International Center for Cultural Studies

Report｜Anniversary Symposium｜Session 2：A Review of the Overseas Employment System for Migrant Fishers

2025-04-30

Topic｜Anniversary of the Human Trafficking Prevention Act Amendment& the Prohibition of Forced Labor Academic Symposium－－Session 2：A Review of the Overseas Employment System for Migrant Fishers

Date｜2025/4/30

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

Speaker｜Yu-Fan Chiu, Associate Professor, NYCU Law

Discussant｜

．Liang-Jung Lin, Associate Professor, College of Law, National Chengchi University

．Hui-Jung Chi, Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission

．Bonny Ling , Executive Director, Work Better Innovations

．Yi-hsiang Shih, Senior Researcher, Taiwan Association for Human Rights

Moderator｜Bonny Ling , Executive Director, Work Better Innovations

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｜張雅祺 (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

In the keynote speech, Yu-Fan Chiu, Associate Prof., NYCU Law, criticized Taiwan’s longstanding institutional failures and unlawful administrative practices regarding labor protections for distant-water fishers. Prof. Chiu noted that Ministry of Labor has relied on press releases to argue that Taiwan-flagged vessels operating in international waters are not part of national territory, and thus excludes migrant fishers from Labor Standards Act application. However, under Article 3（3） of the Labor Standards Act （LSA）, the Act applies to all employment relationships within Taiwan. Therefore, she pointed out that since no formal legal exclusion has ever been issued by the Ministry of Labor （MOL）, distant-water fishers is still protected by LSA. Therefore, the claim that such workers are “not yet included” lacks legal basis and violates the principle of the “rule of law in administration.

Prof. Chiu further noted that both MOL and the Ministry of Agriculture （MOA） have overstepped their authority by using informal statements to deny LSA application. MOA, in particular, has no power to issue binding interpretations of labor law. Even if contracts are signed abroad, if works are performed on Taiwan-flagged vessels, such employment relationship falls into Taiwan’s jurisdiction. If current laws create administrative difficulty, the proper course is legal amendment, not unofficial policy interpretations for application exclusion.

Furthermore, Prof. Chiu presented concrete cases to illustrate that these administrative practices and dual-tract employment system cause migrant workers often subjected to excessively long working hours and wages far below the minimum standards set by LSA while unable to claim legal protections under the act, which fully meets one of the ILO indicators of forced labor：“abusive working and living conditions.”Eventually, she pointed out that although the minimum monthly wage for distant-water migrant fishers has recently been “raised” from 450 to 550 USD such number remains significantly below Taiwan’s statutory minimum wage. It is ironic that the continued exploitation of these workers is being presented as a policy achievement.

During the panel discussion, Prof. Liang-Jung Lin emphasized that whether distant-water fishers are covered by Taiwan’s Labor Standards Act reflects deeper issues in the institutional design of Taiwan’s labor law. Regardless of one’s stance, he outlined the law’s regulatory nature and how its past expansions reflected a governance mindset based on nationality and sector. In this system, foreign distant-water fishers are especially marginalized, caught between being “foreign” and “maritime,” making them one of the most vulnerable groups. He also noted that “domestic versus overseas employment” system is originally a labor import tool, but is now misused to determine labor standards. This misuse has fragmented protections and created serious disparities.

Ms. Hui-Jung Chi, Commissioner, National Human Rights Commission, cited data showing that over 18,000 distant-water fishers hired are currently not covered by the LSA despite working side by side in the same ports. They are subjected to entirely different labor standards simply due to the legal classification of their employment as “domestic” or “overseas.” This discrepancy has led to significant disparities in wages and labor protections and has become one of the structural drivers of migrant worker absconding and disappearance. She called on the government to implement concrete reforms in multiple areas, to essentially fulfill the spirit of ILO Convention No. 188 to narrow the gap between Taiwan’s practices and international human rights standards, and to avoid distant-water fishers remain excluded from meaningful labor protection.

Mr. Yi-Hsiang Shih from Taiwan Association for Human Right, based on his practical experience as a human rights advocate, identified the dual-track employment system as a key structural factor placing distant-water fishers at heightened risk of forced labor. Despite a series of reform measures introduced by the government since 2015, none have addressed the core problem inherent in the dual-track system, nor have they effectively safeguarded the fundamental labor rights of distant-water migrant fishers. He stated that the overseas employment system should be fully abolished, and that all foreign fishers working under the Taiwan flag should be brought under the full protection of the Labor Standards Act.

Eventually, Dr. Bonny Ling, Director, concluded the session by offering reflections grounded in international law and practical observation. While acknowledging the complexity of the jurisdictional landscape of maritime labour, she cautioned that such complexity must not serve as an excuse for creating a human rights protection vacuum. Citing the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea （UNCLOS）, Ling noted that a flag state bears full legal responsibility and is obligated to exercise effective jurisdiction over vessels flying its flag. Therefore, regardless of how remote fishing operations may be, the labour rights of workers aboard such vessels must be legally protected. Ling further argued that Taiwan, as a relatively small country, should leverage its institutional flexibility to serve as a testing ground for regulatory innovation by proposing progressive reform models. Rather than tolerating exploitation under the rationale of “out of sight, out of existence,” Taiwan should actively assume its international responsibilities and work to close legal and policy loopholes.