Lawmaker Xu blames Lai for oil scandal delisting; office says leak saved Jiang

KMT legislator Hsu Chiao‑hsin recently launched another offensive on the Zhonglian Oil & Fat case, publicly claiming that the 20 percent removal standard involved in the case was decided by President Lai Ching‑te, sparking high political attention. Facing repeated attacks from blue‑camp lawmakers on the central government, Presidential Office spokesperson Kuo Ya‑hui immediately struck back, criticizing Hsu’s remarks as another erroneous leak. The Presidential Office said the essence of the incident is that Hsu is trying to shift focus to rescue Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan‑an, who is embroiled in a privilege controversy, and urged Chiang to confront citizens and parents directly rather than rely on party comrades or supporters to scatter unverified allegations.

The political showdown was triggered by a recent privilege controversy in Taipei concerning food‑safety or livelihood issues. When local leaders face public pressure, legislators often act as watchdogs of the central government or open a second front. Hsu chose the Zhonglian Oil & Fat case as a foothold, attempting to push decision‑making responsibility upward to then‑decision‑maker Lai Ching‑te, thereby blurring the scrutiny aimed at Taipei City Hall. The Presidential Office, however, did not go along, opting for a direct confrontation, outright denying the accusations and refocusing attention on Chiang, highlighting the differing offensive‑defensive strategies of the central and local authorities in a political crisis.

In her response, Kuo Ya‑hui employed the strong political rhetoric “nanny‑style rescue of Zhao by surrounding Wei” to describe the over‑protective shielding of local executives by legislators such as Hsu. In Taiwan’s party politics, when a mayor of a special municipality faces a governance crisis or privilege allegations, party‑affiliated legislators often hold press conferences or launch legislative inquiries, raising national or central issues to divert media attention. By publicly naming Hsu, the Presidential Office aimed to expose this tactic of shifting focus, stressing that a local chief’s administrative responsibility cannot be washed away by political rhetoric and must be examined through the city‑government’s own decision‑making and implementation processes.

From a political‑strategic and media‑communication perspective, Hsu’s selection of the Zhonglian Oil & Fat case as an attack point was intended to highlight perceived irrationality or political meddling in the decision‑making process, attempting to elevate a purely local administrative dispute into a central‑local political confrontation. The Presidential Office’s swift response and framing successfully contained the battle at the level of local governance. The office emphasized that Chiang must face citizens and parents’ questions himself, a statement that strikes at the core democratic legitimacy of an elected local leader. For Taipei residents, the mayor’s honesty and transparency in handling the controversy matter far more than a legislator’s verbal sparring in the Legislative Yuan, which is why the Presidential Office has taken the initiative in this round of public debate.

The political turbulence, sparked by a legislator’s questioning and met with a direct response from the Presidential Office, reflects the highly polarized and rapid‑response nature of Taiwan’s political arena. On one hand, opposition legislators continue to exercise oversight, seeking to erode the ruling party’s authority through various issues; on the other, the executive branch and the president’s office demonstrate an uncompromising resolve to clarify and counter immediately. As the incident continues to develop, whether Taipei City Hall can provide a convincing explanation to allay parents’ and citizens’ concerns will determine if the storm can subside, while the central‑local power struggle is likely to play out in upcoming legislative sessions.

(Source: Central News Agency)