Taiwan’s 8-hour intern work limit ignored as Control Yuan finds passport retention

For HR professionals, the revelations from Taiwan’s Control Yuan are a stark warning: failing to audit internship partners and enforce worker protections can expose employers to severe legal and reputational risk. The case underscores why HR must move beyond paper policies to real-time monitoring, especially when relying on intermediaries to bring in foreign talent.

Taiwan's government watchdog, the Control Yuan, on June 12, 2026, urged the Executive Yuan and relevant agencies to tighten oversight of a foreign internship program in the accommodation sector, revealing that serious irregularities persisted despite revised guidelines issued only months earlier. The call followed an on-site inspection on February 25 at a high-volume Taipei tourist hotel, where Control Yuan members interviewed two foreign interns who confirmed they had paid agency fees in their home countries to secure their placements and that their passports were being held by agents. These findings point to systemic failures in protecting vulnerable foreign students from exploitative practices reminiscent of human trafficking indicators, such as document confiscation and debt bondage.

“

The backdrop to this latest alarm is the Tourism Administration's (TA) January 2026 guideline overhaul, which aimed to professionalize and safeguard the foreign internship experience.

The backdrop to this latest alarm is the Tourism Administration's (TA) January 2026 guideline overhaul, which aimed to professionalize and safeguard the foreign internship experience. Those rules mandated minimum pay, an eight-hour daily work limit, and a ban on passport retention—all while requiring that internship hosts, not agencies, be responsible for insurance coverage. The TA also insisted that contracts with intermediaries must explicitly state that foreign interns cannot be charged any fees. Despite these seemingly robust protections, the Control Yuan's field inspection uncovered a gaping chasm between regulation and reality. Interns still faced passport confiscation, had paid fees, and in some cases lacked even basic labor insurance. National Health Insurance, according to the watchdog, only becomes available after six months of residence, leaving a coverage void for newly arrived interns.

The implications for Taiwan's hospitality industry are profound. The accommodation sector, including hotels and resorts, relies heavily on international interns to fill labor gaps, particularly in roles requiring language skills and cultural familiarity. The uncovered abuses not only undermine the program's legitimacy but also risk diplomatic friction with sending countries, damage Taiwan's reputation as a study-abroad destination, and invite stricter government interventions. For employers, the findings signal that voluntary compliance is insufficient; host organizations may now face surprise inspections, fines, or even suspension from participating in the program. The unclear responsibilities cited by the Control Yuan suggest that multiple agencies—the Ministry of Labor, the TA, and local governments—have overlapping mandates, making enforcement a bureaucratic quagmire.

From a regulatory perspective, the situation highlights a classic governance challenge: guidelines without teeth. The January rules lacked explicit penalties for non-compliance, and the Control Yuan's remit is limited to oversight and recommendation rather than direct enforcement. Its call on the Executive Yuan—Taiwan's highest administrative body—indicates an expectation that the inter-agency response will need to escalate. Possible next steps include mandatory surprise audits, a central register of all incoming interns with real-time monitoring, and criminal liability for passport confiscation. The tourism industry, already grappling with post-pandemic recovery, cannot afford the stigma of being seen as exploiting foreign talent.