relevant labor rights and benefits. Moreover, the investigation of the MOL found that the contract personnel are required to comply with the same operational rules as the full-time employees in the foundation. It is obvious that the Indigenous Peoples Cultural Foundation is attempting to avoid compliance with labor regulations through “assuming the name of temporary contract personnel but requiring performance as full-time employees.” The President of the foundation has failed to manage employment properly and not fulfilled supervisory responsibilities, while the foundation continues to violate labor regulations and shortchange its employees. 176. The government should pay attention to such matters and examine the current employment practices, such as that adopted by the Indigenous Peoples Cultural Foundation and the prison system’s use of professional psychiatrists and social workers. Such use of a large number of labor contracts using “natural persons” as if they were commodities in outsourcing should be considered a “deceptive contract method, and unfair employment in practice,” a practice which attempts to dodge the application of relevant regulations, including the Labor Standards Act of the R.O.C. and the Government Procurement Act, and leads to insufficient protection of the labor rights and interests of the employees. Moreover, the use of contract employees generally undermines continuity, and if so neither the governance experience nor the professional service capabilities of the institutions can accumulate. After the investigation of the Control Yuan, the Indigenous Peoples Cultural Foundation has corrected its recruitment policy; it has stopped recruiting contract employees and transformed the original contract personnel into full-time employees. Juveniles 177. Youth Employment (1) In recent years, the Ministry of Labor (MOL) has conducted a special project investigating the labor condition of student workers, i.e. youth in work-study employment or internships. In 2014, 100 employers were inspected, and a total of 42 employers (42%) were penalized for violation of the Labor Standards Act. In 2015, 150 employers were inspected and the number of violating employers was 61 (41%). In 2016, 150 employers were inspected, and there were 39 violating employers (26%). In 2017, 150 employers were inspected, and only 9 employers (6%) were found to be in violation. Accordingly, this indicates that the number of violations has decreased, and the implementation of inspection has achieved a salutory outcome. As for violations in past years, these cases are mostly related to the violation of the provisions of Article 24 (failing to provide an overtime wages for extended working hours), Article 36 (failing to provide one day of a rest as a regular holiday for every seven working days) and Article 39 (failing to pay holiday 77