owners to adopt Wi-Fi services on board gradually. Ho recommended that the Fisheries Agency explore the possibility of improving sea transfer services. “The captain could coordinate with shore authorities if a crew member needs to return home immediately, enabling the crew member to be transferred back to land within a week to catch a flight home. This would be an effective resolution. Furthermore, given the significant costs, we advocate for a cost-sharing model to mitigate these expenses. Often, a strong emphasis on human rights tends to overlook the human elements of these situations, resulting in misconceptions about the industry.” 12 Domestic guidelines are in place for when a fisher wishes to end their contract early and return home, though they lack binding authority. The Fisheries Agencies’ “Standard Employment Contract for Foreign Crew Members” stipulates that if a crew member has been continuously employed on the vessel for over a year, the vessel owner is responsible for the total cost of their return flight.13 For those who have served between three months and one year, the airfare is apportioned based on the duration of service. Conversely, crew members who have worked for less than three months must bear the total cost of their flight. Ho expressed concerns regarding the situation, “As a crew member, I would be aware that after completing a year of service, I could return home at any time, as the vessel company would cover the airfare. However, it is important to avoid placing the entire financial responsibility on the crew members, as this could represent a considerable expense for them, considering their income levels. Ibid. For example, if a fisher enters into a 20-month contract with a company and seeks to terminate it after five months, the cost of the return airfare would be divided, with the vessel owner responsible for 5/20 of the total fare and the fisher covering the remaining costs. 12 13 18