In February, Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor released long-awaited guidelines to help businesses prevent forced labor—a response to US trade enforcement actions and mounting international criticism of labor abuses against the country’s 870,000 migrant workers. While the guidelines offer tools for self-assessment, critics argue they fail to address systemic issues, such as debt bondage and the exclusion of homecare workers from legal protections. The move follows a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) investigation into Giant Manufacturing, which found indicators of forced labor in its supply chain, including wage withholding and excessive overtime.

The guidelines list 11 indicators of forced labor, including debt bondage, retention of identity documents, withholding of wages, and isolation. Additionally, they provide a set of action plans and self-assessment guides for enterprises to fulfill their human rights due diligence.

The Taiwanese government’s recent efforts to address this issue came in response to a case where Giant Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (Giant), a leading bicycle manufacturer in Taiwan, was placed under investigation for allegedly engaging in forced labor in its production line. In September 2025, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) issued a Withhold Release Order against bicycles and related products manufactured by Giant in its Taiwan factories. CBP’s investigation concluded that Giant had engaged in forced labor under the International Labour Organization’s indicators—including abuse of vulnerability, abusive working and living conditions, debt bondage, withholding of wages, and excessive overtime.

However, the issue of forced labor in Taiwan cannot be understood without considering the country’s growing reliance on migrant workers since their introduction in the late 1980s. Due to the severe labor shortage in low-skilled, labor-intensive industries in the 1980s, the Taiwanese government opened its borders to migrant labor in 1989. Since then, many migrant workers from Southeast Asia have come to Taiwan in search of employment, and most of them are employed for manual labor jobs such as homecare work or “3D” work—dirty, dangerous or difficult labor. In recent years, industries in Taiwan including homecare, manufacturing, construction and fishing have become heavily reliant on migrant workers. According to the Ministry of Labor, the number of migrant workers in these industries has reached 870,587 people in January 2026.

Despite their critical contributions to Taiwan’s economy, migrant workers face systemic labor rights abuses. Multiple reports—including a 2024 study by Orientation and a 2025 investigation by independent journalist Peter Bengtsen—have documented widespread signs of forced labor across Taiwanese industries. Notably, 33 international companies and two European government departments have publicly flagged Taiwan as a “high risk” or “high priority” region for forced labor and modern slavery in supply chains, particularly in sectors like automobiles, electronics, and garment manufacturing. Compounding these concerns, Taiwan ranked 8th globally for the highest number of “definite indicators” of forced labor in Sedex’s 2021 report.

These abuses primarily stem from three interconnected issues: restricted freedom to change employers, debt bondage, and deplorable working conditions—all of which are deeply embedded in Taiwan’s legal framework governing migrant labor.

The 1992 Employment Service Act is largely to blame for the lack of freedom to change jobs. According to Article 53(4) and Article 59 of the Act, migrant workers in Taiwan are banned from changing employers or their job as a rule. Exceptions are allowed only under very limited conditions, such as death of the employer or closure of the factory, and require strict procedures. To make matters worse, these regulations only apply to workers under Article 46(1)(8-11)—”low-skilled” or “blue-collar” workers such as fishing and homecare workers. In contrast, they do not apply to professional or white-collar workers such as managers or teachers. This limitation often hinders these workers from changing jobs even if they find deceptions in contracts, suffer poor working conditions, and work excessive overtime.

Debt bondage is the result of regulatory gaps. Recruitment of migrant workers in Taiwan relies heavily on recruitment agencies, who charge migrant workers high fees. The fierce market competition and government-imposed quota system (to cap the number of migrant workers in each company) lead to the practice of charging fees. These agencies shift the burden of payment from employers to the workers to remain competitive in the recruitment market. Despite relevant regulations in place, fees remain high because the regulations do not apply to agencies registered outside Taiwan. With the heavy financial burden of recruitment fees, many workers are forced to take loans from these agencies, and are bound by debt before the repayment from their wages, a process that often takes more than 12 months.

Similarly, the harsh working conditions faced by migrant workers are closely tied to the legal framework. According to Article 46 and 52 of the Employment Service Act, migrant workers are only permitted to sign fixed-term contracts, with a maximum duration of three years. This creates a situation where employers can easily target workers who complain or advocate for better working conditions by refusing to renew their work contracts. This has hampered migrant workers from making any meaningful efforts to pursue their rights, such as forming unions or applying for mediation. Worse still, the situation is even more challenging for homecare workers because they are excluded from the Labor Standards Act, legislation designed to protect the basic rights of all workers in Taiwan. This shows that homecare migrant workers in Taiwan lack legal protection for minimum wage, standard working hours, and regular days off.

The newly released Guidelines on Prevention of Forced Labor by Taiwan’s Ministry of Labor represent a promising step toward improving conditions for migrant workers in Taiwan, but these efforts will fall short if current legislation remains unchanged. Despite the impact of international pressure and trade enforcement measures, such as CBP’s Withhold Release Order, homecare workers are not covered under the guidelines because import bans have no effect on the domestic homecare sector in Taiwan. Thus, a comprehensive reform of the labor rights legal framework is urgently needed.