In Taiwan, migrants flee oppressive workplaces for life on the periphery
Taichung City, Taiwan – Bernard keeps a low profile.
Heading to work on the streets of Taiwan, the 45-year-old Filipino migrant worker dodges glances and often checks his face mask to make sure his appearance is concealed.
To hide his accent, he often speaks in a near-whisper.
Often, he declines invitations to social occasions from his fellow countrymen, worried that a 'Judas' among them might report him to the authorities.
Hired at one of Taiwan's many electronics factories, Bernard came to the island legally in 2016.
But since June 2024, he has been among Taiwan's growing population of undocumented workers. He blames his broker, a private employment agent to which migrants are usually assigned, for his current predicament.
Bernard's broker tried to confiscate his passport, he said, then tried to convince him to resign and forgo severance payments from his employer.
He refused both times, he said, causing a rift between them.
'They [brokers] only speak to you when they come to collect payments or when they want to trick you,' Bernard, who asked to use a pseudonym out of fear of repercussions, told Al Jazeera.
Brokers in Taiwan take a cut of their clients' wages and have significant influence over their conditions and job prospects, making their relationships prone to abuse.
When Bernard's contract expired in 2022, he said, his broker blacklisted him among other employers.
Desperate to support his daughter's education in the Philippines, Bernard ditched his broker and decided to overstay his visa to work odd construction jobs, he said.
These days, he said, he feels 'like a bird in a cage'.
In public, Bernard would not even utter the word 'undocumented' in any language, only gesturing with his hands that he ran away.
Taiwan's undocumented workforce is rising fast.
The number of unaccounted-for migrants on the island has doubled in the last four years, reaching 90,000 this January, according to the Ministry of Labor.
Despite Taiwan's image as one of the region's rare liberal democracies, a growing number of Southeast Asian migrant workers are living under the constant threat of deportation and without access to social services.
Taiwan institutionalised its broker system in 1992 in a bid to streamline labour recruitment.
Brokers influence almost every aspect of a migrant worker's life, from where they live, to their meals, to the terms of their employment contracts, and even how they access public services.
Migrant rights advocates say it is precisely this level of control that is prompting large numbers of workers to flee their workplaces.
Over a third of all complaints made by migrants to the Ministry of Labor are broker-related, according to official data.
As of January 2025, Vietnamese made up the biggest share of the undocumented at 57,611, followed by Indonesians at 28,363, and Filipinos at 2,750.
Joy Tajonera, a Catholic priest who runs the Ugnayan Center, a migrant shelter in Taichung City, said the Taiwanese government has taken a lax approach to the issue.
'The system allows the brokers a power to be used to the disadvantage of migrants,' Tajonera told Al Jazeera.
'Meanwhile, employers play innocent.'
Brokers typically charge migrants a monthly service fee of $50 to $60, and also collect fees for job transfers, hospital insurance, leave, and most of the necessary documentation to work in Taiwan.
In some cases, they impose age limits for certain jobs.
Tajonera said many undocumented workers can actually earn more without a broker, 'but then you lose all social protections and health insurance. It's not that they want to run away. It's their situation, they can't take it any more.'
'Shameless and stupid'
Taiwan's Labor Ministry said in a statement that the increase in undocumented migrants was driven by pandemic-related disruption to deportations.
It said it has taken various steps to improve conditions for migrant works, including raising the minimum wage, conducting regular inspections of recruitment agencies, introducing a new suspension mechanism for agencies with high rates of absconding workers, and encouraging labour-sending countries to reduce agency fees.
'Through pre-employment orientation for industrial migrant workers and one-stop orientation sessions for household caregivers, the ministry aims to enhance workers' awareness of legal requirements, inform them of the risks and consequences of going missing, and ensure employers fulfill their management responsibilities,' the ministry said.
However, since last year, the Taiwanese government has also increased the maximum fines for migrants caught overstaying their visas from $330 to $1,657.
Lennon Ying-Da Wang, director of the public migrant shelter Serve the People Association, called the government's move to increase penalties 'shameless and stupid'.
'Instead of addressing the reasons for running away, this will just prevent people from surrendering,' he told Al Jazeera.
Wang said a lack of protections, particularly for those working in childcare and fisheries, is the key reason why many migrants abscond from their workplaces.
Neither industry is subject to Taiwan's monthly minimum wage of $944, according to Taiwan's Labor Standards Act.
Wang said migrants in practice often receive half that amount minus deductions by brokers.
'Migrants just want a decent salary,' Wang said. 'But there's an unspoken rule among some brokers not to hire migrant workers who ask for help from shelters. That forces them to run away.'
Despite his sympathies, Wang, as the director of a state-funded facility, is not allowed to take in migrants who have absconded from their employers as they are subject to deportation.
On a quiet, nondescript road at the edge of Taipei lies Harmony Home, an NGO catering to undocumented young mothers and children.
While the women and children who stay at Harmony Home cannot be deported for humanitarian reasons, the state is not obligated to shoulder the costs of their care or medical needs.
Harmony Home, which has taken in more than 1,600 children over the past two decades, has recently seen a sharp uptick in minors coming through its doors, founder Nicole Yang said.
'Last year, we had about 110 new kids. By April this year, we've already got 140,' Yang told Al Jazeera.
'We also care for 300 others who live at home while their mother works.'
Li-Chuan Liuhuang, a labour expert at National Chung Cheng University, said that while the broker system will be difficult to 'uproot immediately', the government could improve oversight by 'making the recruitment procedure and cost structure more transparent'.
In Lishan, a mountainous area of Taichung, hundreds of undocumented Southeast Asians pick peaches, pears and cabbages for local landowners. The presence of runaway migrants, many of whom fled fishing trawlers, is not only tolerated but relied upon for the harvest.
Liuhuang said she would like to see such migrants being allowed to work on farms with proper labour protections, but she believes this would not be easy for the public to accept.
'The government will have to commit more efforts for this kind of dialogue,' she told Al Jazeera.
Mary, who asked to use a pseudonym, said she absconded from her job as a childcare worker to work illegally at various mountain farms after becoming frustrated at earning less than half the minimum wage and having her grievances ignored by her broker.
Sitting beside a cabbage patch, Mary, 46, said she always felt anxious around the police in the city.
But in Lishan the rules are different, she said, as landowners have an unwritten agreement with the authorities about the runaways.
'There's no way the boss doesn't have connections with the police. He always knows when they come and tells us not to go out,' she told Al Jazeera.
Even so, there is no guarantee of avoiding mistreatment in the mountains.
After the harvest, employers sometimes withhold payments, threatening anyone who complains with deportation, Mary said.
'If I complain that the boss doesn't give me the salary, I will get reported. Who will help me?' she said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
3 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Public opinion is split as US marks 80th anniversary of Hiroshima bombing
On August 6, 1945, the United States became the first and only country in history to carry out a nuclear attack when it dropped an atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Hiroshima. While the death toll of the bombing remains a subject of debate, at least 70,000 people were killed, though other figures are nearly twice as high. Three days later, the US dropped another atomic bomb on the city of Nagasaki, killing at least 40,000 people. The stunning toll on Japanese civilians at first seemed to have little impact on public opinion in the US, where pollsters found approval for the bombing reached 85 percent in the days afterwards. To this day, US politicians continue to credit the bombing with saving American lives and ending World War II. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima, perceptions have become increasingly mixed. A Pew Research Center poll last month indicated that Americans are split almost evenly into three categories. Nearly a third of respondents believe the use of the bomb was justified. Another third feels it was not. And the rest are uncertain about deciding either way. 'The trendline is that there is a steady decline in the share of Americans who believe these bombings were justified at the time,' Eileen Yam, the director of science and society research at Pew Research Center, told Al Jazeera in a recent phone call. 'This is something Americans have gotten less and less supportive of as time has gone by.' Tumbling approval rates Doubts about the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the advent of nuclear weapons in general, did not take long to set in. 'From the beginning, it was understood that this was something different, a weapon that could destroy entire cities,' said Kai Bird, a US author who has written about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. His Pulitzer Prize-winning book, American Prometheus, served as the basis for director Christopher Nolan's 2023 film, Oppenheimer. Bird pointed out that, even in the immediate aftermath of the bombing, some key politicians and public figures denounced it as a war crime. Early critics included physicist Albert Einstein and former President Herbert Hoover, who was quick to speak out against the civilian bloodshed. 'The use of the atomic bomb, with its indiscriminate killing of women and children, revolts my soul,' Hoover wrote within days of the bombing. Over time, historians have increasingly cast doubt on the most common justification for the atomic attacks: that they played a decisive role in ending World War II. Some academics point out that other factors likely played a larger role in the Japanese decision to surrender, including the Soviet Union's declaration of war against the island nation on August 8. Others have speculated whether the bombings were meant mostly as a demonstration of strength as the US prepared for its confrontation with the Soviet Union in what would become the Cold War. Accounts from Japanese survivors and media reports also played a role in changing public perceptions. John Hersey's 1946 profile of six victims, for instance, took up an entire edition of The New Yorker magazine. It chronicled, in harrowing detail, everything from the crushing power of the blast to the fever, nausea and death brought on by radiation sickness. By 1990, a Pew poll found that a shrinking majority in the US approved of the atomic bomb's use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Only 53 percent felt it was merited. Rationalising US use of force But even at the close of the 20th century, the legacy of the attacks remained contentious in the US. For the 50th anniversary of the bombing in 1995, the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, DC, had planned a special exhibit. But it was cancelled amid public furore over sections of the display that explored the experiences of Japanese civilians and the debate about the use of the atomic bomb. US veterans groups argued that the exhibit undermined their sacrifices, even after it underwent extensive revision. 'The exhibit still says in essence that we were the aggressors and the Japanese were the victims,' William Detweiler, a leader at the American Legion, a veterans group, told The Associated Press at the time. Incensed members of Congress opened an investigation, and the museum's director resigned. The exhibit, meanwhile, never opened to the public. All that remained was a display of the Enola Gay, the aeroplane that dropped the first atomic bomb. Erik Baker, a lecturer on the history of science at Harvard University, says that the debate over the atomic bomb often serves as a stand-in for larger questions about the way the US wields power in the world. 'What's at stake is the role of World War II in legitimising the subsequent history of the American empire, right up to the current day,' he told Al Jazeera. Baker explained that the US narrative about its role in the defeat of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan — the main 'Axis Powers' in World War II — has been frequently referenced to assert the righteousness of US interventions around the world. 'If it was justifiable for the US to not just go to war but to do 'whatever was necessary' to defeat the Axis powers, by a similar token, there can't be any objection to the US doing what is necessary to defeat the 'bad guys' today,' he added. A resurgence of nuclear anxiety But as the generations that lived through World War II grow older and pass away, cultural shifts are emerging in how different age groups approach US intervention — and use of force — abroad. The scepticism is especially pronounced among young people, large numbers of whom have expressed dissatisfaction with policies such as US support for Israel's war in Gaza. In an April 2024 poll, the Pew Research Center found a dramatic generational divide among Americans over the question of global engagement. Approximately 74 percent of older respondents, aged 65 and up, expressed a strong belief that the US should play an active role on the world stage. But only 33 percent of younger respondents, aged 18 to 35, felt the same way. Last month's Pew poll on the atomic bomb also found stark differences in age. People over the age of 65 were more than twice as likely to believe that the bombings were justified than people between the ages of 18 and 29. Yam, the Pew researcher, said that age was the 'most pronounced factor' in the results, beating out other characteristics, such as party affiliation and veteran status. The 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombing also coincides with a period of renewed anxiety about nuclear weapons. US President Donald Trump, for instance, repeatedly warned during his re-election campaign in 2024 that the globe was on the precipice of 'World War III'. 'The threat is nuclear weapons,' Trump told a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia. 'That can happen tomorrow.' 'We're at a place where, for the first time in more than three decades, nuclear weapons are back at the forefront of international politics,' said Ankit Panda, a senior fellow in the nuclear policy programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US-based think tank. Panda says that such concerns are linked to geopolitical tensions between different states, pointing to the recent fighting between India and Pakistan in May as one example. The war in Ukraine, meanwhile, has prompted Russia and the US, the world's two biggest nuclear powers, to exchange nuclear-tinged threats. And in June, the US and Israel carried out attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities with the stated aim of setting back the country's ability to develop nuclear weapons. But as the US marks the 80th anniversary of the Hiroshima bombings, advocates hope the shift in public opinion will encourage world leaders to turn away from nuclear sabre-rattling and work towards the elimination of nuclear weapons. Seth Shelden, the United Nations liaison for the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, explained that countries with nuclear weapons argue that their arsenals discourage acts of aggression. But he said those arguments diminish the 'civilisation-ending' dangers of nuclear warfare. 'As long as the nuclear-armed states prioritise nuclear weapons for their own security, they're going to incentivise others to pursue them as well,' he said. 'The question shouldn't be whether nuclear deterrence can work or whether it ever has worked,' he added. 'It should be whether it will work in perpetuity.'
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Is Trump winning the trade war and at what cost to the economy?
Donald Trump's tariff policy is taking shape and the president is already touting benefits to the US economy. Donald Trump aims to rebalance the global trading system. The president has announced a new round of tariffs on many nations. Trump's trade experiment seems to be paying off better than most had expected, at least for now. He got his biggest trading partners to make deals that are closer to his demands than theirs. Financial markets have shrugged off higher duties, and tariff revenues are pouring in. But economists say Americans will pay more for many goods they consume when the tariffs take effect. What's the impact of tariffs on Asia's manufacturing hubs? Plus, can global hunger be ended?
Al Jazeera
12 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump's transshipment crackdown spells danger for Southeast Asian economies
Taipei, Taiwan – Southeast Asia's export-driven economies are facing new uncertainty from United States President Donald Trump's trade war, as his administration cracks down on exports directed through third countries to avoid his tariffs on China. Under an executive order issued by Trump last week, goods imported into the US face a punitive 40 percent tariff, plus penalties and any applicable country-of-origin duties, if US Customs and Border Protection determines they have been 'transshipped'. The tariff is set to go into effect on Thursday, along with Trump's latest country-specific tariffs ranging from 10 to 41 percent. While China is the main target of the new tax on transhipments, which applies to all redirected goods irrespective of country of origin, Southeast Asia could suffer much of the fallout, because of the region's highly integrated supply chains with Chinese manufacturers, trade experts say. The effect will depend on exactly how the Trump administration defines transhipments, which is still unclear, said Puan Yatim, an associate professor at Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia's Graduate School of Business. 'If Washington maintains a narrow interpretation – targeting only those goods that are imported from China, minimally processed or relabeled and then re-exported to the US – the economic impact on ASEAN may be limited,' Yatim told Al Jazeera, referring to the Southeast Asian regional bloc. 'However, a broader and more punitive interpretation – where goods with any significant Chinese input are also deemed in violation – could prove economically devastating for countries like Vietnam, Indonesia, Cambodia, and Malaysia,' she added. Chinese manufacturers have for years been steadily expanding into Southeast Asia as part of a strategy known as 'China Plus One'. The strategy has helped Chinese firms avoid US tariffs, exploit cheaper labour, and diversify their supply chains – a particular concern during China's COVID-19 lockdowns. From 2020 to 2024, Chinese foreign direct investment into the 10 ASEAN nations grew from $7.1bn to $19.3bn, according to ASEAN data. During the same period, exports from China to Southeast Asia rose from $385bn to $587bn, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The surge in Chinese exports, including goods illegally mislabeled to conceal their origin, has placed Southeast Asia in the Trump administration's crosshairs. '[Companies] need intermediate imports from China to create products which get shipped to the US, but because companies have been embroiled in illegal transshipments in the region, there's a huge bias in the Trump administration that ASEAN is the predominant channel,' Priyanka Kishore, principal economist at Asia Decoded in Singapore, told Al Jazeera. A key example of trade that invoked Washington's ire centred on the solar cell industry. Following a years-long investigation, the US Department of Commerce in April announced tariffs of up to 3,500 percent on Southeast Asian manufacturers alleged to have illicitly exported Chinese goods. Southeast Asia is now in a 'sticky situation' where it must appease the US – the region's top export market – while not alienating China, Kishore said. Beijing has threatened to 'resolutely take countermeasures' against countries that agree to trade deals with the US that go against its interests. In May, Malaysia announced that it would no longer allow nongovernmental organisations such as chambers of commerce to issue certificates of origin, as part of its efforts to ensure the integrity of its exports. Vietnam similarly agreed to a 40 percent transshipment tariff in a framework deal reached with the US in May, while Indonesia's Trade Minister Budi Santoso said last month that his country was opposed to transshipping. Despite Southeast Asian governments' efforts to mollify the US, the transshipment tariff could create major compliance issues for the private sector, said Steve Okun, founder and CEO of APAC Advisors in Singapore. A top concern will be how the US treats products made with components from multiple countries. US tariffs are typically determined by the location where a product underwent 'substantive transformation', but if the Trump administration were to apply duties based on the presence of even small amounts of Chinese components, compliance and enforcement would be extremely difficult, Okun said. 'You're going to have to be doing due diligence on supply chains that you never had to do before,' Okun told Al Jazeera. The changes would 'potentially redefine trade,' he said. A strict interpretation of transshipping could further dim Southeast Asia's appeal, at a time when the Trump administration is already chipping away at its China Plus One competitive advantage with his tariffs on the region's economies, said Richard Laub, CEO and cofounder of Dragon Sourcing, a global procurement service provider. Under Trump's latest tariffs, Singapore is subject to a 10 percent rate, while Malaysia, Thailand, Cambodia, Vietnam and Indonesia are subject to rates of 19 or 20 percent – less than the 30 percent rate proposed for China under the White House's latest tariff framework. Trump's transshipment tariff potentially eats into that advantage. 'A lot of the Chinese supply strategy has been to establish some kind of facility abroad with limited content, limited value, adding those facilities to basically circumvent those transshipments. I suspect that that will come to a standstill,' Laub told Al Jazeera. A Washington, DC-based consultant who advises businesses on trade and supply chain issues in China, said he had observed a similar phenomenon, but to the detriment of US exporters. 'We are seeing [multinational corporations] from around the globe, particularly those that served the China market from the United States, doing more to localise supply chains for China in China,' the consultant told Al Jazeera, asking not to be named. Companies in sectors that rely on materials like foreign-sourced steel – which is subject to separate tariffs – have found manufacturing becoming too expensive in the US and started moving manufacturing out of the country, the consultant said. 'This is a terrible outcome and the opposite of what the administration intends,' he said. Nick Marro, principal economist for Asia at the Economist Intelligence Unit, said despite the uncertainty, the direction of the policy in Washington is ambiguously bad for Southeast Asia. 'Clearly, the US is concerned about transshipments,' Marro told Al Jazeera. 'Clearly, it is moving to crack down on them, and so for those investors, those companies, those governments that have staked their premise on things like China Plus One, we are now seeing a reassessment, and that is something which investors have to be integrating into their strategies.'
