the commissioner. Is there anything specifically that might be worth highlighting that has had to be specifically considered with regard to the lobbying act or any significant alterations from existing procedures that might be worth highlighting at this point? It's largely based upon previous directions, but the section that I mentioned at the end is what we have noted, because the committee has a role in that. Obviously, the parliamentary resolution process is a new thing, and this is a first for the Parliament, and this is the first time that we've ever considered such a draft lobbying resolution. You've got a question? Thank you, convener. I'm looking at the section that talks about interviews and it says that a person has the right to have a third party present. Could you give us an example of what a third party would be or who they would be? I couldn't. I think that that's probably more a matter for the commissioner, but again, I could get some examples for the committee to provide it afterwards. I'm not somebody who does the interviewing itself as a commissioner's role, but I'd be more than happy to get some examples for you. If I can ask a question, you mentioned the possibility of using section 40 for censure in the bill. Would that be the case? It would likely to be a non-MSP who is being censured from the floor of the Parliament, and is that unique in terms of previous legislation? Yes, and that's a very good point. This is about the censure of individuals, so the subjects have complained so largely of the lobbying community. I thank Mr McLaren for his attendance at the committee this morning, and I invite members to agree to the terms of the draft direction and draft resolution. That's agreed. If you could provide that information from Mr Harvey, it would be very welcome to the whole committee, I'm sure. I thank you very much for your attendance that I did this morning. We now move into private session.


Hello everyone, I'm Masashige Mizuyama, City of Panasonic Automotive Systems. Today I'd like to talk about software-defined legal trend and key technologies. Last overall, I'd like to introduce myself very briefly. As Fukuyasha mentioned, my technical background is operating system and architecture, including software and hardware. Before I came to automotive business, I had been involved in mobile phone business for about 10 years. Today, I'll touch upon the relationship between the ongoing drastic changes in automotive area and the SDV software-defined legal. What we can learn from the history of other industry about that and the direction we should take, including virtualization technology and how to act with open source. At first, I'd like to talk about the drastic changes happening in the automotive industry. In this decade, technologies for automotive are drastically changing. For example, EE architecture is rapidly changing toward large-scale central computing from distributed 100 small control units called ECU. Hypervisor is being introduced to the software platforms. Technologies from consumer or communication products such as Android are brought into vehicles. Open source is becoming quite popular among various functional domains and attempts to establish defect standard are becoming very active. Most new vehicle are always connected natively and massively powered by AI technologies. Big IT players entering. Thus, various changes are observed and sometimes they seem random and individual to each other when we don't understand the root driving force property. For instance, if we assume that consolidation with ECU is driven just by constant weight reduction, I believe we will misunderstand the future direction because it's true but not essential. I believe that all those changes are mostly driven by a common root driver. It's a shift toward SDV. They say most part of future innovation in automotive will be brought by software. In other words, SDV is a game changer to the new game where those who can advance their software more rapidly will gain crucial competitive advantage and I think it's inevitable. I think that is the only way we can understand the essential reason why all those changes happening and where those changes heading for. But this game is not as simple as just to make, just to maximize line of code per month, per month, nor just to possess even larger software team. Rather than just a single volume factors at the previous page, there are far more important factors such as sophisticated architecture which makes the software set more valuable for longer term. Ecosystem of complementary products which makes value of your product higher and faster speed of product discovery as well as product development. We can find insights to identify key success factors of the game in the history of the computer industry and mobile phone industry which has shifted to be software defined way ahead of automotive. So I'd like to discuss about the history and the insights from here. The computer architecture has been going back and forth between distributed and centralized. Every generation, the hardware architecture drastically changed driven by the evolution of semi conductor technology. In such situation around 1970, IBM introduced a very unique strategy. They introduced hardware virtualization technology to make the software work over several generations of hardware because software was most expensive asset. This strategy gave IBM the crucial competitive advantage against formidable contemporaries. This is a typical case which showed the critical importance of architecture of competitive advantage, importance of architecture for competitive advantage in software defined products. The next case is the mobile phone industry. The major competition of the mobile phone in the early time was done in size, weight, battery life, and communication performance. Quite hardware defined world, but it has shifted towards software defined. The major trigger was obviously the internet connection. While this shift progressing, digital and software ecosystem has been growing so rapidly, many, many legacy players failed to adapt to the changes, and unfortunately the failure was fatal. However, what they did was not just to keep wondering.  But most of them aimed a kind of gradual and painless changes, I think. As a result, as you know, well, newcomers set the dominant standards and gained enormous power. During this process toward software defined product, mobile phone industry became quite horizontal by the emergence of specialized key technology play vendors because this is the best efficient way for the industry. The ecosystem grew larger and larger and the handhole of dominant platform vendors became the leaders of the ecosystem. Moreover, immediately after the hardware connected to the internet, massive agile service providers jumped in and occupied very large part of the customer value as the right-most figure. The size of value provided by the terminal manufacturer, except for a few, got relatively smaller and smaller. Panasonic at the time was one of them, and they became pretty much substitutable. This is a typical case which showed that the positioning in the ecosystem for software defined product world critically affect the player's fate. As a summary, those are insights from the history of preceding industries. Hardware changes more drastically than software in general. In such situation, preserving software asset beyond those drastic hardware changes critically strengthens competitive advantage. To realize that virtualization technology plays a key role. Shifting to the software defined product will inevitably transform the industry structure towards efficiency optimization, and your positioning in the structure will have large impact to your future. I think those insights can be applied to the ongoing changes in automotive industry. With this viewpoint, I'd like to discuss about how we should act and how open source can help the healthy evolution of SDV. In 2020s, the electronic architecture will change drastically to adapt to SDV. ECU are rapidly going to be consolidated through generations toward one or few central high-performance vehicle computers called HPC. And each software will be assumed to be updated continuously even after shipment now over many generations of all car lines. But the consolidation of ECU is not aim that means. The true aim is to establish the optimal environment for the fastest software evolution for SDV. So, one of the most important points here is to realize a sophisticated logical architecture for vehicle generation, for the vehicle system which can endure over vehicle generations, and on which software can evolve very efficiently. Like the computer industry, virtualization technology will play the key role. However, there are some critical issues to apply virtualization technology to automotive systems. I will touch upon them from here. To consolidate multiple ECU to vehicle HPC, we need to introduce the key technology component, its hypervisor, because of different levels of functional safety requirement or different ecosystem affinities among various functional domains. We need multiple different operating system running on a single processor. The virtualization of processor core and memory system is basically quite standardized and there's no serious issue. But for the virtualization of peripheral devices such as graphics, audio, video cameras, and so on, each hypervisor has different proprietary interface to other layers in the system, and it causes a kind of lock-in situation. In such situation, if you choose a particular hypervisor once, it makes your software asset depend on it. It's unhealthy ecosystem. We want to keep the freedom of choice of the best technology anytime, as much as possible, by eliminating such lock-in situation. Actually, with Panasonic Automotive and Open Synergy, a hypervisor technology company, have been playing the leading role to solve this issue. To eliminate the dependency to specific hypervisor, we deploy the IO virtualization framework to provide a common interface, especially for IO devices. The framework can be applied to any hypervisor and communize the device virtualization interface. In reality, an open source, standard IO virtualization framework, called VataIO, already existed for server virtualization. Then, we significantly extended it to cover various devices needed for automotive systems through the activity in the open source project. But just by the existence of such framework software, it will not become standard. So, we collaborated with Google to make Android Automotive Employee VataIO as its standard hypervisor interface because we thought it strongly attracts other parties to follow, and no one need to worry about the dominant control from other parties because it's open source. I think this is an interesting case that shows the power of open source, not only to create excellent software, but also to lead the industry to healthy ecosystem. Additionally, I'd like to point out here that VataIO standard interface is useful for non-hypervisor environment as hardware abstraction to realize freedom of choice of hardware. We are also working on this as Dan previously mentioned. As a result, the new versions of both AJL and Android for automotive has been released based on VataIO since 2020. Also, Sophie, the project for cloud native architecture development is going to be based on VataIO. But still today, the support level of VataIO by each existing hypervisor seems considerably different. If you are to choose hypervisor for your automotive systems, you need to be very careful about that. Anyway, VataIO development is still on the way to cover more peripheral devices in vehicles. Let's make it progress together in AJL. When SDV is fully deployed, frequent software update will take place. In this situation, similarly with modern IT industry, not only speed of product development, but also the speed of product discovery will be the important key success factor of new game. So I believe DevOps practice will spread over automotive industry as well as data analytics and brand new recording type of business model. To make them work efficiently, cloud native development will become in practice. At that time, most part of the development, including testing, will be done in the virtual environment in the cloud server. And software will be deployed to real vehicle very frequently. In this use case again, VataIO will play the key role to realize the compatibility between the real hardware in the vehicle and the virtual hardware in the cloud. Next topic is the display system virtualization. In vehicle cockpit environment, there are a number of heterogeneous displays in various locations, including head up display, digital mirrors, instrument clusters, and so on. It should work as an integrated display system. The basic display unit level virtualization is already covered by VataIO. But the display system level, we need a higher level virtualization to realize location transparency. But in today's most popular vehicle, each display is controlled by the dedicated function ECU. This means informations generated by each ECU is rendered to only its own display. If you want to render some information to other display, you need to define or develop ad hoc coordination between ECUs for such every information. With such ad hoc scheme, we can't realize such a rich cockpit experience as this slide. We need much further flexibility and freedom. To solve this, we developed display system virtualization technology called unified HMI by which any ECU or functional module can render its information at any place of any display. This page shows the concept of unified HMI technology. Unified HMI presents a single unified virtual display to application programs on any unit instead of multiple physical display. By this mechanism, each application programs can render its information to anywhere of any physical display technically. Of course, rendering permission of each application is controlled by unified HMI systems according to the system policy. Unified HMI software is already up and running. This slide shows the architecture of unified HMI. Application programs rendered through virtual GPU and then the request transferred to other ECU by unified HMI. And then the receiver at the receiver of the request generates the rendering images and the right to the appropriate display. The distributed wind manager which is a part of unified HMI controls the location of image to be rendered. Of course, interoperability between each control unit is critical to make this work. But each unit is provided by different suppliers quite usually. So we need some industrial mechanism to ensure the interoperability. We thought open source is the best way of choice for this case also. It's faster, it's efficient and perfectly interoperable because of the code first approach. As a matter of fact, we published the current version of unified HMI source code on GitHub in this September and also we are making effort to include it on the next Azure UCB release. These days software defined vehicle became buzzword but AGL has been working on it since many years ago before this world became popular as Dan mentioned. AGL has been developing software platform but it goes far beyond that. AGL has been playing a significant role as the place for various collaborative innovation to promote SDV. In reality, the collaboration for the VATIO and relating cloud-native development has been done through the activity for relevant AGL expert groups involving various players among the industry. I so much appreciate the existence of AGL and all its participants. This is the last page of my presentation. Of course, open source is obviously the finest source of technologies. And at the same time, I really feel very strongly from my experience as I shared today that open source is a very powerful scheme for industrial harmonization. I look forward to your participation for making the world progress together. Thank you very much for your kind attention. Thank you.