Editor's note: Chen Guiqing, a special commentator on current affairs for CGTN, is a research fellow at the Institute of Taiwan Studies, and deputy director of the Department of Foreign Affairs Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

Since June 22, Lai Ching-te, leader of China's Taiwan region, has delivered a series of speeches. In these speeches, he has made outrageous remarks on topics ranging from Taiwan's history and cross-Straits relations to internal politics.

Cloaked in the language of unity, his real intent is to distort history, twist facts and confuse right with wrong. He has aggressively peddled separatist fallacies of "Taiwan independence," dressing up this pipe dream with elaborate rhetoric. These speeches fully expose the entrenched and obstinate nature of Lai's "Taiwan independence" stance, reveal a shallow and erroneous historical perspective rooted in separatist ideology and lay bare his sinister intent to provoke confrontation and seek independence.

Lai's recent lectures were riddled with errors. His remarks are marred not only by historical inaccuracies, but also by confused legal reasoning and a surprising number of basic factual errors. Media in Taiwan region have been blunt in their commentary: Each time Lai delivers a new speech, it only serves to reveal his true colors.

In the first speech, he bizarrely invoked the image of a mammoth to justify separatist ideas. In the second, he used the phrase "removing impurities" to launch veiled attacks on opposition parties. In the third, he claimed that "Taiwan had no representatives at the 1946 constitutional convention held in Nanjing." His consistent efforts to peddle "Taiwan independence" in each installment has either triggered controversy or contained factual errors.

Far from demonstrating leadership, these speeches have repeatedly showcased Lai's ignorance and lack of depth. The frequent missteps not only reflect the superficial knowledge of Lai's speechwriting team but also reveal Lai's own limited grasp of history, legal principles and political common sense. So glaring are the blunders that even figures within the pro-independence camp have grown uneasy, with some openly urging Lai to stop speaking before doing further damage.

Lai's first lecture began with a glaring error in historical common sense. In discussing Taiwan's prehistoric era, he made a series of absurd claims, such as "Taiwan has had an independent ecosystem since ancient times," "Taiwan is the origin of Austronesian culture," "Taiwan's indigenous peoples belong to the Austronesian language family and are the ancestors of many nations," and "before the era of written history, Taiwan already had its own culture, wildlife and people, which were completely unrelated to China."

Through these statements, Lai sought to deny the well-established historical fact that Taiwan's earliest inhabitants migrated directly or indirectly from the Chinese mainland. He implied a fundamental disconnect between Taiwan and the mainland in terms of ethnic, cultural and historical origins, in an attempt to construct a false narrative of "Taiwan's inherent independence since ancient times." This is a deliberate attempt to fabricate a historical, genealogical, anthropological and cultural basis for the separatist ideology of "Taiwan independence."

However, extensive archaeological discoveries and historical records point to a very different reality: The earliest developments and human activity in Taiwan were closely tied to the mainland. Leading international research in archaeology, anthropology and linguistics has shown that the Austronesian language family traces its roots to the southeastern coast of the Chinese mainland. Taiwan's indigenous groups emerged through multiple waves of migration from the mainland, followed by long-term interaction and integration.

Lai even went so far as to cite the presence of mammoth and palaeoloxodon (a now-extinct ancient straight-tusked elephant species) in Taiwan to argue for an "independent ecosystem" as proof of Taiwan's separateness. Yet this shows a striking lack of understanding of natural history and paleogeography.

In fact, the mammoth was native to the mammalian fauna of northeast China, while the palaeoloxodon, an ancient stegodon species, was primarily found in the Huai River basin of the Chinese mainland. Both species likely migrated to what is now the Taiwan region during the last Ice Age in search of more habitable conditions. To use Ice Age megafauna as a basis for his separatist rhetoric only reveals his lack of historical and geographical knowledge.

Second, Lai's misstep lies in his misrepresentation of basic legal principles. In his third speech, he made serious errors regarding so-called constitutional legality. To construct a "Taiwan-centric constitutional identity," he went so far as to fabricate the claim that "Taiwan did not send any representatives to participate in the drafting of the 1946 Constitution of the Republic of China." This blatant distortion of history sparked strong backlash across Taiwan society.

History cannot be erased, and facts cannot be distorted. Official records clearly show that in 1946, during the constitution drafting process, Taiwan did in fact send 18 delegates to participate, including Guo Yaoting, Yan Qinxian, Huang Guoshu, Lin Lianzong, Li Wanju, Lin Bihui, Zhang Qilang, Zheng Pincong, Gao Gong, Lian Zhendong, Xie E, Nan Zhixin, Hong Huolian, Liu Mingchao, Wu Guoxin, Jian Wenfa, Chen Qiqing and Ji Qiushui. These representatives came from a wide range of social sectors, including local government, industry and agriculture, commerce, the overseas Chinese community, women's groups and the Gaoshan (indigenous) people.

While they were not directly elected by the people of Taiwan, they were chosen through an indirect process: Candidates were nominated by city and county councils and various representative organizations, selected by vote of the Taiwan Provincial Council, and later approved by the Taiwan Provincial Administrative Executive Office. These procedures conferred upon them legal status as the province's official delegates.

Lai's motivation for denying this well-documented historical fact is transparent: to negate the foundational constitutional framework that affirms Taiwan's position as part of China and thereby challenge the one-China principle embedded in it. However, such a claim simply cannot withstand factual scrutiny. Tellingly, Lai retracted the statement almost immediately after making it, and it was removed entirely from the officially released version of his speech.

More fundamentally, Lai's misstep lies in his deeply flawed political assertions. In his first lecture, Lai once again indulged in the familiar separatist narratives, falsely claiming that "Taiwan is a sovereign and independent country." He revived long-debunked assertions such as "The People's Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan for even a single day" and "The Republic of China and the People's Republic of China are not subordinate to each other."

The Taiwan leader went further to misrepresent UN General Assembly Resolution 2758, claiming it "only addresses the issue of China's representation in the United Nations and makes no mention of Taiwan," and insisted that "Taiwan's future should be determined by its 23 million people." These statements amount to an unrestrained attempt to tout flawed narratives in support of "Taiwan independence."

In fact, Taiwan has always been an inalienable part of China. It has never been a country, and there is no possibility that it could ever become one. The Taiwan question is a legacy of China's civil war, and to this day, the two sides of the Taiwan Straits remain in a state of unresolved military confrontation.

While cross-Straits reunification has not yet been achieved, China's sovereignty has never been divided. The People's Republic of China, as the sole legal government representing the whole of China, fully enjoys and exercises sovereignty over Taiwan.

On October 25, 1971, the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 2758, which embodies the one-China principle. This resolution settled once and for all the political, legal and procedural issues of China's representation in the UN in a clear and fair manner. It also spelled out that China has one single seat in the UN, so there is no such thing as "two Chinas" or "one China, one Taiwan." It was clearly stated in the official legal opinions of the Office of Legal Affairs of the UN Secretariat that "the United Nations considers Taiwan as a province of China with no separate status," and the "authorities in Taipei are not considered to enjoy any form of government status."

The administration exercised by the Taiwan authorities over the island under the name of the "Republic of China" is a temporary arrangement that arose because national reunification has not yet been completed. It is not a permanent or normalized status, and it will be properly resolved in the course of national reunification.

The people of Taiwan are part of the Chinese nation; as such, they do not possess any separate right to self-determination, nor do they have any lawful authority to secede from the motherland. Taiwan's future can only be decided by the collective will of the more than 1.4 billion Chinese people, including compatriots in Taiwan.

Characterized by disregard for historical facts and challenges to established principles of international law, and driven by political manipulation, Lai Ching-te's fallacious remarks cannot sever the historical ties between the two sides of the Taiwan Straits. They cannot change the legal reality that Taiwan is an inalienable part of China, nor can they shake the international consensus on the one-China principle. And above all, they cannot hold back the inevitable and unstoppable historical trend toward China's ultimate reunification.

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