International Center for Cultural Studies

Report｜Anniversary Symposium｜Session 1: Does Taiwan’s Migrant Worker System Violate the State’s Human Rights Obligations to Eliminate Forced Labor?

2025-04-30

Topic｜Anniversary of the Human Trafficking Prevention Act Amendment& the Prohibition of Forced Labor Academic Symposium－－Session 1: Does Taiwan’s Migrant Worker System Violate the State’s Human Rights Obligations to Eliminate Forced Labor?

Date｜2025/4/30

Venue｜HC104, HA Building III, Hsinchu Guangfu Campus, NYCU

Speaker｜Ya-Wen Yang, Assistant Research Professor, Institutum Iurisprudentiae Academia Sinica

Discussant｜

．Vivianne Weng, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, National Chengchi University

．Yu-Ling Wang, Member of the Control Yuan

．Hsiao-Kan Lin, Prosecutor, Taipei District Prosecutors Office

Moderator｜Yu-Lien Sun, Secretary-General, Taiwan Labour Front

Organizer｜School of Law, NYCU; ICCS, NYCU

Co-organizer｜Taiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR); Taiwan Labor Front; Work Better Innovations

Event Info｜LINK

Event Photo｜LINK

Event Recording｜LINK

Event Handbook｜LINK

Reported by｜吳易儒 (MA student, School of Law, NYCU)

Sub-project｜Migration, Unequal Citizens, and Critical Legal Studies

Convener｜Joyce C.H. Liu, Yu-Fan Chiu, Mei-Lin Pan

Moderator Mr. Yu-Lien Sun, opened the session with a case involving a migrant worker forced to choose between no overtime or unlimited overtime work, and ultimately led to injury due to over-loaded working. The case highlighted the session’s core discussion： what constitutes true freedom and consent in the context of forced labor？

In the keynote speech, Dr. Ya-Wen Yang analyzed the issue through ILO Convention No. 29 （ILO C29）, criticizing Taiwan’s legal framework for its inadequate protections and flawed assumptions about voluntariness. She noted that despite years of international concern over the prevalence of forced labor in Taiwan, the Ministry of Labor continues to assert that the existing legal framework already fully incorporates the core standards of ILO C29. This stance has led to a systemic neglect of the forced labor issues that persist domestically. She also pointed out that migrant workers are three times more likely to face forced labor than their non-migrant counterparts, a reality that remains unacknowledged in government responses. The state’s optimistic assertions highlight the gap between Taiwan’s current legal and policy frameworks for combating human trafficking and forced labor. Yang emphasized that although Taiwan is not an ILO member, ILO C29 retains normative value due to its status as customary international law and its integration into broader UN treaty interpretations. Since Taiwan has implemented the ICCPR and ICESCR—both of which are interpreted in conjunction with ILO C29—the obligations derived from such interpretations should likewise be considered part of the country’s human rights commitments. Accordingly, the international labour standards articulated in C29 should be integrated into Taiwan’s legal system. Given Taiwan’s exclusion from formal international organizations due to political pressure from China, she stressed that it is even more imperative for Taiwan to proactively align itself with global human rights norms to fulfill its “Taiwan for the World” and “human rights-based nation” vision. She also compared two theoretical approaches to defining "unfree" labor. In the consent-based model, workers are considered free if no coercion is present, whereas the capability-based model—drawing on Amartya Sen and Marxist theory—considers workers genuinely free only when they have the substantive capacity to make choices. The ILO Committee of Experts has increasingly adopted the latter approach. In this light, she argued that eliminating forced labor requires more than banning explicit coercion. Comprehensive protections and minimum standards for working and living conditions are essential to prevent workers—particularly migrants—from accepting exploitative jobs out of economic desperation. For instance, debt bondage due to excessive recruitment fees remains a major problem. Governments must take proactive steps to implement the employer-pays principle to ensure that these costs do not fall on migrant workers.

Yang further noted that Taiwan’s current legal framework lacks the penal force necessary to address forced labor in accordance with international standards. Although articles such as Article 296 of the Criminal Code and Article 5 of the Labor Standards Act prohibit forced labor, they are rarely applied effectively. She illustrated this with a 2011 Hsinchu court case in which the defendants were acquitted based on superficial interpretations of consent, while factors such as debt bondage, language barriers, and excessive recruitment fees were overlooked. Although the court cited ILO C29, it failed to acknowledge that language and economic constraints constitute forced labor. Alarmingly, the court even noted that applying the Labor Standards Act to migrant workers increased employer costs, thereby prompting agents to shift financial burdens onto the workers. Yang emphasized that this narrow legal reasoning exposes the structural vulnerability of migrant workers and reflects broader judicial indifference to labour rights. She concluded that Taiwan’s institutions often fixate on whether migrant workers appear "willing" while ignoring their lack of real alternatives. The government bears a serious human rights obligation to proactively eliminate forced labor, not merely to punish individual perpetrators.

In the panel discussion, Prof. Vivianne Weng advocated for the creation of a cross-ministerial task force and a system of tiered penalties. Ms. Yu-Ling Wang, Member of the Control Yuan, pointed out that Taiwan’s current administrative measures are insufficient to address the systemic risks migrant laborers face. Ms. Hsiao-Kan Lin, a Prosecutor at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, identified key factors behind low conviction rates, including difficulties in evidence collection, victims’ limited ability to seek help or inconsistent testimonies, and a general lack of familiarity among judicial personnel with the legal components of trafficking offenses.

In the panel discussion, Prof. Vivianne Weng, Associate advocated for a cross-ministerial task force and tiered penalties. Ms. Yu-Ling Wang, Member of the Control Yuan, pointed out that Taiwan’s current administrative measures are inadequate for addressing the systemic risks faced by migrant laborers. Ms. Hsiao-Kan Lin, as a Prosecutor at the Taipei District Prosecutors Office, pointed out the key factors of low conviction rate include difficulties in evidence collection, victims’ limited ability to seek help or inconsistent testimonies, and a general lack of familiarity among judicial personnel with the legal elements of trafficking offenses.