CHAPTER IV

“HISTORICAL FACTS” DISPUTED

If the Chan clan members are so anxious to prove to us (the Hung Sing & Buck Sing people) that their CLF history is correct, then get their elders to do it in person and stop thinking you can resolve this dispute on the internet! What do you say joseph? By the way, just because you belong to the Chan family CLF lineage and you have been brainwashed in believing all the propaganda you have read on the CLF history written and propagated by the CHAN clan historians, doesn’t mean we too have to be brainwashed in taking their story as the “historical truth”!

Tell me, you believe in the Chan family CLF history and the legacy of their great ancestor Chan Heung, right? Where do you think they got their story from? Is it not from the manuscripts written by one of the CHAN family’s direct descendents, Chan Yiu Chi, the grandson of Chan Heung? Didn’t someone on the kung fu forum say exactly that when he said – “The Chan Family account of history is a bit dubious as it all seems to come down to the family manuals written by Chan Yiu Chi, a member of the Chan Heung family?!”

Does the Chan family chest of historical documents
also include:

1. Recorded manuscript of Chan Heung’s 1839 ten year adventure in America, Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya.
2. A documented record of Chan Heung’s great historical “tiger killer saga” with the date and place of when it happened.
3. Proofs to verify that he was a student of 96 year old Choy Fook for 12 years.
4. What styles he learnt from Lee Yau Sarn and Chan Yuen Wu.
5. That he was a “Chief Instructor” at Yuen Wu’s school at age 12.
6. Proof that he founded his own martial arts style in 1836 and called it “Choy Lay Fut”.
7. Proof that he named his school in King Mui Village the “Hung Sing Gwoon”.

What historical proof and evidence are you referring to? ---- those “documented” by a direct descendent of Chan Heung as “Historical Records”?

How about that portrait of “Chan Heung” – was it not a fake? If not, then why was it never seen till after 1971, almost 100 years after his death in 1875!? And what about Ching Cho? The Chan clan elders have never mentioned the “Ching Cho” name in their family’s CLF history and have dispelled him as “non-existent” and a “fictional character” portrayed in the Hung Sing CLF history AND have accused the Hung Sing CLF branch of changing the history of Choy Lay Fut. So tell me, why is it now, after so many decades, a “convenient time” to come out with this NEW “mythical” revelation, claiming Ching Cho did exist and that he is part of the Chan family CLF history!?

WHY TRY TO COVER UP
YOUR MISCONCEPTIONS?

You Chan clan hardliners have persistently asked for proof of Ching Cho’s existence ‘cos you truly believed he was fictional and you hated his guts BUT NOW you’re trying so hard to cover up your misconception by saying Ching Cho was Choy Fook! Since you claim to have all the proofs and evidences, let’s see you prove all these claims of yours that I have just discussed by meeting with master Kong Hing and other 5th generation Buck Sing and Hung Sing elders of Hong Kong and Singapore and find out (in person) WHOSE CLF history is distorted or fabricated!

WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE IF YOU ARE CORRECT?

You critics can call me names, talk about your “historical” records and believe in your new “messiah” but that is not going to change the true CLF history that we know. By declining our invitation to resolve this dispute in person you have showed your own sense on insecurity, lack of confidence and your creditability to defend the allegations you have made against us.

As “Regulator” said – “You cannot back up your wild claims and your allegations have no foundation. You hurl insults from behind your computer screen and will not face the music. What do you have to lose if you are correct? Your actions (and lack thereof) show your true colors. You are no better than the bogus pictures of others you portray. The true deceivers are apparent here, for whilst one side is prepared to go “the distance” – you back off! If you have such good arguments, accept the invitation and settle this the old fashioned way”.

Well, joseph (and or “kuluye?”), what have you got to say to the comments directed at you (and sharman, serpent etc.) by “Regulator”? Are you saying that he is a “whacko” too!?