Taiwan’s pilot organization and the path to reform

• Addresses a critically important but under-researched area in pilotage governance. • Identifies structural gaps in Taiwan’s pilotage legal and institutional framework. • Compares pilot organizations across five distinct legal and administrative systems. • Analyzes the legal status and institutional functions of pilot offices. • Proposes statutory reforms to establish a legally defined, accountable pilot organization. Taiwan’s pilotage system plays a critical role in ensuring maritime safety, yet its regulatory framework contains significant institutional deficiencies. Although the Pilotage Law and the Regulations for Administering Pilots assign operational responsibilities to pilot offices, they lack clear provisions regarding the legal status, authority, and accountability of these entities. This ambiguity has resulted in weak oversight, reduced professional accountability, and barriers to effective regulatory reform. The undefined nature of pilot offices raises practical and legal concerns, particularly in areas such as performance supervision, internal governance, and legal liability. This article examines the structural and legal shortcomings of Taiwan’s pilotage governance by analyzing relevant legislation and administrative practices. It also draws comparative insights from five foreign pilotage systems (the United States, Japan, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and China) and three domestic professional associations (attorneys, CPAs, and physicians) to highlight viable institutional models. This research demonstrates the need for a statutory framework that clearly defines the legal identity and responsibilities of pilot offices. The article concludes by offering recommendations for reform that would strengthen institutional legitimacy, improve transparency, and align Taiwan’s pilotage system with contemporary standards in maritime governance.