In the $114$th year of the Republic of China, the national title remains the “Republic of China,” and the territory, based on its inherent boundaries, currently includes Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen, Matsu, Dongsha, and Nansha. Anyone holding an ROC passport, drawing an ROC salary, and representing the ROC abroad must prioritize loyalty to this national title, this constitutional system, and this complete territory.
Yet, today, there is a “Representative of the Republic of China to Finland,” Freddy Lin, who has openly and repeatedly declared over the past two decades:
- “Taiwan is already a sovereign independent country, and its name is Taiwan.”
- “The Republic of China is an occupying regime.”
- “The Republic of China no longer exists.”
- “I never sing the ROC National Anthem.”
- “We must promote rectifying Taiwan’s name and creating a new constitution.”
These statements were not clips edited by the Blue camp’s surrogates; he said them himself during interpellation sessions in the Legislative Yuan, on BBC HARDtalk, in independent media, at concert venues, and on metal music shows, and he has never formally retracted them.
I. Denying the National Title Denies the Legitimacy of His Current Position
Freddy Lin’s current title is “Representative to Finland (Representative of the Republic of China),” his document is the “Republic of China (Taiwan) passport,” and his visiting card is printed with “Republic of China.”
Yet, in $2016$, he told BBC HARDtalk: “Taiwan is already an independent country, its current name is Taiwan.”
The question is: How can a person who publicly states that “the Republic of China is no longer the national name, and Taiwan is the national name” legitimately 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 collects the ROC salary but denies the existence of the ROC, which is equivalent to using taxpayer money to support an employee who publicly denies their employer.
II. Denying Territorial Integrity Means Kicking Kinmen and Matsu Out of the ROC
When Freddy Lin, along with the New Power Party and the Taiwan Statebuilding Party, shouts “Taiwan is a sovereign independent country,” the “Taiwan” in their hearts has never included Kinmen and Matsu.
Kinmen and Matsu’s household registration still belongs to “Fujian Province” to this day. Residents there grew up raising the ROC flag, singing the ROC national anthem, and blocked the $823$ Artillery Bombardment with their flesh and blood back then.
However, in the narrative of a “Greater Taiwan Nation,” Kinmen and Matsu are viewed as “Chinese territory,” “a human shield on the war frontline,” and “should be cut off.”
Freddy Lin has never publicly refuted this narrative, and even tacitly allowed his surrogates to attack Kinmen residents as “CCP kissers” during his tenure as a legislator.
On what grounds does a person who views one of the ROC’s current territories—the existing counties of Fujian Province—as “foreign territory” represent the complete Republic of China?
III. Denying the Polity Denies the Existence of the ROC Constitution
Freddy Lin has repeatedly and publicly advocated for “creating a new constitution,” “rectifying the name,” and “establishing the Republic of Taiwan.”
This is no longer about “reforming the ROC”; it is about “overthrowing and ending the ROC.”
The Preamble to the Additional Articles of the ROC Constitution clearly stipulates: “To meet the requirements prior to national unification…” Any public official who publicly advocates for ending the national title and altering the constitutional system prior to 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 split the national territory.”
Although he was not prosecuted, the legal deficiency has never been eliminated.
IV. From “Refusing to Sing the National Anthem” to “Representing the Nation,” Where Is the Integrity?
When he took office as a legislator in $2016$, Freddy Lin refused to sing the national anthem during the flag-raising ceremony, on the grounds that “this is the national anthem of an occupying regime.”
Yet 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 “transformation”; it is naked opportunism:
Denying the ROC when needing votes; embracing the ROC when needing an official position.
This $180$-degree turn is less “pragmatic” and more the greatest mockery of national loyalty.
V. The Real Issue Is Not “Did He Serve,” But “Is He Qualified to Represent”
We can discuss his military service issue or his diplomatic professionalism, but the more fundamental question is:
How can a person who denies the national title, the constitutional system, and the territorial integrity of the Republic of China from beginning to end be appointed as a “Republic of China” foreign representative?
This is not a question of patronage; it is the greatest humiliation to the ROC’s constitutional system.
Placing such a person in a foreign mission is tantamount to telling the world: “The Republic of China accepts a person who publicly advocates for its demise 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 foreign representative of the “Republic of China.”
Because the primary requirement for this position is not screaming death metal, not playing the erhu, and not dancing in Nordic countries, but this:
You must acknowledge, defend, and be loyal to the national title “Republic of China” and its complete territory without reservation.
And Freddy Lin’s words and deeds over the past two decades have told us in the clearest possible terms: he cannot, and never intends to.
When a person constantly advocates for the end of the ROC, yet accepts the ROC’s official salary, travels abroad under the ROC flag, and uses the ROC passport to traverse 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.