BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//Migration, Unequal Citizens, and Critical Legal Studies - ECPv6.15.20//NONSGML v1.0//EN
CALSCALE:GREGORIAN
METHOD:PUBLISH
X-WR-CALNAME:Migration, Unequal Citizens, and Critical Legal Studies
X-ORIGINAL-URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms
X-WR-CALDESC:Events for Migration, Unequal Citizens, and Critical Legal Studies
REFRESH-INTERVAL;VALUE=DURATION:PT1H
X-Robots-Tag:noindex
X-PUBLISHED-TTL:PT1H
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:Asia/Shanghai
BEGIN:STANDARD
TZOFFSETFROM:+0800
TZOFFSETTO:+0800
TZNAME:CST
DTSTART:20240101T000000
END:STANDARD
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20250811T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251231T170000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20250811T124008Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260223T040304Z
UID:55085-1754899200-1767200400@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:Public Statement on the You-Fu Fishing Human Trafficking Criminal Case Dukungan atas Pernyataan Publik terkait Kasus Perdagangan Manusia di Kapal You-Fu
DESCRIPTION:Waiting for Justice:\nTaiwan’s Failure to Prosecute the You-Fu Human Trafficking Case Does Not Meet International Legal Standards\n\n\nTaipei\, 11 August 2025 \nAbout the You-Fu Criminal Case\nIn August 2024\, the prolonged withholding of wages of 10 Indonesian fishers onboard the Taiwanese-flagged distant-water fishing vessel You-Fu came to light when Taiwanese civil society organisations and lawmakers held a press conference revealing that the fishers had been working without pay for 15 months. The fishers were owed a total of USD 80\,850 (about TWD 2.64 million) in unpaid wages. \nAfter the press conference\, the vessel owners of You-Fu paid the withheld wages and additionally provided each fisher with about USD 60 (TWD 2\,000). Subsequent investigation by Taiwan’s Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau (Kaohsiung City) identified eight members of the Indonesian crew as victims of human trafficking. As victims of human trafficking\, they were granted the right to temporary residency in Taiwan. Since September 2025\, most victims have remained and are sheltered in Taiwan. \nFollowing the Ministry of Justice Investigation Bureau’s report\, the Pingtung District Prosecutors Office initiated a criminal investigation against the vessel owners for violating provisions in Taiwan’s Human Trafficking Prevention Act regarding the exploitation of another person’s labour (勞力剝削罪) (Article. 31\, Paragraphs 1-2) and the crime of obtaining financial gain by fraud under Article 339\, Paragraph 1 of the Criminal Code (詐欺取財罪). \nIn June 2025\, civil society received information that the Pingtung District Prosecutors Office had decided to not lodge a criminal lawsuit against the vessel owners\, on the basis that the local prosecutors found no objective evidence that the Indonesian fishers were engaged in labour where their remuneration was disproportionate (勞動與報酬顯不相當)\, thus not meeting the threshold to constitute a human trafficking offense. \nAccording to the paperwork and information received by supporting civil society organisations\, local prosecutors decided to not charge the employers and lodge a criminal lawsuit at the district court on 21 April 2025. This prosecutorial decision\, however\, was not communicated to the Indonesian fishers by the time the supporting civil society organisations became aware of the decision of non-prosecution. By then\, the 10-day period for filing an appeal had already passed. \nWe\, the undersigned.\nWe\, a group of Taiwanese legal scholars and civil society practitioners with years of experience on business and human rights\, are disappointed in the decision of the Pingtung District prosecutors. We regret the deep knowledge gap between what is internationally understood to be the crimes of forced labour and human trafficking versus an out-dated and unrealistic judicial understanding of what constitutes the worst of human exploitation\, falling drastically short of international standards. \nThe failure of the prosecutors to charge the offenders and proceed with a criminal lawsuit is a missed opportunity for Taiwan to protect victims of forced labour\, and prevent similar future abuses. For the Indonesian fishers onboard You-Fu whom judicial authorities have already determined to be victims of human trafficking\, the failure to proceed on a criminal prosecution is justice denied. It potentially has a negative impact on the human rights reputation of the distant-water fishing sector\, the government and the supply chains of Taiwan\, where notable progress on business and human rights have taken place in recent years. \nWe believe the Pingtung District Prosecutors Office’s decision not to prosecute is a grave mistake. It fails to protect victims of forced labour in Taiwan and does not deter similar incidents from occurring. Our reasons are as follows: \n(1) Prosecutors misaligned with international law on what constitutes work without voluntary consent\nThe International Labour Organization (ILO) defines forced labour as “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.” There are two key elements in this international definition: the use of coercion (menace of penalty) and the lack of voluntary consent from the worker. \nThe prosecutor’s determination of no evidence to support the charge of human trafficking was made largely based on the fishers’ reportedly having given verbal consent to only receive their wage after docking at port after 15 months at sea\, and they also voluntarily surrendered their passports to the vessel owner for safekeeping. \nThese conditions clearly constitute unfair working conditions and disregard the migrant fishers’ position of vulnerability. Consent must be informed and not obtained under deception and coercion. It is important to note that the legal understanding of coercion extends beyond the use or threats of force to other forms of coercion\, such as “fraud\, of deception\, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability” (UN Protocol to Prevent\, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons\, Especially Women and Children\, Article 3(a)). \nNo one can consent to work in exploitation. Article 4 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states\, without exception\, that “No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.” \nThe International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) further affirms the fundamental prohibition against slavery\, servitude and forced or compulsory labour. In 2009\, Taiwan enacted legislation to incorporate both the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic\, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) into Taiwan’s domestic law. Importantly\, this gives both Covenants the same legal status as Taiwan’s national laws. All government authorities\, including the judiciary\, are obligated to uphold the provisions of the ICCPR\, including its prohibition of slavery\, servitude and forced labour\, with the same force and authority as any domestic law. \nEven if the fisher agrees to the work\, if that agreement is shaped by coercion\, deception or misinformation\, then the supposed initial consent cannot be used to justify and validate the labour exploitation. In the You-Fu case\, there is no dispute that the fishers were not paid their wage for 15 months. We believe the local prosecutors had failed to properly investigate the fishers’ disadvantaged position of vulnerability in the employment relationship\, where they were unable to seek help due to them working at sea. \n(2) Even if consent can be taken into account in this case of prolonged wage withholding\, the terms of payment violate the Taiwanese employment contract.\nThe vessel owners stipulated in the labour contract that wages for the fishers would be paid every six months. However\, the Pingtung District Prosecutors Office declined to pursue human trafficking charges against the vessel owners based on claims that the fishers had verbally consented to delay payment until the vessel docked\, after 15 months at sea. \nEven though the withheld wages were eventually paid (with an additional TWD 2\,000) in August 2024\, the terms of payment diverged significantly from the original Taiwanese labour contract. This prolonged withholding of wages (長期扣留薪資) left fishers’ families without meaningful income for over a year. One report highlighted the extent of hardship: one fisher’s family was forced to mortgage their home to cover medical expenses due to the lack of received remittances over 15 months. Under such conditions\, it is questionable whether any fisher would voluntarily agree\, with full and informed consent\, to wait 15 months until the vessel docks to receive their wage. \nThis situation is a clear case of prolonged withholding of wages\, one of the indicators of forced labour as established by the International Labour Organization (ILO) and Taiwan Labor Standard Act\, Article 23\, that wage shall be paid on a regular basis. \nIt also constitutes a violation of Articles 22\, 23 and 27 of Taiwan’s Labor Standards Act\, which stipulates that wages must be paid directly to workers in full and be paid on time\, indicating that this case not only fails to comply with forced labour under international human rights law\, but also a breach of Taiwan’s fundamental labour laws. \n(3) Local prosecutors failed to properly investigate fishers’ working conditions to establish labour exploitation; instead\, prosecutors relied on a formulaic and superficial view of labour abuses as mainly wage disputes.\nThe fishers onboard You-Fu were subjected to intensive\, high-pressure operations\, often working extended hours depending on fishing conditions\, yet they did not receive corresponding overtime pay. The labour they provided was not proportional to the compensation they received. \nIn fact\, overtime and remuneration pay in the distant-water fishing sector is a structural issue that is chronically overlooked by the Ministry of Labor and the Fisheries Agency\, and even the prosecutors\, who fail to recognise the fishers were engaged in work for which the labour provided was disproportionate to the compensation they had received\, particularly with regard to overtime. Despite this\, local prosecutors failed to properly investigate other important indicators of forced labour\, such as the abuse of the fishers’ vulnerability\, deception\, withholding of wages\, and abusive working and living conditions. These are indicators of forced labour as identified by the ILO. \nDespite this\, local prosecutors failed to properly investigate other important indicators of forced labour\, such as the abuse of the fishers’ vulnerability\, deception\, withholding of wages\, and abusive working and living conditions. These are indicators of forced labour as identified by the ILO. \nWithout a proper inquiry and investigation\, the local prosecutors prematurely and erroneously concluded that no criminal charge could be brought under Taiwan’s Human Trafficking Prevention Act. This is a significant oversight that will not only affect the search for justice for the fishers onboard the You-Fu vessel\, but also grossly undermines the development of jurisprudence in human trafficking cases within Taiwan that is properly aligned with international law. \nSupporting Scholars\, Practitioners and Organisations (reflecting ordering in the original Chinese statement)\n\nProf. Yu-Fan Chiu (Associate Professor\, School of Law\, and Research Fellow\, International Center for Cultural Studies (ICCS)\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University)\nDr Bonny Ling (Visiting Professor\, School of Law\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University; and Senior Non-Resident Fellow\, Taiwan Research Hub at the University of Nottingham)\nDr Ya-Wen Yang (Assistant Research Professor\, Institutum Iurisprudentiae\, Academia Sinica)\n\nOrganisations\n\nTaiwan Association for Human Rights (TAHR)\nTaiwan Labour Front (TLF)\nServe the People Association (SPA)\nInternational Center for Cultural Studies (ICCS)\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (NYCU)\nWork Better Innovations\n\nFull Statement Download\nEnglish\nBahasa Indonesia\nMandarin (Traditional Chinese)\nMedia Cards Download\nEnglish\nBahasa Indonesia\nMandarin (Traditional Chinese)\nIndividual and Organization Sign-On\nSign-On Form\nMain Website\nEnglish\nBahasa Indonesia\nMandarin (Traditional Chinese)
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/public-statement-on-the-you-fu-fishing-human-trafficking-criminal-case-dukungan-atas-pernyataan-publik-terkait-kasus-perdagangan-manusia-di-kapal-you-fu/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251207T123000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251207T123000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20251201T032256Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251201T033515Z
UID:55097-1765110600-1765110600@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:Abolish the work-year limit ! Migrant Workers Rally
DESCRIPTION:Abolish the work-year limit !\nHapus batas masa kerja\nยกเลิกการจำกัดอายุงาน\nXoá bỏ giới hạn làm việc\n\n\n#AbolishTheWorkYearLimit !\nJOIN 2025 Migrants workers Rally\n\n\nAssembly Time: Sunday\, December 7\, 2025\nat 12:30 PM\, March starts at 1:30 PM\nAssembly Location: Ministry of Labor\n(No. 207\, Songjiang Road\, Zhongshan District\, Taipei City)\n\n\nMarch Ending Point: Legislative Yuan\n(No. 1\, Zhongshan South Road\, Zhongzheng District\, Taipei City)\n\n\nMarch Route:\nSongjiang Rd → Minsheng E. Rd (U-turn) → Songjiang Rd → Nanjing E. Rd → Linsen S. Rd → Jinan Rd → Zhongshan S. Rd\n\n\n\n\n\nIn Taiwan\, blue-collar migrant workers are restricted by a 12-year employment limit. Many who wish to continue working here are forced to leave once they reach that limit\, even if they want to stay.\n\n\nIn recent years\, the government introduced the Foreign Intermediate Skilled Workforce Program\, hoping to retain experienced workers. However\, the power to decide whether a worker may stay and apply for intermediate skilled status rests entirely with the employer. As a result\, migrant workers who wish to remain in Taiwan often have no choice but to accept poor conditions and face an even higher risk of exploitation by brokers and employers.\n\n\nUnder the work-year restrictions\, migrant workers are treated like disposable chopsticks — used and discarded. They devote their best years to Taiwan\, yet our society bears almost no responsibility for their retirement security or later-life care. It is blatant injustice.\n\n\nThis year\, we are calling for: All blue-collar migrant workers should be treated the same as other foreign workers — free from work-year limit\, and able to decide for themselves how long they want to stay and work here.\n\n\nWe sincerely invite everyone to join us on 7 December\, to take to the streets and demand the abolition of the work-year limit for blue-collar migrant workers!\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n 
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/abolish-the-work-year-limit-migrant-workers-rally/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/poster.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251207T123000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251207T123000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20251201T034129Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20251201T034142Z
UID:55103-1765110600-1765110600@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:廢除工作年限-移工大遊行
DESCRIPTION:廢除工作年限-移工大遊行\n中英印越泰各語言路線圖\n\n\n集結時間：2025年12月07日(日)\n下午12:30集合 13:30出發\n集結地點：勞動部(台北市中山區松江路207號)\n遊行終點：立法院(台北市中正區中山南路1號)\n\n\n遊行路線：\n松江路→民生東路迴轉→松江路→南京東路→林森南路→濟南路→中山南路\n\n\n\n\n\n藍領移工在台灣 #工作年限為12年，許多屆滿年限的移工雖然想繼續留台工作，卻因為年限到了只能無奈離境。\n\n\n近年，政府提出了 #中階聘僱制度，希望吸引技術熟練的勞工留台，但是否留任並協助移工申請中階，#決定權全在於雇主，移工為了留下來，往往只能接受更多不利條件，面對更多被仲介雇主剝削的風險。\n\n\n在工作年限的限制下，#移工就像免洗筷般用完即丟，將最好的青春年華與勞動力奉獻給了台灣社會，我們卻幾乎不需要承擔他們老年的退休保障或照顧，這是赤裸的不公平。\n\n\n今年的我們要主張：\n所有藍領移工，都應該和其他外國勞動者一樣，不受台灣工作年限限制，能自主決定想在台灣工作多久！\n\n\n誠摯地邀請大家，12月7日一起上街，要求廢除藍領移工的工作年限！
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/%e5%bb%a2%e9%99%a4%e5%b7%a5%e4%bd%9c%e5%b9%b4%e9%99%90-%e7%a7%bb%e5%b7%a5%e5%a4%a7%e9%81%8a%e8%a1%8c/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/海報.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251210T130000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251210T160000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20260223T041210Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260223T050602Z
UID:55122-1765371600-1765382400@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:供應鏈與強迫勞動工作坊：消除強迫勞動之政策發展：臺灣、美國與泰國法制對話
DESCRIPTION:供應鏈與強迫勞動工作坊：消除強迫勞動之政策發展：臺灣、美國與泰國法制對話\n\n📆日期： 2025年12月10日 \n⏰時間： 13:10~16:00（台北時間） \n 地點：陽明交通大學光復校區管理二館MB1063教室（英文實體），以及同步線上（中文口譯） \n 主辦單位：國立陽明交通大學文化研究國際中心 （ICCS）、國立台北大學法律學院、國立陽明交通大學科技法律學院、子計畫三「遷移、不平等公民、批判法律研究」 \n\n 側記：網站
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/%e6%b6%88%e9%99%a4%e5%bc%b7%e8%bf%ab%e5%8b%9e%e5%8b%95%e4%b9%8b%e6%94%bf%e7%ad%96%e7%99%bc%e5%b1%95%ef%bc%9a%e8%87%ba%e7%81%a3%e3%80%81%e7%be%8e%e5%9c%8b%e8%88%87%e6%b3%b0%e5%9c%8b%e6%b3%95%e5%88%b6/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/597251065_1239578021561819_2476250498831498987_n.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251210T130000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20251210T160000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20260223T043230Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260223T050641Z
UID:55125-1765371600-1765382400@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:Supply Chain and Forced Labor Workshop: Policy Developments to Eliminate Forced Labor: A Legal Dialogue among Taiwan\, the United States\, and Thailand
DESCRIPTION:Supply Chain and Forced Labor Workshop: Policy Developments to Eliminate Forced Labor: A Legal Dialogue among Taiwan\, the United States\, and Thailand\n📆 Date: December\, 10\, 2025 \n⏰ Time: 13:10–16:00 (Taipei Time) \n Venue: Room MB1069\, Management Building III\, Guangfu Campus\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University（In-person session in English）\, with simultaneous online interpretation（in Chinese） \n Organizers: International Center for Cultural Studies; School of Law\, National Taipei University; School of Law\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University; Sub-Project III: Migration\, Unequal Citizenship\, and Critical Legal Studies \n\n 側記：網址
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/supply-chain-and-forced-labor-workshop-policy-developments-to-eliminate-forced-labor-a-legal-dialogue-among-taiwan-the-united-states-and-thailand/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/597251065_1239578021561819_2476250498831498987_n.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260322T130000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260322T170000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20260310T023804Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260310T023804Z
UID:55138-1774184400-1774198800@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:Forum on the Release of the “Human Rights Impact Investigation Report on Taiwanese Businesses in Thailand”
DESCRIPTION:[Registration] Forum on the Release of the “Human Rights Impact Investigation Report on Taiwanese Businesses in Thailand” \nDate & Time: March 22\, 2026 (Sunday)\, 13:00–17:00Venue: Elite Lecture Hall (Room 5216\, Building 5)\, Soochow University Cheng-Chung Campus(No. 56\, Sec. 1\, Guiyang St.\, Zhongzheng District\, Taipei)Organizers: Taiwan Transnational Corporations Watch (TTNC Watch)\, Soochow University Human Rights Program\, Chang Fo-Chuan Center for the Study of Human Rights\, Soochow University \nUnder the globalized production model\, companies from developed economies often procure goods or establish factories in developing countries in order to reduce manufacturing costs. In many of these host countries\, labor and environmental regulations tend to be less stringent. In some cases\, authoritarian governments suppress civil liberties\, further weakening protections for workers and communities. When multinational enterprises minimize costs by exploiting labor or damaging the environment within overseas factories or supply chains\, victims frequently face significant obstacles in seeking remedies locally. \nIn response to these challenges\, the international community—led by the United Nations—has in recent years promoted the Business and Human Rights agenda\, encouraging governments and corporations to adopt policies that safeguard labor rights and environmental justice across global supply chains. \nTaiwan is no exception to these global trends. In 1991\, Taiwan transitioned within the global capitalist system from a production base to a capital-exporting economy\, with outward investment exceeding inbound foreign investment for the first time. As a result\, human rights abuses involving Taiwanese enterprises abroad have occasionally emerged\, drawing international concern. From 1993 to 2022\, China (including Hong Kong) remained the primary destination for Taiwanese overseas investment. However\, since 2023\, due to shifts in international political dynamics\, Southeast Asian countries collectively have surpassed China and Hong Kong as the largest recipients of Taiwanese investment. \nIn response to these developments\, Taiwan Transnational Corporations Watch published the “Human Rights and Environmental Impact Report on Taiwanese Businesses in Indonesia” in 2024\, exposing labor violations and environmental damage associated with Taiwanese enterprises operating in Indonesia\, and calling upon corporations to improve their practices and the government to strengthen regulatory oversight. This forum will present the “Human Rights Impact Investigation Report on Taiwanese Businesses in Thailand\,” continuing and expanding civil society’s efforts—following the Indonesia report—to monitor the human rights performance of Taiwanese enterprises in Southeast Asia. \nFaced with negative human rights records involving Taiwanese businesses overseas\, the Taiwanese government has not remained entirely passive. In 2020\, the Executive Yuan released the “Taiwan National Action Plan on Business and Human Rights\,” committing to promote administrative management of transnational investment and extraterritorial jurisdiction in order to ensure that Taiwanese enterprises’ overseas investments do not violate international human rights norms. The plan also emphasizes providing effective remedies for victims in cases where Taiwanese companies or Taiwanese-controlled multinational enterprises engage in activities abroad that infringe upon human rights or damage the environment. \nAfter more than a year of delay\, the revised version of the Action Plan—originally promised by the Executive Yuan to be released by the end of 2024—is reportedly expected to be published soon. In addition\, the government plans to introduce the “Taiwan Corporate Supply Chain Human Rights Due Diligence Initiative\,” which will require enterprises to implement human rights due diligence to identify and prevent human rights risks within their supply chains and to provide remedies when violations occur. \nTaking these two landmark policy initiatives as points of departure\, this forum will also examine Taiwan’s Business and Human Rights policies from a civil society perspective\, offering expectations and recommendations for future improvements. \nInformation source:https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdhome55eGFpRueAVMWUQLuaF4YTwthH8ubcjR-pFSPUNeCuA/viewform?fbclid=IwY2xjawQcYg5leHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFjUVFBS0tYT3AyVDc0UGp3c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHg6UKDQomKgr6v9k86sOFyabHO8jUDxmAgnrn-pc5p8DQVuKiBci5xAwq2nD_aem_66MdhrIyANdYkKd0ktLF7g&pli=1
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/forum-on-the-release-of-the-human-rights-impact-investigation-report-on-taiwanese-businesses-in-thailand/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260322T130000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260322T170000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20260310T024119Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260310T024229Z
UID:55141-1774184400-1774198800@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:《泰國台商人權影響調查報告》發表論壇
DESCRIPTION:【報名】《泰國台商人權影響調查報告》發表論壇\n時間：2026年3月22日（日），13:00-17:00\n地點：東吳大學城中校區（台北市中正區貴陽街一段56號）菁英講堂（第五大樓5216室）\n主辦：台灣跨國企業監察網絡、東吳大學人權學程、東吳大學張佛泉人權研究中心 \n全球化生產模式下，來自先進國家的企業為降低產品製造成本，赴後進國家採購或設廠。而在後進國家的勞動、環境管制通常較為寬鬆，且有些地方由威權政府統治、壓抑公民權利的情況下，當跨國企業在海外的工廠及供應商，以壓榨勞工、破壞環境的方式來「成本最小化」時，受害者往往很難於當地獲得救濟。針對此一狀況，國際上近年由聯合國帶頭提倡「企業與人權」政策，推動各國政府、企業採行，來保障全球供應鏈上的勞動人權與環境正義。 \n台灣，當然沒有外於上述趨勢。1991年，台灣在全球資本主義體系裡，從後進生產基地晉升資本輸出國，對外投資金額首度超出國外來台投資。相應，台灣企業在海外的人權侵害也不時發生，成為引起國際關注的問題。1993到2022年，中國（含香港）長期是台灣對外投資金額最高的地點。2023年起，由於國際政治局勢變動，東南亞各國合計超越中港，接收了最多來自台灣的投資。因應這樣的變化，台灣跨國企業監察網絡於2024年發表《印尼台商人權與環境影響報告》，揭露台灣企業在印尼生產的勞動違規與環境破壞，要求業者改進、政府規範。本次論壇，則將發表《泰國台商人權影響調查報告》，繼印尼之後持續、擴大監督台灣企業在東南亞的人權表現。 \n面對台商在海外的負面人權紀錄，台灣政府並非毫無反應。2020年，行政院公佈《臺灣企業與人權國家行動計畫》，表示將推動「跨國投資行政管理」與「域外司法管轄」，「以確保企業海外投資行為不違反國際人權規範」，並就「在國外進行工商業活動之我國企業或我國企業具控制權的跨國企業有侵害外國人權或環境之行為……提供被害人有效之救濟管道。」而在經過一年多的延宕後，原本按行政院承諾，應於2024年底公佈的新版計畫，據悉終於要在近期面世。另外，還將搭配提出《臺灣企業供應鏈尊重人權方案》，要求企業實施「人權盡職調查」，辨識供應鏈上的人權風險來預防侵害，並在侵害不幸發生時予以救濟。從這兩份指標性的政策文件切入，本次論壇也將由公民社會的觀點，檢視台灣政府的「企業與人權」政策並提出期許、建議。 \n以上資訊轉載自: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdhome55eGFpRueAVMWUQLuaF4YTwthH8ubcjR-pFSPUNeCuA/viewform?fbclid=IwY2xjawQcYyJleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFjUVFBS0tYT3AyVDc0UGp3c3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHi3mIbw3CBnGLcI4L9ffzIvNMadG93A9SXh7Eobk68sfFQW81JdZP9_Qn0Yw_aem__9fFPqrETKHu2iLPcF-pnA
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/%e3%80%8a%e6%b3%b0%e5%9c%8b%e5%8f%b0%e5%95%86%e4%ba%ba%e6%ac%8a%e5%bd%b1%e9%9f%bf%e8%aa%bf%e6%9f%a5%e5%a0%b1%e5%91%8a%e3%80%8b%e7%99%bc%e8%a1%a8%e8%ab%96%e5%a3%87/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/1.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260413T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20261231T170000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20260413T072848Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260423T153349Z
UID:55153-1776067200-1798736400@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:Journal Publish: Special Issue: Making Unfree Labour: Consent\, Exploitation\, and the Law
DESCRIPTION:  \nJournal: Innovation In The Social Science \nType: Special Issue \nSpecial Issue Title: Making Unfree Labour: Consent\, Exploitation\, and the Law \nVolume & Issue: Volume 4\, Issue 1\, 2026 \nGuest Editor: Ya-Wen Yang \nPublisher: Brill \nISSN: 2773-0611 \nAccess: https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/iss.4.issue-1.xml  \nArticles Included: \n\nYa-Wen Yang\, What Is Wrong with Forced Labour: Coercion or Exploitation? Reflections on Taiwan’s Temporary Migrant Worker Scheme\, 4 Innovation in the Social Sciences 5 (2026)\, https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/article-p5_2.xml\nFabiana Kutsche & Ulrike Lindner\, Between Work Regulation\, Integration into the Capitalist Economy and ‘African Laziness’: The International Labour Organization and African Workers\, 1927–1930\, 3 Innovation in the Social Sciences 31 (2025)\, https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/article-p31_3.xml\nHao-Yu Cho\, Transformation and Exploitation: The Impact of Labor Policies in Mexico’s Maquiladora Industry\, 4 Innovation in the Social Sciences 45 (2026)\, https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/article-p45_4.xml\nJonathan Parhusip\, Johanna Lee & Danielle Douglas\, The Kasbon System and the Paradox of Voluntary Entry into Unfree Labor in Taiwan’s Distant Water Fisheries\, 4 Innovation in the Social Sciences 67 (2026)\, https://brill.com/view/journals/iss/4/1/article-p67_5.xml\n\n  \nIntroduction: Making Unfree Labour: Consent\, Exploitation and the Law \nBy Guest Editor Ya-Wen Yang \nThis special issue originated in the workshop ‘The Production and Reproduction of Social Inequalities’\, held on 20–21 September 2024 in Hsinchu\, Taiwan. One of the workshop’s central themes was the relationship between inequality and exploitation. All the articles in this special issue fall within this broad topic. \nMore specifically\, however\, they address the complexities of the conceptualisation of unfree labour through law in particular contexts and historical moments and reflect on the visible and invisible duress that leads to exploitation. They explore how workers’ consent and its absence are managed in the workplace and how efforts to combat forced labour can\, paradoxically\, perpetuate exploitation. \nWhile the contributors take distinctive approaches to the exploration of a range of case studies\, they engage in dialogue with one another on two overarching perspectives. First\, they trace the legal expression of unfree labour as it emerges from political contestation. Second\, they analyse different techniques used to legitimise institutionalised labour control. \nKutsche and Lindner reveal the early controversies of the International Labour Organization (ILO) during its efforts to combat the forced labour imposed on ‘native labour’ in colonies\, which eventually led to ILO Convention No. 29 (1930). The Convention was the first international instrument to tackle forced labour and has been the backbone of the worldwide ban on this inhuman form of labour extraction to this day. \nIn this regard\, the Convention is a political achievement. However\, its creation was overshadowed by racism and colonialism. European colonial powers presumed that forcing Africans to work was a civilising mission to educate the locals in a positive work ethic. The legal formation of forced labour reflects the historical limitation that it required the support of the European powers\, who relied upon and defended the use of forced labour. It thus focuses on managing direct coercion\, while institutions that created economic duress driving indigenous people into poorly paid wage work\, such as poll taxes\, were largely left untouched. \nYang points out how this limitation underlying the Convention has become a contemporary encumbrance in the fight against human trafficking for labour exploitation in Taiwan. The narrow notion of forced labour led domestic judges ruling on human trafficking cases within the Taiwan–Philippines migration corridor to take migrant workers’ signatures on illegal debt agreements with intermediaries at face value. Migrant workers’ apparent consent\, in the eyes of the judges\, legitimised the illegal conduct of the intermediaries. This legal reasoning frustrated the initial purpose of Taiwan’s anti-human trafficking law and further consolidated the exploitative fee structure in place throughout the migration process. \nParhusip\, Lee and Douglas similarly seek to explain the paradoxical voluntariness of debt-financed migration and the deep-rooted coercion beneath it. They study the pervasiveness and burdens of the debts incurred to finance Indonesian fishers’ migration and personal necessities prior to and during their employment by Taiwanese employers—namely\, the kasbon system. Kasbon usually leads to a vicious spiral of debt; an initial debt tricks Indonesian fishers into agreeing to multiple rounds of debt and migration\, causing them to submit to abuses in the workplace. \nParhusip et al. observe that the ILO\, after a long development\, has established the principle of fair recruitment—that migrant workers should not bear the costs and expenses of their migration and employment. The Taiwanese government has also claimed to adhere to this principle under international pressure. However\, it has only performed a gesture of governance\, issuing formalist bans on illegal fee collections. Meanwhile\, the discriminatory laws against migrant fishers\, as well as the business model and profit structures of the intermediaries\, have been left intact. \nFinally\, Cho studies the changing dynamics between maquiladora workers and managers in Mexico following the loosening of regulations on dispatched workers in 2012. This legal change led to a surge of such workers\, who replaced a high percentage of formally employed factory staff. This\, in turn\, caused a shift in the management strategies at the author’s field site. The originally more family-like atmosphere on the production line was replaced by the distant relationships that necessarily accompany the nomadic nature of dispatched work. Dispatched workers also found it harder to organise themselves in the workplace. It thus turns out that the regulatory changes that make the workplace more fragmented function as an indirect means of strengthening control over labour. \nThe four articles represent different intensities of unfreedom on the spectrum of unfree labour. At one pole\, Kutsche and Lindner expose the violent oppression and the exploitation of African indigenous communities under European colonialism. At the other\, Cho documents factory wage-labourers who experience no direct coercion\, despite being threatened by the reserve army of dispatched workers created by neoliberal deregulatory trends. \nBetween these two poles\, Yang and Parhusip et al. highlight the plight of migrant workers. These workers are trapped in the double bind of discriminatory immigration regulations and a snare of debt structures. Because the pole of forced labour under colonialism appears so obviously wrong\, other forms of control over labour may appear less harmful\, less wrong and ultimately ‘not forced’. \nHowever\, the trajectory of long-term efforts to recognise how the institutional deprivation of people’s reasonable options constitutes coercion is precisely the lesson we can learn from the juxtaposition of the case studies here. It is exactly because unfreedom and exploitation can come in different shapes and degrees—and because their recognition is always a political struggle—that we need to analyse how coercion is read as benign and how the law is used to legitimise economic duress as consent. This special issue seeks to do just that. \nThe original workshop was a collaboration between the International Centre for Cultural Studies (ICCS) at National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University\, the Social Inequalities Research Unit at the University of Cologne and the Africa–China Research Network at Academia Sinica. We thank those whose contributions made this collection possible. Among them are Professor Poe Yu-ze Wan\, Chief Editor of this journal\, and Professor Joyce C.H. Liu\, Director of the ICCS. \n\n\n\n\n\nMigration\, Unequal Citizens\, and Critical Legal Studies\n\n\n\n\nThis interdisciplinary research cluster belongs to the MOE SPROUT 2.0 “Conflict\, Justice\, Decolonization 2.0: Asia in Transition in the 21st Century“\, operated by the International Center for Cultural Studies\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University\, Taiwan. \nAccording to the United Nations Statistics Division (UNSD)\, the total number of international migrants had amounted to 272 million in mid-2019\, up from 173 million in 2000. Compared to 70 million international migrants in 1960\, the figure has increased by 200 million. Among the total number of international migrants\, about 100 million international migrants were from Asia\, and 83 million were migrating within Asia. Most countries in Asia still practice exclusionary politics of citizenship. The migrant workers and stateless persons suffer severe discrimination and even inhuman treatment because of their non-citizen status. \nThe first five-year ICCS project\, “Unequal Citizens and Legal Reform in the Inter-Asian Context” (2018-2022)\, has discussed the theme of “Conflict\, Justice\, and Decolonization” to understand the crux of the problem from the scene of social conflict from the perspective of transnational migration and labor mobility. Our shared concerns include the different forms of social conflict and inequality in third-world countries within the global context. We paid particular attention to the issues of refugees\, mobile laborers\, stateless persons\, and human trafficking under mass migration. We discussed the formation of severely excluded discrimination\, oppression\, and violence as expressed in laws and institutions in different societies. However\, the international labor migration under globalization constantly faces exploitation\, forced labor\, and human trafficking\, particularly in Asia-Pacific. \nThe second five-year project (2023-2027) will focus on analyzing the forced labor risks in the global supply chain and addressing effective practices for eliminating forced labor\, including law enforcement strategy. Our project will continue to deepen the transnational cooperation with research institutions\, research scholars\, and non-governmental organizations to develop more significant contributions to labor rights and access to justice for migrant workers\, stateless populations\, and undocumented workers. We orient our project toward a critical legal study in terms of empirical cases and emancipatory articulation of particular fundamental concepts\, including citizenship.
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/journal-publish-special-issue-making-unfree-labour-consent-exploitation-and-the-law/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/coverimage.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260416T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260416T170000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20260416T105708Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260423T152321Z
UID:55187-1776326400-1776358800@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:The “Yu Fu” Forced Labor Civil Case – Third Hearing Court Observation
DESCRIPTION:April 1\, 2026 \nIn September 2024\, eight Indonesian fishers who had previously been employed on the Taiwanese distant-water fishing vessel Yu Fu filed a civil lawsuit before the Pingtung District Court with the assistance of lawyers and labor organizations. They sought payment of wage differentials in accordance with the minimum wage protections under the Labor Standards Act (LSA). The case was first heard in August 2025 and again in November 2025. However\, due to the reassignment and retirement of the presiding judge\, the proceedings were renewed\, and a new judge conducted the first hearing of the case. The third hearing took place yesterday (March 31\, 2026). \nIn addition to four of the plaintiff fishers appearing in court\, members of the Taiwan Business and Human Rights Project\, the Taiwan Association for Human Rights\, the Taoyuan Migrant Workers’ Service Association\, the Stella Maris International Service Center\, Greenpeace\, as well as legal professionals and individuals concerned with migrant worker issues in Taiwan\, were present to observe the proceedings. \n \nWhat Is at Issue in the “Yu Fu” Forced Labor Civil Case? \nThe eight plaintiff fishers worked aboard the Yu Fu between 2023 and 2024\, during which they were subjected to 15 months of unpaid wages and treatment amounting to forced labor. Although the vessel owner later paid the outstanding wages after the case came to light\, the calculation was based on a monthly wage of USD 550 per person (approximately NTD 17\,800). \nThe vessel owner claimed that the USD 550 standard was based on the Act for Distant Water Fisheries and the Regulations on the Authorization and Management of Overseas Employment of Foreign Crew Members by Offshore Fishing Vessels (hereinafter the “Overseas Employment Regulations”). However\, the legislature has never authorized the Ministry of Agriculture to set a minimum wage lower than that prescribed under the LSA. As such\, the Overseas Employment Regulations\, being merely administrative rules\, cannot exclude the application of the LSA. \nThe vessel owner further argued that the Indonesian fishers in this case were “overseas employment” and therefore not subject to the LSA. However\, under the principles of territoriality and flag state jurisdiction\, foreign fishers working on Taiwanese-flagged distant-water vessels are deemed to be working within Taiwan’s jurisdiction. Accordingly\, fishers working aboard the Taiwanese-flagged Yu Fu should be protected under the LSA. \nNote: For further background on the “Yu Fu” civil litigation\, please refer to the dedicated case webpage. \nDo Overseas-Hired Foreign Fishers in Distant-Water Fisheries Fall Under the LSA? \nDuring this hearing\, the court focused on clarifying whether foreign fishers employed through overseas hiring arrangements in distant-water fisheries are still subject to the LSA. \nCounsel for the plaintiffs reiterated the arguments based on territoriality and flag state principles\, and emphasized that: “The LSA establishes minimum labor standards for all workers within Taiwan. As long as a worker performs labor within Taiwan’s jurisdiction\, they are entitled to protection regardless of nationality. Any exclusion from the LSA must be officially announced by the Ministry of Labor. However\, no such exclusion has ever been announced for distant-water fisheries.” Counsel further noted that while the Overseas Employment Regulations distinguish between offshore and onshore hiring\, such distinctions merely regulate recruitment procedures and do not provide a legal basis for excluding the application of the LSA. \nFor migrant workers employed in Taiwan\, certain categories such as domestic workers\, have been excluded from the application of the LSA since January 1\, 1999\, by a formal announcement of the Ministry of Labor. As a result\, domestic migrant workers are not protected under the LSA. However\, this situation differs from that of distant-water fishers\, who have never been officially excluded by the Ministry of Labor. Accordingly\, fishers working aboard the Taiwanese-flagged Yu Fu should still be entitled to wages that comply with the minimum wage requirements under the LSA\, rather than the USD 550 standard unilaterally set by the Ministry of Agriculture. \nDoes Forced Labor Constitute an Infringement of Personality Rights in Civil Law? \nThe court further addressed the plaintiffs’ claim for damages for non-pecuniary harm arising from alleged violations of personality rights due to forced labor. The judge requested clarification on the definition of “forced labor” and its connection to personality rights infringements. \nIn this case\, the fishers were not only deprived of wages for 15 months\, but also subjected to confiscation of identity documents\, insufficient food and drinking water during voyages\, excessive overtime\, and other harsh working conditions. These circumstances indicate that the fishers were compelled to continue working against their will. Given their isolated and vulnerable situation at sea\, with limited ability to seek help or leave\, their freedom was clearly restricted\, constituting forced labor. \nThe judge also referenced a non-prosecution decision issued by the Pingtung District Prosecutors Office on April 21\, 2025. In response\, plaintiffs’ counsel emphasized that the prosecution had not adequately examined whether the circumstances amounted to forced labor\, focusing instead on whether the labor and compensation were grossly disproportionate. Counsel further argued that it is necessary for the plaintiff fishers to testify in court regarding their experiences of forced labor. \nContinued Public Attention Is Encouraged \nIn recent years\, international reports have repeatedly exposed incidents of forced labor involving Taiwanese enterprises. In 2020\, Taiwan’s distant-water fisheries products were included for the first time in the U.S. Department of Labor’s “List of Goods Produced by Child Labor or Forced Labor\,” and have since been listed three times. \nThe International Labour Organization (ILO) defined forced labor as early as 1930 as: “all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.” Among the ILO’s 11 indicators of forced labor are withholding of wages and abusive working and living conditions. These indicators serve as a warning that when workers continue working despite long-term or systematic non-payment or extremely low wages\, it may not be voluntary but rather the result of coercion. Otherwise\, why would migrant workers who urgently depend on wages continue working under such conditions? \nInternational efforts to combat forced labor focus on addressing violations of human dignity. In Taiwan\, however\, such issues have often been reduced to mere wage disputes\, overlooking their deeper human rights implications. This case highlights the need for Taiwan to align with international human rights standards\, which would also help maintain the global competitiveness of its distant-water fishing industry. \nThe next hearing is scheduled for June 9\, 2026 (Tuesday) at 4:10 PM at the Pingtung District Court. Members of the public are welcome to attend and continue observing how the judiciary addresses forced labor issues. \n \n\n《銪富號》強迫勞動民事案件第三次開庭 法庭觀察\n\n\n2026年4月1日 \n2024年9月八位曾受僱於臺灣遠洋漁船《銪富號》的印尼漁工，在律師和勞動團體的協助下，向屏東地方法院提起民事訴訟，要求漁船公司給付符合《勞動基準法》(下稱《勞基法》)保障的最低工資差額，案件在去(2025)年8月第一次開庭、同年11月第二次開庭，然接連因承審法官調任和退休，因此本次開庭更新論，由新的法官就本案第一次開庭。昨日(2026年3月31日)第三次開庭。 \n除了四位原告漁工到場，台灣企業人權方案成員、台灣人權促進會、桃園市群眾服務協會、海星國際移工服務中心、綠色和平與多位法律背景及關注台灣移工議題的人士都到場關注。 \n《銪富號》強迫勞動民事案件，在爭議什麼？\n八名原告漁工在2023至2024年間在《銪富號》漁船上工作，遭欠薪15個月及歷經涉及強迫勞動的待遇。雖然在案情曝光後，漁船公司隨即補發薪資，但卻是以每人每月 550 元美金（約新台幣17\,800元）計算積欠的薪資。 \n漁船公司聲稱550美元的標準是按照《遠洋漁業條例》與《境外僱用非我國籍船員許可及管理辦法》(下稱《境外僱用辦法》)，但立法者其實未曾在上開規定中授權農業部可以訂立低於《勞基法》的最低工資標準，因此，僅屬行政規則位階的《境外僱用辦法》根本無法排除《勞基法》的適用。 \n《銪富號》漁船又主張本案的印尼漁工是「境外聘僱」，所以不適用《勞基法》，然而，依照屬地原則與船旗國原則，外籍漁工在懸掛台灣旗的遠洋漁船上工作，即形同在台灣境內工作，在懸掛台灣的《銪富號》上工作的漁工，自應受《勞基法》保障。 \n註：關於《銪富號》民事訴訟的詳細背景，請參《銪富號》專屬網頁 \n遠洋漁業境外聘僱的外籍漁工是否適用《勞基法》\n本日開庭，法官首先聚焦於釐清遠洋漁業的漁工，若是「外籍漁工」且是「境外聘僱」，是否仍適用《勞基法》? \n原告漁工的律師除了重申上述屬地原則與船旗國原則的主張之外，更強調：「《勞基法》規範台灣境內所有勞工的勞動條件最低標準，只要勞工在台灣境內工作，不分國籍均受保障；若要排除適用《勞基法》，僅得由勞動部公告，然而，勞動部未曾公告排除遠洋漁業適用《勞基法》。」律師亦強調，縱使《境外僱用辦法》區分境外聘僱和境內聘僱，但這僅是移工境外聘僱方式與流程的規範，而不是排除《勞基法》的依據。 \n對於在我國工作的移工，例如勞動部自1999年1月1日起將家事服務工作者排除適用勞基法，導致家事移工無法獲得勞基法的保障，但這和未曾被勞動部公告排除的遠洋漁工情形不同，在懸掛台灣的《銪富號》上工作的漁工薪資標準自仍應符合《勞基法》最低工資 ，而不是農業部自行創設的550美元。 \n強迫勞動行為是否屬於民事上的人格權侵害行為？\n接續上述的問題，法官對於本案漁工主張因遭受強迫勞動，而請求人格權侵害的精神慰撫金，要求原告說明「強迫勞動的定義」，以及強迫勞動與人格權侵害的關連性。 \n在本案中，漁工在《銪富號》上工作時，不只是遭積欠15個月的薪資，更遭受扣留身分證件、出海期間缺乏足夠的食物和飲用水、超時加班等，惡劣的工作環境等對待，足以顯示這幾位漁工是在於非自願的情形下被迫繼續工作，而在當時孤立與難以求救的脆弱處境中，更無法離開，明顯屬於自由被侵犯的強迫勞動處境。 \n法官當庭提出屏東縣地檢署於2025年4月21日對船東作出不構成《人口販運罪嫌》的不起訴決定。對此，我方律師強調，地檢署在調查過程中，並未就判斷是否構成強迫勞動訊問當事人，而是著重在當事人從事的工作勞動是否有勞動與報酬顯不相當的情形，更有傳訊原告漁工來法庭說明自身被強迫勞動的經歷之必要。 \n歡迎各界持續關注本案， 共同觀察司法界對於強迫勞動的調查程序\n近年來，國際新聞陸續揭露台灣企業中接連發生的各種強迫勞動事件，2020年台灣遠洋漁獲首度被列入美國勞動部發布之「童工及強迫勞動製品清單」，時至今日已三度被列入該清單之中。 \n國際勞工組織（ILO）早在1930年定義強迫勞動為：「以任何懲罰之威脅迫使而致，且非本人自願提供的工作或服務。」在辨識強迫勞動的11項指標中 ，包含扣發薪資（withholding of wages）與苛刻的工作與生活條件（abusive working and living conditions），這是在提醒社會，看到長期或系統性被欠薪或是領取苛刻工資而仍繼續工作的勞工，要有警覺這些勞工可能是遭威脅而非自願工作，否則何以急需工資的移工被欠薪、工資極之下低卻繼續工作？ \n國際間打擊強迫勞動，重點在於對抗這些侵犯人性尊嚴的行為，而台灣各界長期以易將強迫勞動問題簡化為單純的薪資爭議，而未能覺察其中潛藏侵犯人性尊嚴的嚴重問題，本案也在於提醒台灣應接軌國際的人權標準，同時也能有助於維持台灣遠洋漁業在國際間的經濟競爭力。 \n下一次開庭時間預計在2026年6月9日(二)下午16：10屏東地方法院繼續審理此案，歡迎關注案的各界人士到場旁聽。
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/the-yu-fu-forced-labor-civil-case-third-hearing-court-observation/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/主視覺圖.jpg
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260427T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260427T170000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20260427T084936Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260429T015726Z
UID:55220-1777276800-1777309200@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:Taiwan’s Leading Bicycle Manufacturer Sanctioned for Forced Labor: Control Yuan Report Exposes Regulatory Gaps and Oversight Failures
DESCRIPTION:Taiwan’s Leading Bicycle Manufacturer Sanctioned for Forced Labor: Control Yuan Report Exposes Regulatory Gaps and Oversight Failures\nThe Control Yuan’s Investigation Report No. 115\, Social Investigation 0015\, states that Taiwan’s leading bicycle manufacturer\, Company G\, was sanctioned by a Withhold Release Order issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection for alleged forced labor\, including indicators such as the abuse of vulnerability\, withholding of wages\, and excessive overtime. The Control Yuan found that the Taichung City Government had insufficient prior awareness and that its subsequent investigation was largely perfunctory. The company’s repeated labor-rights violations further reveal a gap between Taiwan’s domestic legal framework and international labor standards. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nThe full investigation report can be found at: https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n台灣自行車龍頭涉強迫勞動遭美國制裁：監察院揭露制度落差與地方政府監管失靈\n監察院115社調0015調查報告指出，臺灣自行車龍頭G公司因涉強迫勞動，遭美國CBP發布暫扣令制裁，涉及濫用弱勢、扣發薪資及超時加班等指標。監察院認為，臺中市政府事前掌握不足、事後查證流於形式，且企業屢有勞權違規，凸顯國內法制與國際標準落差。 \n調查報告全文請參: https://www.cy.gov.tw/CyBsBox.aspx?CSN=1
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/taiwans-leading-bicycle-manufacturer-sanctioned-for-forced-labor-control-yuan-report-exposes-regulatory-gaps-and-oversight-failures/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/png:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/1-2.png
END:VEVENT
BEGIN:VEVENT
DTSTART;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260504T080000
DTEND;TZID=Asia/Shanghai:20260504T170000
DTSTAMP:20260515T012319
CREATED:20260504T021642Z
LAST-MODIFIED:20260504T021706Z
UID:55229-1777881600-1777914000@transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw
SUMMARY:Global Production Networks\, the State\, and Migrant Workers: Governing Labour in the Semiconductor Industry
DESCRIPTION:Time\nMay 4\, 2026 (Monday)\, 13:30– 16:00(GMT+8\, Taiwan Time) \nVenue\nOnsite and online synchronous session\, conducted entirely in Mandarin with English simultaneous interpretation. \nOnsite：\nA401\, Assembly Building I\, Guangfu Campus\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University \nOnline：\nWebex link will be sent to your email. \nOrganizer\nInternational Center for Cultural Studies\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (NYCU)\nSchool of Law\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University (NYCU) \nAgenda \n13:10-13:30  Registration \n13:30-15:30  Keynote Speech \nModerator：\nAssoc. Prof. Yu-Fan Chiu\, School of Law\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung  University\nKeynote Speakers：\nAsst. Prof. Ting-Chien Chen\, Department of Geography\, National Kaohsiung Normal University\nDiscussant：\nProf. Mei-Lin Pan\, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences\, National Yang Ming Chiao Tung University\nDr. Chiung-Chih Chen\, Postdoctoral Research Fellow\, Resilient and Sustainable Development  Center\, National Tsing Hua University \n15:30-16:00 Q&A \n  \n活動時間\n2026年5月4日 (一) 13:30–16:00 \n活動地點\n實體線上同步，提供全程中英文同步翻譯 \n實體：國立陽明交通大學光復校區 綜合一館 A401教室（實體出席可抵專討一次；實體限額40人） \n線上：報名後將以電子郵件寄送 Webex 會議連結 \n主辦單位\n國立陽明交通大學 文化研究國際中心\n國立陽明交通大學 科技法律學院 \n  \n議程 \n13:10-13:30 報到 \n13:30-15:30 大會演講  \n主持人：邱羽凡 副教授（國立陽明交通大學科技法律學院） \n主講人 ：\n陳亭茜 助理教授（國立高雄師範大學地理學系） \n與談人：\n潘美玲 教授（國立陽明交通大學人文社會學系）\n陳炯志 博士後研究員（國立清華大學 永續與韌性發展中心） \n15:30-16:00 問答
URL:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/event/global-production-networks-the-state-and-migrant-workers-governing-labour-in-the-semiconductor-industry/
ATTACH;FMTTYPE=image/jpeg:https://transit-asia.chss.nycu.edu.tw/cms/wp-content/uploads/2026/05/全球生產網絡、國家與移工：半導體產業中的勞動治理_主視覺_檢視檔.jpg
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR