Unrecovered Debts, Unreported Toxic Oil? KMT Questions Taisugar Chairman's 'Political Favoritism': Lai Qingde Should Publicly Explain

In May, Taisugar discovered toxic oil from Zhonglian through internal testing but failed to report it to regulatory authorities. Subsequently, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and the Ministry of Health and Welfare defended Taisugar, claiming it had 'no obligation to report.' Meanwhile, Taisugar withdrew a court petition to detain former chairman Wu Nai-jen, who owes over NT$170 million, opting instead for a negotiated repayment plan. On November 11, the Kuomintang (KMT) criticized current Taisugar chairman Wu Ming-chang—formerly executive director of Pingtung's 'Friends of Trust' association—as a clear example of President Lai Qingde's political patronage. The KMT raised suspicions that the failure to report the toxic oil and the lenient debt recovery were acts of political favoritism to repay favors to Wu Nai-jen, urging both Lai and Wu to provide public explanations.

KMT spokesperson Chen Yi-hsin pointed out that Taisugar obtained the right to inspect raw materials under Article 7, Paragraph 2 of the Food Safety Act by purchasing Zhonglian oil. Having detected超标 levels of benzo(a)pyrene, Taisugar clearly had an obligation under Paragraph 5 of the same article to report to the competent authority. He cited the case of Nan Chiao, which was fined NT$3 million for failing to report contaminated raw oil, and criticized the government for applying double standards to Taisugar. Chen emphasized that as a food safety expert, Chairman Wu Ming-chang should have upheld higher safety standards, yet Taisugar completely failed in its food safety responsibilities—making him the primary person accountable.

Chen questioned the handling of Wu Nai-jen’s debt, which stems from a land sale scandal during his tenure. In June, a court approved Taisugar’s petition for detention, but the company later withdrew it unreasonably, switching to a negotiated repayment plan. Reports suggest a repayment of only NT$50,000 per month over 300 years—widely seen as an absurdly lenient arrangement allowing Wu to indefinitely delay repayment. Chen stressed that NT$170 million is public property and should not be compromised through unreasonable terms. He called for accountability for Wu Ming-chang’s inadequate debt recovery and urged the Ministry of Economic Affairs to order Taisugar to reverse its decision.

Chen further noted that Wu Ming-chang’s role as head of Pingtung’s 'Friends of Trust'—a pro-Lai support group—confirms his appointment as political patronage. He recalled that when Wu Nai-jen was convicted in the land case, then-Tainan Mayor Lai Qingde publicly supported him and vouched for his integrity. Now, with a 'political ally of Lai' leading Taisugar and 'Lai’s supported Wu Nai-jen' owing massive debts, the leniency shown raises serious public doubts. Chen questioned whether Wu Ming-chang is safeguarding food safety or repaying political favors for Lai Qingde, demanding both leaders stop evading responsibility and provide full transparency.