Introduction

When we board a modern-day HMS Beagle to survey Taiwan’s modern history from a bird’s-eye view, a clear historical law emerges: whenever Taiwan is locked into the gravitational pull of the East Asian mainland, what inevitably follows is the suffocation of being used as a functional instrument (such as “Resisting the Qing to Restore the Ming” or “Counterattacking the Mainland”). Conversely, whenever Taiwan returns to the ocean and turns toward the world, it connects directly to the free source code and vibrant opportunities of modern civilization.

If we remove the ideological filter and view this three-dimensional island—surrounded on four sides by the Pacific Kuroshio Current and towering with hundreds of high mountains—as an independent mainframe, today’s democratic Taiwan is running an “Oceanic OS”: an open-source, multi-dimensional operating system that is interconnected with the global free network and deeply respects diversity.

However, deep within the minds of those on the East Asian mainland and certain inhabitants on this island, an ancient “Celestial Empire OS” continues to run stubbornly—a legacy system that has never been debugged by the logic of modern democracy and civil society.

1. The Continental Plain Agricultural Code: Collectivism Built for Water Control and the Emperor

Born from the East Asian mainland’s vast plains and great rivers, this primitive Han cultural source code operates on a foundational logic: a state is not composed of “citizens” bound by a “social contract,” but rather constitutes a sacred and indivisible “All Under Heaven” (Tianxia) / Imperial Realm. This realm is monopolized by the “Son of Heaven” (Tianzi), who holds absolute ownership and dominion over all resources and “subjects” (Baixing).

The operating mechanism of this code relies on the co-structure of the “Son of Heaven myth” and the conflation of “filial piety as loyalty.” In the past, Confucian scholar-bureaucrats politically sanctified countless regimes established through brute force, packaging “accomplished facts” into a myth of “Heaven and the Son of Heaven.” Today, this logic has evolved into something brutally simple: whoever occupies the Central Plains and inherits the imperial palaces of Beijing is the sole “Son of Heaven” and “legitimate orthodoxy.”

When anyone refuses to submit to the “Son of Heaven” or rejects annexation into the Celestial Empire’s realm, the built-in “Celestial Empire Alarm” blares within the subjects’ minds, prompting them to defend a modern emperor who should not exist in the 21st century—because “All lands under Heaven belong to the King.”

For two thousand years, this ancient continental agricultural operating system has taught its subjects:

• Unification = Era of Peace = Good: This system operates on a collectivist logic that centrally controls all manpower and resources to accomplish massive basin-wide water control and irrigation projects. Its fruit is the agricultural harvest and the order of hierarchical distribution.

• Divided Rule = Separatist Chaos = Evil: Multiple sovereign entities are believed to bring only turmoil, disrupting agricultural production and the operation of “Heaven’s Will.” In this political myth, “Heaven’s Will” is an exclusive matter between the sole Son of Heaven and Heaven itself; thus, “there cannot be more than one Son of Heaven under Heaven.”

Therefore, “Taiwan Independence” is seen not only as disrespect toward the sole Son of Heaven, but as a violation of “Heaven’s Will.” Under this logic, “the Republic of China is no longer the orthodoxy,” and must naturally “submit to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) representing orthodoxy.” Consequently, Taiwanese people living under the ROC must also kneel before this “orthodoxy and Heaven’s Will,” lest “man defy Heaven’s Will, and Heaven cease to follow the natural order.”

Even though the peace and prosperity most islanders rely on today stems from the post-war maritime order and global free-trade system led by the United States, this agricultural operating system code regarding the “Son of Heaven and Unification”—this Central Plains political myth—remains deeply ingrained and persistent in the minds of many islanders who enjoy freedom and democracy.

The reason this continental political myth has remained effective at brainwashing for over two thousand years is that it uses the Confucian ethical code of “ruler-subject, father-son” to seamlessly deploy the totalitarian architecture of the empire directly into every family and grassroots social unit, forming a massive interest structure:

The family is a microscopic microcosm of the empire. The nation has its Son of Heaven, and the family has its patriarch; “loyalty” and “filial piety” are thoroughly bound together at the foundational level. Identity equals hierarchical privilege. Merely by holding an authoritative identity—such as elder, father, husband, or superior—an individual automatically gains the hierarchical privilege to dominate others within the family or work unit, even enjoying an unchallenged “micro-authoritarianism.”

This interest structure of “as long as you obey the upper level, you can enjoy privilege at the lower level” became the most stubborn “psychological alliance” in pre-modern society. Those enjoying identity dividends in the family or old system subconsciously defend this “order.” Once the legitimacy of the top-level “Son of Heaven and Unification” is denied, the “authority and privilege” they rely on within their micro-structures will collapse as well.

Rather than saying they worship the “Son of Heaven” and “orthodoxy,” it is more accurate to say they are defending the psychological defense line of their own “identity privileges.” This allows the “Celestial Empire myth” to continually self-consolidate and replicate across generations.

(Extended Reading: I is for Identity: Civilizational Evolution on the Open Oceanic OS—The Great Sinitic Divergence Between Taiwan and China)

2. Worship of Might and the Illusion of Privilege: Paralyzed Risk Perception

Of course, there is no blood type or gene in the world for a “Son of Heaven.” The “Celestial Empire” and the “Son of Heaven” are man-made political myths. If he could truly communicate with Heaven, why does China still suffer from massive catastrophic floods year after year? If Heaven truly favored this dictator, why would it repeatedly use surging floodwaters to prove that he is merely an ordinary mortal who cannot even manage water disasters?

Yet, for those who blindly believe in this “Celestial Empire myth and hierarchical matrix,” maintaining “Celestial Unification” takes absolute priority over the people’s right to self-determination and a free way of life. Even if the CCP is a “brutal and ruthless” totalitarian regime, as long as it can achieve “unification and territorial expansion,” this historical “achievement” supersedes all the atrocities committed by the “Son of Heaven.”

In recent years, this code has been further embedded with the grand narrative of “A Century of Humiliation, Great Rejuvenation.” As a result, the “Chinese Orthodoxy” in the minds of these subjects must be a strong power capable of “avenging” itself against the Western free world and demonstrating “Great Power Majesty.” The glorification of the brutal Qin Dynasty in contemporary media further implies that the more ruthless a regime is, the more likely it is to achieve unification—thereby retroactively bestowing the highest level of legitimacy upon brutal power.

Under this psychology of power-worship, the CCP’s massive military threats—fighter jets, aircraft carriers, and missiles—are viewed by them as concrete symbols of the “Great Rejuvenation of the Chinese Nation.” The incursions of CCP aircraft and naval vessels into Taiwan are rationalized as “what happens when the DPP pursues Taiwan independence.” The CCP’s aggressive ambition to annex Taiwan is manipulated by the media into a mere “Unification vs. Independence / Blue vs. Green conflict.”

They are willing to sacrifice human rights, the right to life, private property rights, and the freedom to pursue happiness, all to exchange for an illusory collective sense of glory in “Great Power Rise, All Nations Paying Tribute.”

Even more fatal is the “illusion of privilege” inside their minds. They view themselves as the “authentic orthodoxy of Chinese culture” and “knowledgeable insiders who understand great power politics.” They have completely lost their risk perception regarding the prospect that their lives and property, alongside those of their families, will be brutally destroyed once merged into the “Celestial System.”

In their subconscious, as long as they actively endorse the Celestial Empire, hold high the banner of “Motherland Unification,” and remain obedient and law-abiding, when the totalitarian system hacks into Taiwan, they will automatically be tagged by the system as “meritorious contributors / collaborators” or even “managers”—thereby enjoying privileges rather than being treated as ordinary users “awaiting formatting.”

3. Conflating Cultural Identity with Political Nationality

They enjoy freedom of speech, private property rights protected by the Constitution, and a security shield built by the US military and Taiwan’s Armed Forces. Yet, they take the system security provided by a democratic country and civil society that respects individual rights for granted, falsely believing that “even if annexed by China, this way of life will miraculously continue.”

Kidnapped by the code of “Bloodline/Culture = Sovereignty,” they severely conflate “cultural identity” with “political nationality.” They believe that as long as one speaks Chinese, celebrates Lunar New Year, and has ancestors from the East Asian mainland, one “naturally belongs to China,” tightly binding cultural heritage with political submission. They completely ignore the fact that their own ancestors crossed the dangerous Taiwan Strait precisely to escape that heavy, suffocating operating system.

They cannot comprehend the modern logic of the US Federal System, Singapore, or Australia: using the same language and sharing a bloodline can still result in establishing an independent, self-governing, democratic, and rule-of-law nation that respects human rights.

The cognitive framework in their minds remains stuck in an agricultural system from two thousand years ago that required massive manpower for water control on the Central Plains. Yet today, in the 21st century, they stubbornly attempt to dedicate this three-dimensional oceanic island—which cannot run a plain water-control system at all—to the totalitarian leader they believe holds “orthodoxy,” fulfilling the empire’s territorial ambitions.

They fail to understand that once the physical firewall is dismantled, the underlying legal structure that guarantees their private property and freedom of speech will be completely formatted overnight. Above that destroyed framework, any civilization, prosperity, or safety will vanish into thin air.

4. “Citizens” vs. “Subjects”: The Cognitive Fault Line During Mainframe Transition

I. Modern “Citizens”: System Maintainers Based on Contracts and Responsibility

In the “Oceanic OS,” citizens are the primary subjects—the true masters and responsibility-bearers of their country. Citizens hold a “contractual relationship” with the state, exercising sovereignty over their own and their community’s destiny while bearing the consequences.

Democracy means there is no longer an emperor holding absolute power over life and death; instead, the people elect representatives to carry out professional political work. Citizens pay taxes, serve in the military, and participate in public discussions, while media and citizens maintain rational oversight over the government at all times.

Citizens understand clearly: democracy is not a gift from heaven, but something requiring every individual to pay a price and fulfill responsibilities to jointly maintain this mainframe’s freedom, security, and order. This country belongs to its citizens, not an emperor, and is not the exclusive property of any privileged class.

II. “Subjects” (Baixing): From Authoritarian Submission to the “Emperor Wu of Han” in a Democratic Era

In contrast to civic consciousness is the mindset of “giant baby subjects” stuck in the pre-modern Celestial world. In the authoritarian era, they were accustomed to kneeling and submitting to the “Son of Heaven” and strongmen, entrusting their individual fates to the grace of “parental officials.”

In the democratic era, however, they lack a balanced consciousness of rights and responsibilities. Because the “Celestial System” contains no concepts of “democracy, independence, citizenship, or freedom,” the only change for them is that they suddenly hold a “voter card” gained for them by “rebellious subjects.”

To them, democracy simply means possessing a vote, which serves as the ultimate leverage for blackmail. Because these giant baby subjects have gained the democratic status of “boss/master,” they view a democratic government as “parental officials who won’t kill,” naturally turning their past servitude toward the Son of Heaven into arrogant commanding over a democratic government.

With the posture of “the people are the boss,” these giant baby subjects compare themselves to “Emperor Wu of Han or Emperor Kangxi,” taking it for granted to issue demands to the government, insisting on low taxes, low electricity rates, and short military service, while demanding meticulous welfare, economic prosperity, and absolute safety:

• Welfare must rival Nordic countries, but taxes must remain low;

• Salaries must rival Silicon Valley, but prices must remain low;

• Milk prices must rival New Zealand, but national infrastructure must be as modern as Singapore’s;

• Electricity and fuel prices must be the lowest in the world, yet the government must not subsidize state utilities (Taipower, CPC) lest they spoil the populace into giant babies;

• Traffic safety must resemble Japan’s, but pedestrians cannot waste my time when I drive;

• Property prices must be cheap when I buy, but when I sell my used apartment, I must make a 20% profit; otherwise, it’s economic regression and living misery.

They enjoy all the benefits brought by democratic openness, yet politically remain “giant babies,” never considering paying a corresponding price—be it reasonable taxes, necessary defense preparations, or civic responsibilities.

When facing risks or threats, they blame the government for inadequate care. They simplify defense and diplomacy—vital to national survival—into market transactions of “whoever gives me money or lets me make big money gets my vote,” even demanding that the state compromise with hostile powers in exchange for their personal quiet years.

This mindset, switching back and forth between “giant baby” and “arrogant boss,” is precisely the vulnerability most easily exploited by Trojan horses from the Celestial Empire. It only takes a few “small favors” (like cheap tours to China) and a few empty flatteries like “Descendants of the Dragon, Great Rejuvenation” to buy them off.

A hostile power only needs to apply a little military intimidation to make these “subjects”—who only want to live a good life and are unwilling to pay the price for freedom—obediently hand over their sovereignty and defense lines.

Yet democracy has never been about “selecting a parental official to serve giant baby subjects,” but rather mature citizens jointly bearing the destiny of a nation.

5. System Reboot: Reconstructing the Core “Friend vs. Foe” Code

This is precisely why, while Taiwan is currently facing physical erosion in its air and maritime domains by a hostile power, its internal cognitive defenses are also being systematically corroded.

When “cultural heritage” and “political loyalty” are conflated into the same thing—where “preserving and maintaining culture” is equated with “submission to the political orthodoxy” of the Beijing Empire—this type-confusion and “unauthorized access” in the code risks causing the “self-destruction” of Taiwan’s mainframe and system.

Taiwan’s hardware and geographical location were destined from the beginning of its design to be open and pluralistic. Taiwanese culture is the accumulation of living experiences shared by generations of islanders and countless immigrants; it is an evolving open-source library that should never become a political chain placed around the neck of “Han culture” by the “Celestial Empire.”

Cultural heritage must never become a battering ram for a totalitarian regime to hijack “cultural identity” into “political crusade.” Writing traditional Chinese characters, celebrating Lunar New Year, and worshipping Mazu are parts of Taiwanese culture—just as Americans speaking English do not need to take orders from London, and Singaporeans speaking Chinese do not need to be controlled by Beijing.

The definition of “Friend vs. Foe” is never based on bloodline, ethnicity, or language, but on the joint defense of a free way of life and civic sovereignty. Conversely, “hostility” is any intention to violate this shared defense.

Precisely because votes can alter a nation’s direction, the boundary between friend and foe in a modern democratic state must be crystal clear:

• The External Foe: Any totalitarian regime that attempts to use military intimidation or cognitive infiltration to deprive the 23.5 million people of Taiwan of their “right to freely choose and determine their own destiny” is an uncompromising enemy of this mainframe. Hostility is “the opponent’s attempt to seize control of the mainframe,” which can never be rationalized as a legitimate desire to expand Celestial territory or destroy our lives and property simply because a leader claims to hold “Heaven’s Mandate.”

• The Internal Foe: Those malicious ideological codes that collaborate with hostile narratives and attempt to disarm Taiwan’s self-defense capability are equally “foes” to an independent sovereign state and civil society. They advocate “non-resistance,” preach “surrender for peace,” help the enemy conceal aggressive intent, and maliciously deconstruct critical national security issues into meaningless political friction.

These proxies and infiltration mechanisms are “malware viruses” invading the system—because their ultimate goal is to weaken the entire system, thereby allowing the mainframe to be completely seized by a hostile power.

A healthy democratic system requires a robust physical firewall externally, and internally, the capability for “Self-Debugging” among its citizens—regularly purging those malicious ideological codes that lead to system destruction and mainframe seizure.

Recognizing friend from foe is the first step of a system reboot, whether on the physical defense line or the psychological defense line.

Next, let us board the modern HMS Beagle together and soar into the clouds to overlook the physical firewall that protects the safety of all islanders in Taiwan and rejects “malicious hardware connection to the mainframe”—the Taiwan Strait Median Line and the Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ).

Section 2: Forged Property Title: The CCP’s Jurisprudential Deception

1. Taiwan Is Not China: Why Is It Called the “Republic of China”?

I. Taiwan Is Not an Extension of the Chinese Civil War, but Was Administered on Behalf of the Allied Powers

Although the Republic of China (ROC) was established in 1912, Taiwan was already territory legally held by Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki (1895); the ROC never inherited Taiwan from the Qing Empire. When World War II ended in 1945, the Nationalist Government was dispatched by General Douglas MacArthur, Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, under General Order No. 1 to represent the Allied Powers in occupying and administering the island.

At that time, the Nationalist Government was engaged in a fierce civil war against the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in China. It consequently positioned Taiwan as a “rear base,” subjecting the island to large-scale resource and financial extraction to sustain its civil war effort on the mainland.

In 1949, the Nationalist Government led by Chiang Kai-shek suffered a total defeat in the civil war. Much like Koxinga (Zheng Chenggong) in the 17th century, who was driven to Taiwan by Qing forces, Chiang retreated with his government to Taiwan—this “Allied-administered territory.”

II. An “Unsinkable Aircraft Carrier” Sustained the Republic of China

In 1950, the Korean War erupted. As the CCP brazenly entered the conflict, Beijing strategically aligned itself completely with Moscow, shattering the United States’ original assumption that Taiwan and Korea could be excluded from the Pacific defense perimeter.

General Douglas MacArthur, a legendary World War II commander, looked at the map and famously established Taiwan’s strategic position in the free world for the first time—as an “unsinkable aircraft carrier.” He warned the free world that if Taiwan fell to the Communists, this vital strategic hub would become a “springboard for authoritarian expansion.”

The US government consequently re-established its global containment strategy against Communist expansion. Linking Japan, the Ryukyu Islands, Taiwan, and extending south to the Philippines and the Greater Sunda Islands, it formally constructed a free line of defense: the First Island Chain.

The Chiang regime, which had almost been abandoned by the United States due to the corruption and ineffective anti-communist performance of the “Chiang-Soong-Kong” families, suddenly regained vital US military and economic support simply because it exercised effective governance over Taiwan—the choke point of the First Island Chain.

III. “Undetermined Status of Taiwan” Was Designed to Prevent Falling into Chinese Hands

To prevent the Chiang regime from being wiped out ordefecting to the Communists—which would allow the CCP to claim legal annexation of Taiwan under the pretext of an “internal civil war”—US President Harry S. Truman issued a crucial declaration:

“The determination of the future status of Formosa must await the restoration of security in the Pacific, a peace settlement with Japan, or consideration by the United Nations.”

This meant the United States did not recognize post-WWII Taiwan as part of China. Naturally, the CCP could not claim sovereignty over Taiwan under international law on the grounds of “inheriting Chinese territory.”

The US military immediately dispatched the Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Strait to protect this “post-war territory with undetermined status” and enforce the “neutralization of the Strait.” The historical background of the Taiwan Strait Median Line mentioned in Section 1 originates precisely from this policy.

Under the Cold War framework tacitly permitted by the Allies, Chiang Kai-shek was able to use the “Republic of China (ROC)” as his state title to exercise de facto governance and institute decades of authoritarian rule over Taiwan.

2. Each Nation’s One-China “Policy” Is Not Equal to the CCP’s One-China “Principle”

I. Allied Shareholders: No Reason to Hand Taiwan Over to the CCP

Following the Chiang regime’s defeat and retreat to Taiwan, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) established its core diplomatic stance upon its founding in 1949: “There is only one China in the world, and the PRC government is the sole legitimate government representing all of China.” Beijing demanded that any country wishing to establish diplomatic relations with it must sever official ties with the ROC government.

The United Kingdom was among the earliest Western nations to recognize the CCP as representing China. Driven by the need to protect its vast economic interests in Hong Kong and evaluating the reality of the Kuomintang’s complete defeat on the mainland, the UK decided in 1950 to recognize Beijing as the de facto and de jure government of China. Crucially, however, the UK firmly refused to recognize Taiwan as Chinese territory.

This was because in 1945, the Nationalist Government merely occupied Taiwan as an agent of the Allied Powers. In the official international treaty determining post-WWII territorial status—the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco—the US and Allied nations constructed a critical legal firewall for Taiwan: the treaty did not specify transferring Taiwan to any country; it merely required Japan to “renounce all right, title, and claim to Formosa and the Pescadores.”

Therefore, Taiwan’s property title was left suspended high over the Western Pacific by international treaty law in 1951, waiting for the true legal owner to complete local registration. This waiting period lasted until Taiwan held its first direct presidential election in 1996.

Because the UK refused to endorse the view that “Taiwan is part of China,” the CCP downgraded diplomatic relations between the two countries to the chargé d’affaires level. It was not until 1972, when relations were formally upgraded to the ambassadorial level, that the UK used the word “Acknowledge” regarding Beijing’s claim over Taiwan in their joint communique, rather than “Recognize.”

II. The CCP’s “One-China Principle” Contains a Jurisprudential Trojan Horse

Taking advantage of the fact that Allied nations like the UK and US did not recognize Taiwan as belonging to China, the CCP began deliberately confusing other nations’ One-China “Policies” with its own One-China “Principle,” attempting to build a “jurisprudential Trojan horse” to conceal its expansionist ambitions.

The CCP’s “One-China Principle” is a deceptive, three-part hostage formula:

1. There is only one China in the world;

2. The People’s Republic of China is the sole legitimate government of China;

3. Taiwan is an inalienable part of China.

For international citizens unfamiliar with East Asian history, when the first two points align with geopolitical reality, it is easy to be misled by CCP propaganda into assuming that the false third point is also an established fact—thereby downloading this “fake source code.”

However, a forensic legal analysis of diplomatic documents between China and other nations reveals that, except for a few totalitarian client states, the free world has never recognized China’s sovereignty claim over Taiwan.

The United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Japan, and the European Union use phrases such as “Acknowledge,” “Take note of,” or “Understand and respect” regarding Beijing’s claim that “Taiwan is part of China.”

In international law and diplomatic practice, this is known as “leaving it on read”—I note your position, but I am by no means endorsing it, nor does it imply my acceptance.

Why do major Western nations refuse to recognize that “Taiwan is part of China”? The reason is crystal clear: although Taiwan was conquered and ruled by the Qing Empire in the late 17th century, the Manchu Qing Empire was not “China” in the modern Westphalian sense.

Furthermore, the Qing Empire permanently ceded the sovereignty and governance of Taiwan to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki in 1895.

Therefore, when the Republic of China was founded in 1912 and inherited the Qing territory, Taiwan was no longer on the Qing territorial ledger; the ROC had no basis to inherit Taiwan, let alone the People’s Republic of China founded in 1949. Under international jurisprudence, Taiwan has had no legal property connection with any modern Chinese regime established after 1895.

3. The Chinese Civil War Settled: The ROC Has No Right to Represent China

Although Chiang Kai-shek frantically indoctrinated people on the island with the idea that the “ROC” was the sole legitimate China, desperately hoping the US and CCP would enter a war to help him “recover the mainland,” the international trend recognizing the PRC as representing China became irreversible. Nations severed diplomatic ties with the ROC, reaching a crescendo in the 1970s.

In 1971, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 2758:

“Decides: to restore all its rights to the People’s Republic of China and to recognize the representatives of its Government as the only legitimate representatives of China to the United Nations Organization … and to expel forthwith the representatives of Chiang Kai-shek from the place which they unlawfully occupy at the United Nations and in all the organizations related to it.”

This represented the formal legal settlement of the Chinese Civil War at the international level. It declared that the “ROC’s” corporate identity as the sole legal representative of all China was completely bankrupted and liquidated in international forums—making the Beijing government the sole legitimate representative of the corporate entity known as “China.”

Consequently, the ROC experienced a massive wave of broken diplomatic ties. This remains the primary reason most countries today maintain only substantive ties with the ROC (Taiwan) without formal state-to-state diplomatic relations.

The Crucial Legal Boundary: Expelling the Manager Does Not Transfer Property Title

However, the most critical jurisprudential core of this resolution lies in one fact: UN Resolution 2758 does not contain the word “Taiwan” or “Formosa.”

The People’s Republic of China by no means automatically acquired sovereignty over Taiwan simply because it won the Chinese Civil War and secured the “representation of China.”

Because Taiwan’s sovereignty was placed in legal suspension by the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco, the United Nations had no authority to award an island not belonging to China to Beijing. All the UN did was expel the exile property manager (ROC) holding the old business sign from the assembly hall of the “China” corporate entity.

4. The ROC, Unable to Represent China, Executes “Corporate Restructuring and Local Registration” in Taiwan

I. The Republic of China Takes Root in Taiwan

From that point forward, the state title and constitution born on the Chinese mainland could no longer represent China. Internally, the governing authority claiming to “recover the mainland” faced a total breakdown of reality. Those “lifetime representatives” in parliament who represented mainland provinces without facing re-election for decades were no longer merely illusory; they constituted outright political fraud. Launching an “attack to recover the mainland” would have constituted a severe violation of international law.

As the legitimacy of the ROC regime faced total collapse, Chiang Kai-shek’s successor, Chiang Ching-kuo, initiated a series of localization transformations in the 1970s to allow the ROC to “take root” in Taiwan. He abandoned the political myth of “recovering the mainland” and launched the “Ten Major Construction Projects” in Taiwan.

This marked the regime’s first large-scale “local capital improvement” on the island—an acknowledgment that Taiwan was no longer a temporary hotel or a springboard to attack the mainland, but a permanent home.

By the 1990s, the Taiwanese people’s demand for democracy and freedom reached its peak. Through unyielding civil protest and effort, the ROC underwent its most critical constitutional metamorphosis and legitimacy restructuring under Chiang Ching-kuo’s successor, Lee Teng-hui.

Responding to the surging democratic wave, Lee executed a bloodless “Quiet Revolution” through seven constitutional amendments. He abolished the martial-law-era Temporary Provisions Effective During the Period of National Mobilization and retired all the “lifetime representatives” and legislators who represented fantasy maps of mainland provinces without re-election.

II. The 1996 Direct Presidential Election: A Dual Legal Milestone

The first direct presidential election held in 1996 served as a decisive jurisprudential milestone. In international law and property jurisprudence, this direct election held profound dual significance:

1. Legitimacy Authorization (Restructuring the Governing Shell): The governance shell of the Republic of China (ROC)—born on the Chinese mainland and bearing authoritarian original sin—was granted direct voting authorization by the 21 million people of Taiwan for the first time. Its governing authority no longer derived from that old 1947 map drafted in Nanjing, but from every tangible vote cast on this island.

2. Local Registration of Sovereignty (Formal Alignment of Property Title): This direct election was the moment the Taiwanese people collectively stepped up to that “Taiwan Sovereignty Title Certificate”—which had been left suspended and unassigned by international treaty law since the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco—and solemnly signed the names of all 21 million residents. (Out of roughly 14 million eligible voters at the time, over 10 million cast their ballots, achieving a staggering 76.04% turnout).

By establishing the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China, the system legally excluded residents of “unfree areas” (mainland China) from the national community, strictly restricting voting and governance rights to the “Free Area.” Following the direct presidential election, the ROC in Taiwan completed a thorough “Corporate Restructuring and Asset Localization.”

Twenty-one million citizens re-registered the assets and ownership of this ancient constitutional company. Taiwan’s sovereignty and governing authority formally merged in 1996, coming entirely under the ownership of the 21 million Taiwanese people.

Crucially, when the previously suspended sovereignty over Taiwan was legally acquired and locally registered by all Taiwanese inhabitants through bloodless democratic means in 1996, this “corporate restructuring” directly confiscated any pretext for the CCP to meddle with Taiwan through “inheritance” or “civil war jurisprudence.”

5. The Battle for Taiwan’s Sovereignty Won Entirely by Islanders Through the Ballot Box

Facing this flawless democratic practice, a helpless Beijing could only react in anger, firing test missiles into the Taiwan Strait in an attempt to use physical violence to obstruct property registration. The crisis ended abruptly under the powerful military deterrence of two US aircraft carrier battle groups entering the Taiwan Strait.

The 1996 Taiwan Strait Missile Crisis formally declared the total bankruptcy of the CCP’s Taiwan strategy. From that moment on, if the PRC wishes to seize Taiwan, only two legal and physical pathways remain:

1. Launching an illegal invasion in direct violation of international law;

2. Coercing or enticing Taiwanese people to voluntarily surrender their sovereignty through democratic means.

The Business Sign Paradox: Absurd Diplomatic Schizophrenia

However, the constitutional revision project of the ROC remains unfinished. This “company” still uses the old “ROC” business sign, failing to intuitively represent the legal entity whose corporate ownership has been restructured by Taiwanese residents to completely exclude mainland Chinese inhabitants.

This misalignment between name and reality prevents the international community from engaging with democratic Taiwan under formal “state-to-state” diplomatic frameworks—even though Republic of China Taiwan is far more qualified to be treated as a normal nation than many recognized states around the world.

For the CCP, this has created an almost schizophrenic “Business Sign Paradox”:

• On one hand, frantically suppression of the old sign: In international organizations and sports events, the old “ROC” sign reminds the world that this regime was once the legitimate China. Thus, the CCP forcibly forbids Taiwan from using “Republic of China,” forcing it to compete under the humiliated moniker “Chinese Taipei.”

• On the other hand, strictly forbidding the sign from being changed: Beijing simultaneously threatens Taiwan that renaming the state to “Taiwan” constitutes “Taiwan Independence,” for which China will launch an unprovoked war. In recent years, Beijing has used “anti-independence” as a pretext to refuse official communication with the DPP government, which holds a legal mandate from Taiwanese voters.

The Ultimate Definition in History and Reality

Neither jurisprudence nor facts can be erased: Republic of China Taiwan has long severed ties with its past continental history; it is an independent sovereign state. Her jurisdiction is defined by the democratic reality of 23.5 million people, not by an imperial map unilaterally drawn by Beijing.

Taiwan’s continued use of the old “ROC” business sign today is purely “strategic forbearance” under the threat of violence from a neighboring bully—it in no way signifies that the people of Taiwan recognize any Chinese claim of sovereignty over Taiwan.