CHAPTER III

COMMENTS MADE IN A PERSONAL LETTER
TO MASTER DAVE LACEY:

“When my students read your website prints out to me I was astonished that you managed to put so many things together to earth so many discrepancies in the Chan clan’s CLF history. You are right about the picture of Chan Heung. It never made its debut until the formation of the Association In Memory Of Chan Heung in 1971. Prior to that I have in my visits to HK with my late sifu, had NEVER SEEN a picture of Chan Heung in any of the Chan clan schools. If we have a picture of Cheung Hung Sing we would have displayed it naturally. Shouldn’t that be the case for the Chan clan as well? Why wait till the Chan Heung Association was formed and then hastily produce a sketch picture of the man?!

There is so much more to the CLF history that we cannot make public because of its sensitivity and in any case it doesn’t serve any purpose in revealing these things. But, like your sifu Kong Hing, if these people were to seek clarification in person, we would be more than happy to share with them what we know.

Over-mystifying the characters and distorting the history to defy logic only serves to mislead the ignorant. It won’t help us in any way to improve our fighting skills or develop good character or help us be a better person. That’s why I advocated that the Chan clan can continue to keep their story and happily dwell on the thought that they are the best BUT they cannot impose on ALL that theirs is the only version or historical truth.

Dave, I can see that this tirade will go on for ages. Too much vested interest is at stake for many of these masters. How could they even back down now? Why have they not responded to your query on the Chan Heung portrait? If they can claim a painting of an unknown man to be their father or great ancestor, would they be capable of anything less?

If I were you, I would just say my part and then leave them in their abyss of ignorance. They can continue to bask in those “historical” evidences that they have trumped up” – Unquote.

NOTE: Due to confidentiality, Master Lacey is quoting only a small part of this PRIVATE LETTER addressed to HIM by a revered HUNG SING ELDER.

ARE YOU SAYING
CONVENTIONAL TRADITION IS “OUTDATED”?

The arguments will continue till Doom’s Day – WHY? Because whilst elders and authoritative spokesmen of the Buck Sing and Hung Sing schools like masters Kong Hing and Chia Yan Soon are willing to meet the Chan clan elders to debate and dispute the true historical facts surrounding Choy Lay Fut’s history, we have had no response from the Chan clan elders since I requested this “meeting of the clan elders” six months ago! They have shown no true desire to settle this family feud admirably and honorably.

All this BIG TALK about having enough “credible” evidences and info to make me “look like a fool” is as shallow as these loud mouths who hide behind their computers and burkhas like frightened women because they are not man enough to settle this dispute “face to face”. This can only mean that they lack self-confidence and the credibility to confront us and prove to us that their Chan family version on the story on CLF has the indisputable TRUE historical facts.

*The Cantonese masters have a saying: “Kung Fu yau ting mo, hon gar yut tai jow ji do” which translates – “whether you have it or not, others will come to know about it sooner or later”! No rhetoric can hide the truth for long.

“REGULATOR” – A MAN WORTHY OF RESPECT

My critics have vented their frustrations and anger against me by getting personal in their e-mail on the Kung-Fu Forum but it backfired on them and poor joseph has complained that my last update in July has got them all “hot under the collar” “Regulator” should have warned them that that if they don’t want to get burnt they shouldn’t play with fire!

Here is a man who believes in – “YOU SHOW RESPECT, YOU GET RESPECT” and the right to confront injustices within the Martial Arts forum and to defend one’s honor with COURAGE AND INTEGRITY by following the proper protocol expected of those who respect the Code of Honor and traditions of Chinese Martial Arts and that the meeting of CLF elders is the right decorum for resolving disputes.

It is not without good reason that “Regulator” has chosen to address my critics the way he did, for he, like others, are fed up with reading their immature and inconstructive criticism and inflammatory remarks after I had repeatedly “called them out” to settle this conflict face to face and they have declined.

“Regulator” understands DECORUM and like others, he is disappointed in your refusal to settle this feud honorably in person.