In the 114th year of the Republic of China, the national name remains “Republic of China”, and its territory, based on its inherent boundaries, currently includes Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, Dongsha, and Nansha. Anyone who holds a Republic of China passport, receives a Republic of China salary, and represents the Republic of China abroad must, first and foremost, be loyal to this national title, this form of government, and this complete territory.
However, today there is a “Representative to Finland (Republic of China)” Freddy Lin, who has publicly and repeatedly stated over the past two decades:
- “Taiwan is already an independent, sovereign state, and its name is Taiwan.”
- “The Republic of China is an outside regime.”
- “The Republic of China no longer exists.”
- “I never sing the Republic of China national anthem.”
- “We must promote the rectification of Taiwan’s name and the creation of a new constitution.”
These statements are not clips edited by Blue camp supporters; he has said them himself in Legislative Yuan interpellation sessions, on the BBC program HARDtalk, to independent media, at concert venues, and on metal music programs, and he has never officially retracted them.
I. Denying the National Title Denies the Legality of His Current Office
Freddy Lin’s current official title is “Representative in Finland (Representative of the Republic of China)”, his document is a “Republic of China (Taiwan) passport”, and his business card reads “Republic of China”.
However, in 2016, he said on the BBC program HARDtalk: “Taiwan is already an independent country, its current name is Taiwan.”
The question is: How can a person who publicly claims that “the Republic of China is no longer the national title, and Taiwan is the national title” lawfully represent the “Republic of China” abroad?
This is not an ideological dispute; it is a question of the most basic legal principle and integrity.
He draws a Republic of China salary but denies the existence of the Republic of China, which is equivalent to using taxpayers’ money to support an employee who publicly denies his employer.
II. Denying Territorial Integrity Means Kicking Kinmen and Matsu Out of the Republic of China
When Freddy Lin, together with the New Power Party and the Taiwan Statebuilding Party, shouts “Taiwan is a sovereign independent state,” the “Taiwan” in their hearts has never included Kinmen and Matsu.
The household registration of Kinmen and Matsu still belongs to “Fukien Province” to this day. The residents there grew up raising the Republic of China flag, singing the Republic of China national anthem, and stopped the August 23rd artillery bombardment with their own blood and bodies.
However, in the “Greater Taiwan Nation” narrative, Kinmen and Matsu are regarded as “territory of China,” “human shields at the frontline,” and “should be cut off.”
Freddy Lin has never publicly refuted this narrative, and even tacitly agreed when his supporters attacked Kinmen residents as “CCP-lickers” during his term as a legislator.
On what basis does a person who regards one of the current territories of the Republic of China—the existing counties of Fukien Province—as “foreign territory” represent the entire Republic of China?
III. Denying the Form of Government Denies the Existence of the Republic of China Constitution
Freddy Lin has repeatedly and publicly advocated for “creating a new constitution,” “rectifying the name,” and “founding the Republic of Taiwan.”
This is no longer about “reforming the Republic of China”; it is about “overthrowing and terminating the Republic of China.”
The preamble of the Additional Articles of the Constitution of the Republic of China clearly stipulates: “To meet the requirements prior to national unification…” Any public official who publicly advocates for terminating the national title and changing the form of government before unification has violated Article 110 of the Civil Servants Election and Recall Act, which covers acts intended to “undermine the national constitution, advocate communism, or divide the national territory.”
Although he was not prosecuted, the legal defect has never disappeared.
IV. From Denying the National Anthem to “Representative of the Nation” – Where Is the Integrity?
When Freddy Lin took office as a legislator in 2016, he refused to sing the national anthem at the flag-raising ceremony, on the grounds that “it is the national anthem of an outside regime.”
However, in 2025, he represents the “Republic of China” in Finland, singing the national anthem, raising the national flag, and attending the Double Tenth National Day reception.
This is not “maturity” or “change”; it is blatant opportunism:
Denying the Republic of China when votes are needed; embracing the Republic of China when an office is needed.
This 180-degree turn is less “pragmatism” and more the greatest mockery of national loyalty.
V. The Real Question Is Not “Did He Serve in the Military,” but “Is He Qualified to Represent”
We can discuss his military service issue or his diplomatic professionalism, but a more fundamental question is:
How can a person who denies the Republic of China’s national title, form of government, and territorial integrity from beginning to end be appointed as the “Republic of China” foreign representative?
This is not a question of patronage; it is the greatest insult to the constitutional system of the Republic of China.
Placing such a person in a foreign mission is equivalent to telling the world: “The Republic of China can accept a person who publicly advocates for its destruction to represent itself.”
Conclusion
Freddy Lin may be an excellent musician, human rights worker, or even a fine elected representative, but he is absolutely unqualified to serve as the “Republic of China” foreign representative.
Because the primary requirement of this position is not shouting death metal, not playing the erhu, and not dancing in the Nordic countries, but this:
You must unreservedly recognize, defend, and be loyal to the “Republic of China” national title and its complete territory.
And Freddy Lin’s words and deeds over the past two decades have told us in the clearest possible way: he cannot, and has never intended to.
When a person constantly advocates for the termination of the Republic of China, but turns around to accept the Republic of China official salary, use the Republic of China flag on his travels, and the Republic of China passport to move around the world, this is not called “pragmatic diplomacy”—this is called the most profound betrayal of the Republic of China.
The Republic of China does not need such a “representative.”
The martyrs of Kinmen and Matsu, the people of Taiwan and Penghu, and the garrisons of Dongsha and Nansha need it even less.