CHAPTER III

THE “PORTRAIT” OF CHAN HEUNG

If there was no SELF PORTRAIT done of Chan Heung when he was alive or no available photo of him, why use a photo of his 2nd son Koon Bark (Pak) to have an artist draw an image of his father just so that the Chan Clan can claim they have a portrait of their great Chan Family ancestor and show it to the world whilst secretly concealing the truth from the CLF people!? What was the purpose or need to use deception to “gain advantage” over the Hung Sing CLF followers of Cheung Hung Sing by claiming they have a portrait of their great Chan clan ancestor? Was it necessary for the Hung Sing elders to resort to taking fraudulent measures to produce a “portrait” of their founder (Chong Pai Jung Si) in order to establish “more credibility” to their martial arts heritage?

If the Hung Sing elders were to produce a portrait of Cheung Hung, wouldn’t the Chan Clan question its authenticity and demand proof and evidence and accuse the Hung Sing people of producing unsubstantial material!? If the Hung Sing branch had recovered a picture or portrait of Cheung Hung Sing, don’t you think they would have shown it?! What possible purpose or reason could there be for wanting to conceal a portrait of one’s 1st generation great grandmaster of Choy Lay Fut?!

IS A PORTRAIT NECESSARY TO
ESTABLISH PROOF OF EXISTENCE?

The question as to WHO drew the portrait of Chan Heung is not really important as WHEN it was done. The one question that I’ve repeatedly asked is – WHY DID THE CHAN FAMILY DESCENDENTS AND CHAN CLAN ELDERS WITHHOLD SHOWING THE PORTRAIT OF CHAN HEUNG FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS AFTER HIS DEATH (1875) AND SUDDENLY AFTER THE FOUNDING OF THE “ASSOCIATION IN MEMORY OF CHAN HEUNG” IN 1971 THEY PRODUCED A PORTRAIT OF THEIR FOUNDER? It is evident that the Chan Family never had a photo or “SELF-PORTRAIT” of Chan Heung and that, they can’t deny – otherwise they would have shown it many decades before and not wait till after the “Association In Memory of Chan Heung” was established in Hong Kong before unveiling his portrait.

Past and present elders of the Hung Sing and Buck Sing branches have visited the Chan Clan schools in Hong Kong on many occasions during the 1950’s and 1960’s and they never once saw Chan Heung’s picture displayed in any of the Chan Clan schools! When the “portrait” suddenly appeared in 1971, the Chan Clan members were jubilant for at last there was a picture of the great ancestor of their Chan Family martial arts lineage and they believed it to be a genuine “self portrait” of Chan Heung.

“DECEPTION” IS NOT A MISCONCEPTION!

Some of the Hung Sing and Buck Sing elders at that time thought it was most strange that the Chan Clan was finally able to “uncover” a portrait of Chan Heung from the Chan Family’s chest of historical records almost 100 years after their great ancestor’s death! They suspected that the “portrait” wasn’t real (not a self-portrait) and later set about to solve the riddle of the mysterious portrait and the deception was uncovered. But did they go and approach the Chan Clan elders about this unscrupulous deception?

They didn’t – WHY? Because the Hung Sing and Buck Sing elders had always had a good relationship with their fellow Chan Clan brothers and they had always shown the proper mutual respect by attending each other’s functions. However, towards the latter part of the 1970’s some Chan Clan elders began to accuse the Hung Sing/Buck Sing schools of “distorting” the history of CLF because of conflicting historical facts and this resulted in arguments between the CLF clans in Hong Kong. The clan elders agreed to form the Choy Lay Fut Kung Fu International Union Ltd. as an arbitrary commission to deal fairly with disputes over controversial issues. For more clarity on this matter please review “Hong Kong’s CLF Associations” and “The Anti-Hung Sing CLF Activists”.

ANOTHER QUESTION FOR “extrajoseph”

By the way, joseph, since you’re such an ardent researcher on the history of CLF, can you tell us why the Chan Family has not come up with a portrait of Chan On Pak, Chan Heung’s 1st son!? Why didn’t they use the same photo of Chan Koon Bark (that they used to have Chan Heung’s portrait done) and do the same for On Pak? That way, father and sons will all have the exact same features (ears, nose, mouth, eyes, and cheek bones) and facial structure and yes, all face the exact dimensional direction! Please let me know when the NEW project (the “portrait” of Chan On Pak) is finished ‘because we all can’t wait to see it and it’ll be my pleasure to have it on my website alongside Chan Heung and Chan Koon Bark’s portraits.

Don’t even try to “cover up” for that CHAN HEUNG portrait ‘ because you’ll only make a bigger fool of yourself with your pathetic explanations. You say there’s a much older drawing of Chan Heung and that they (Chan Family descendents of Chan Heung) couldn’t communicate with the rest of the world at that time! You mean to tell us that Chan Heung could leave China in 1839 (or was it 1864?) on a ship on a long voyage but no one was able to smuggle that “PORTRAIT” out of China till 1971!! You say that there is an older drawing of Chan Heung – how old? And what has that got to do with my question “WHY WAS IT CONCEALED FOR ALMOST 100 YEARS?!”

fu pow SAYS, “FAKING IS VERY ZEN”!

I love the comment “fu pow” made about Chan Heung’s portrait – “even if it is true that the painting is a fake, all I understand this to mean is that the painting is a fake. Very Zen when you think about it”. (Unquote). In other words, he is telling us that it’s very ZEN for the Chan Clan to use fraudulent portraits, distort historical facts and make up fictional stories in their CLF history to rally people to their side ‘cos ALL IT REALLY MEANS IS THAT IT’S “FAKE” and that’s VERY ZEN! Are you telling us that you’re full of ZEN!?

FAKE:- To make something look GENUINE in order to DECEIVE people. Well “fu pow”, it sure is VERY ZEN – don’t you think?

ZEN:- a form of Buddhism emphasizing the value of meditation and intuition. Can you tell us what the hell you’re babbling about?

Cody to fu pow

In his reply to fu pow’s comments, Cody told him and I quote – “yet, being personally removed in time and relations from a painted or photographed image makes a difference -–TRUE? However, if and when deception occurs, there is a breach of trust: so, it’s nice to know if what we see, hear and are led to believe (by Anyone) is intentionally truthful or the result of bulls lifting their tails.” – (Unquote).