Editor's note: Min Rui is a current affairs commentator. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Taiwan leader Lai Ching-te's much-hyped "10 lectures on unity” campaign, which kicked off on June 22, makes bold – and bizarre – claims: "Taiwan has always been independent," it is the cradle of Austronesian culture, and – brace yourself – the presence of woolly mammoths and golden monkeys in Taiwan proves it had a separate ecological identity from the Chinese mainland's.

Lai may be a savvy politician – after all, he leads the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) – but he's certainly no historian. Somewhere between paleontology and political science, the campaign seems to have become a fantasy film.

Mammoths, monkeys, and a lack of logic

His prehistoric narrative is worthy of a fantasy series. He referenced the mammoth fossils, golden monkeys, and ancient human skulls unearthed in Tainan, asserting these remains prove Taiwan region had a unique ecological system 400,000 years ago – completely separate from the Chinese mainland's.

There's a small problem though: Homo sapiens didn't exist 400,000 years ago. Nor did Taiwan's constitutional structure, or the DPP.

Professor Yang Yongming of Taiwan's Chinese Culture University summed it up plainly on local television in Taiwan region: "Unbelievable."

He pointed out that during the glacial periods, sea levels were so low that there was no Taiwan Straits at all – the mainland and the island were physically connected. Rather than proving separation, the ecological evidence supports the historical continuity of Taiwan as part of the broader Chinese landmass.

From fossils, Lai turned to ethnicity. He claimed that Taiwan's indigenous peoples – part of the community speaking Austronesian languages – have no connection to the Chinese mainland, which means Taiwan's cultural and ethnic origins are unrelated to the mainland's.

However, while the Austronesian language family is indeed widely recognized, its origins are not limited to Taiwan. Archaeological evidence confirms strong cultural links between Taiwan and the mainland's southeastern coast, including sites in Fujian and Guangdong provinces.

The Keqiutou site in Fujian, for example, has well-documented links to Taiwan's Dapenkeng culture, an early Neolithic culture that appeared between 4000 and 3000 BC. In fact, researchers on both sides of the Taiwan Straits have established a joint International Austronesian Archaeological Research Base in Fujian, grounded in these findings.

In short, Lai's effort to conflate ethnic distinction with political sovereignty is a classic sleight of hand. Indigenous identity deserves recognition and respect, not exploitation to justify "Taiwan independence," especially when some 97 percent of Taiwan's population is ethnically Han Chinese.

Who governed Taiwan, really?

Lai also skipped over nearly two millennia of shared history between Taiwan and the mainland. In his version of events, Chinese governance of Taiwan began with the Qing Dynasty (1644-1911). This conveniently overlooks the fact that Emperor Sun Quan of the Three Kingdoms period (220-280 AD) sent expeditions to Taiwan (then known as Yizhou) as early as the third century. Later, the Yuan Dynasty (1271-1368) established administrative structures in Penghu, a cluster of islands in the Taiwan Straits.

Even more telling is Lai's omission of Zheng Chenggong (Koxinga), the Ming Dynasty general who expelled Dutch colonizers and established rule in Taiwan in 1662. Zheng was committed to restoring imperial rule and his administration in Taiwan reflected traditional Chinese regional governance. At no point did he declare Taiwan a sovereign state.

The sustained historical connection between the island and the mainland facilitated migration, particularly of Han Chinese, whose descendants today make up the majority of Taiwan's population.

Yet Lai jumps straight from Dutch colonization to the so-called "San Francisco Peace Treaty" signed in 1951 by a group of U.S.-led Western countries and Japan after World War II, excluding China and the Soviet Union. This omits centuries of documented exchange and governance. This is not nuanced history, it's selective amnesia.

When logic goes on vacation

Lai's rhetorical juggling of "Republic of China," "Republic of China Taiwan," and "Taiwan" as interchangeable names for a single "nation" only muddles the picture. If Taiwan is a country, what defines it? When was its founding moment? What constitution, flag, or anthem sets it apart?

Lai may choose to look away from UN Resolution 2758 and pretend it doesn't exist, but the facts won't budge. The resolution recognizes the People's Republic of China as "the only legitimate representative of China to the United Nations." It is also a permanent member of the Security Council. Taiwan, meanwhile, doesn't have a seat at these tables.

For all the talk of "breaking away," there's one thing Lai's leadership can't escape: Taiwan's constitutional roots lie squarely in the Chinese mainland. The "five-power" system within which Lai's own office operates is a mainland legacy. It was conceived and ratified in Nanjing in Jiangsu Province on the mainland.

The more Lai invokes mammoth bones and makes semantic contortions to prove separation, the more he inadvertently underscores the deep historical and structural ties between Taiwan and the mainland.

And let's not forget, for all his efforts to sever Taiwan's ties with the mainland, Lai speaks Chinese, reads Chinese, was educated in Chinese, and owes his political platform to a constitutional system born on the Chinese mainland.

He can dress up his vision in the language of "island identity" all he wants. But at the end of the day, Lai Ching-te is no Austronesian prince. He is what he is: a Chinese man selling a myth to an audience that deserves better.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)