PRESS RELEASE: Release of the TIP Report 2007

Taiwan has been designated a “Tier 2” country in an international report assessing government efforts to combat human trafficking around the world. The US State Department’s Trafficking in Persons Report 2007, released on 12 June 2007, is intended to raise global awareness, to highlight examples of good practice and to encourage foreign governments to take effective action to counter all forms of trafficking in persons.

VMWBO’s Reaction to the TIP Report

VMWBO has two main reactions to the removal of Taiwan from the Tier 2 Special Watch List:

1. The Report places too much emphasis on the increased detection and attempted prosecution of traffickers as well as on action plans and draft legislation. It fails to give due weight to the necessity for concrete action and the fact Taiwan is deficient in its treatment of victims of trafficking. Indeed the Report contains a catalogue of complaints in this regard; and

2. Some actions quoted as examples of good practice in the report are superficial at best, and that there is a very different story to be told.

Why Taiwan Should Have Remained on the “Watch List”

The Report states that Taiwan ‘does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking; however, they are making significant efforts to do so’. Such efforts purportedly include the adoption of the National Action Plan, the consideration of new legislation, increased anti-trafficking law-enforcement efforts, the release of certain victims from detention for shelter by NGOs and the increased scrutiny of brokered marriages of foreign spouses.

While Taiwan does deserve some praise for their recent efforts, not all is as it ought to be:

1. The TIP Report itself states that ‘conferences, plans, and task forces alone are not weighed heavily in assessing country efforts’ and that the ‘Report does not give great weight to laws in draft form or laws that have not yet been enacted’. We agree that concrete progress is what is needed. Unfortunately, the daily reality remains that the Action Plan is unevenly implemented and largely unknown to many law enforcement officials in Taiwan, NGOs face a constant struggle to enforce its provisions for the benefit of the victims, and the draft laws remain exactly that, in draft form. Moreover, the fact that the Action Plan has no separate funding makes it little more than a list of promises. Without concrete progress, we feel Taiwan’s modest steps forward deserve little praise.

2. If there has been such success in the increased detection and attempted prosecution of traffickers, NGOs could expect to have seen an equally significant increase in the number of victims requiring care and shelter over the same period. This has not materialized. There can be only two conclusions: (i) either that the stated crack-downs are not all related to trafficking; or (ii) that the victims are either immediately repatriated or are in detention and not being sheltered and cared for as required by the Action Plan. Neither conclusion is acceptable.

3. Taiwan has placed far too much emphasis on the detection and prosecution of traffickers and far too little emphasis on implementing a victim-centered approach, widely acknowledged as the most successful and compassionate method to combat human trafficking. This is perhaps a natural corollary of the fact that it is the law enforcement agencies that have been charged with the responsibility of caring for victims, hardly their area of expertise. The TIP report contains an enormous list of complaints in this regard, many of which we have been highlighting for years. For example: a) victims continue to be treated as criminals for immigration violations and crimes committed as a result of being trafficked instead of being quickly and accurately identified as victims, b) there is a lack of formal protection and rights for victims including access to legal representation, immigration relief and the right to work, and c) the Council of Labor Affairs should stop mediating instances of labor trafficking where laws are being broken and should instead report them for investigation to the police.

An Example of Recent Bad Practice: The Case of the Indonesian Victims of Trafficking

The Taiwan government was praised in the Report for referring 35 trafficked Indonesian victims to NGO shelters. The raids in which in which they were rescued occurred from January to February 2007. At the end of March, VMWBO read about the “rescue” effort in a newspaper article and spent the next six weeks in constant wrangling with the authorities before the first group of victims was released to a partner NGO for shelter. These victims had therefore spent up to four months languishing in a detention center without access to legal advice or medical and mental health services. This is a clear example of the Government’s failure to implement provisions within its own Action Plan.

Moreover, despite having been identified as victims of trafficking, one woman was convicted of fraudulent marriage and false documentation, another four had the same charges pending against them, and eleven were fined NT$10,000 (US$300) each for overstaying their visa. All this occurred as a result of a lack of communication between prosecutors from different jurisdictions, and is an example of the Government’s failure to coordinate and implement its Action Plan among various agencies. Though the charges were eventually dropped, the psychological trauma inflicted upon these victims was inhumane.

Finally, since the Action Plan did not provide any funding for trafficked victims, the NGO was originally asked to shelter all 20 victims for free. It took three weeks before the Government relented and agreed to give the NGO NT$80 ($US2.40) per day for each victim. That amount is barely enough to feed a person one meal a day, even in Taiwan.

In conclusion, though it is true to state that Indonesian victims were released for shelter, this barely touched the surface of the exhausting effort NGOs have to go through to secure their release and the further victimization of these 20 women by government agencies charged with their care. This case is a clear example that the Action Plan, though widely praised, has so far had little effect on the reality of how victims of trafficking are treated by the authorities in Taiwan.

How VMWBO believes Taiwan Could Do Better

Three prime examples of how Taiwan could do better in implementing a victim-centered approach include:

1. Victim Identification

• The Problem: Victims who have committed immigration violations or crimes as a result of being trafficked often find themselves languishing in detention centers or police holding cells and subject to prosecution without access to legal representation, medical care and the other services that should be available to victims of crime. Also, investigations into whether someone is a victim of trafficking have been known to take months, not days, and police and prosecutors frequently demand an arbitrary and impossibly high standard of evidence to certify someone as a victim.

• The Solution: Ensure accurate and quick victim identification, using a low standard of proof so victims can be sure to receive the care, shelter and other services they need as soon as possible.

2. Increased Rights

• The Problem: The services currently available to victims of trafficking are insufficient in scope and complex and haphazard in their provision by the authorities.

• The Solution: Any number of agencies can be involved in the investigation of trafficking offences, but one agency with the relevant expertise of serving traumatized victims of crime should be made responsible and given the funding to ensure victims receive the care and attention they need. Once certified as such, victims should be given a ‘package of rights’ which they can demand including rights to shelter, medical care, financial assistance, immigration relief and the right to work as a reward for helping the authorities make their case against traffickers.

3. Amendments to Statute

• The Problem: Features of some Taiwanese laws increase the opportunity for exploitation and trafficking.

• The Solution: Amend these laws where there is no reasonable justification for retaining the current versions. Some examples include:

o Labor Standards Law: the fact domestic workers and caregivers are not covered by the Labor Standards Law means that the law provides no minimum standards for the rights of these workers and effectively permits their exploitation by their employers. These workers should be afforded the basic protections of the Labor Standards Law.

o Employment Services Act: the fact the Employment Services Act ties a migrant worker’s work visa to a specific employer that can only be changed in limited circumstances and after substantial investigations have been made, discourages and makes it difficult for workers to escape exploitative work conditions. Further, that the Council of Labor Affairs will normally mediate employment disputes, even ones involving criminal activity on the part of an employer, again makes it a very hard and daunting task for workers to change their employer to one less abusive. The freedom to choose employers within specific categories of work would enhance the ability of the employment market to regulate itself, increase economic dynamism and allow resources of the Council of Labor Affairs to be better employed elsewhere. The abolition of the broker system could then ensue which would be of great benefit since experience shows that brokers have frequently used their position of power to coerce migrant workers into accepting and enduring abusive practices. It would have the added benefit of reducing employment costs for both employers and workers.

About Us: The Vietnamese Migrant Workers & Brides Office under the Hsinchu Catholic Diocese was formed in 2004 to provide shelter, legal assistance, counselling, mediation, and to advocate on behalf of Vietnamese victims of trafficking and slavery in Taiwan.

For more information about VMWBO or its views on human trafficking, please contact:

Fr. Nguyen Van Hung Peter Executive Director Tel: +886 (3) 217-0468 Email: nguyenvanhung2025@gmail.com

Ms. Le My-Nga Director of Policy & Planning Email: lemynga@gmail.com

back to top