Date back of King's College: Early English Colonial Education in Hong Kong in 19th-Century Hong Kong

• (1973 King's College F.7B Science ; 1976 HKU B.Sc.)
• Version: 2026年5月20日

• Email: Lausanching2@gmail.com
• WhatsApp: +852 94103119

The objective of this research is to clarify the historical predecessor of King's College, Hong Kong. This study draws upon rigorous official and historical archives, including annual Hong Kong Blue Books, Government Gazettes, Annual Education Reports, Public Works Bureau Reports, Legislative Council Records, contemporary issues of *The New York Times*, early Hong Kong newspapers from Archive.org, annual and monthly reports from the American Missionary Association, and various historical monographs. A very small number of instances where AI assistance was used for verification are specifically noted within the text.

This document delves into and supplements several key historical segments from that period. It provides an in-depth exploration of Fung Fu's life and historical significance, examines whether early vernacular schools had school names, and investigates the existence of substantial "heritage" and institutional continuity in those early institutions. The research also addresses the mystery surrounding the Saiyingpun (English) school being listed as "newly established" in official records in 1879, and meticulously reconstructs the naming decisions and evolution of King's College. Furthermore, it records an anecdote about Ho Kom-tong at the age of 12 at Central School, explores the historical connections between Fung Fu, Dr. Sun Yat-sen, and Rev. C. R. Hager, and confirms through genealogical research that Fung Fu's wife, "Ms. Fung Kwan（187- 1）," was Kwan Yuan-chang's eldest daughter, Kwan Yuet-ming（187- 1）. The study also analyzes the marriage alliances among Chinese families at the time and examines the profound impact of the Central School dispute in 1878 on Governor John Pope Hennessy's administration.

The narrative of this research begins with the sensational Central School dispute of 1878 and Governor Hennessy's subsequent vigorous efforts to promote English language education. The historical predecessor of King's College is closely intertwined with this process of popularizing English instruction by Native teachers. Key historical figures in this development include Governor Hennessy, Inspector of Schools Dr. Eitel, Principal Fung Fu, and later Principal A. Morris. 

This research indicates that all official historical records concerning the predecessor of King's College ultimately point to the "Sanctioned Free Schools" (五所國家義學館) approved by the Secretary of State for the Colonies and published in the Government Gazette in 1880.

Kwan Yuan-chang (1832–1912), originally named Zhenrong, was a native of Panyu, Canton. He was a pioneer of modern dentistry in China and is revered as the "Father of Chinese Dentistry." Sun Yat-sen regarded him as a foster father.

Kwan Yuan-chang was born into a Christian family in Canton. His father, Kwan Ri (courtesy name Yunzhu, 1797–1863), was the first Chinese Christian pastor and one of the ten disciples of Liang Fa, a missionary of the London Missionary Society. After the First Opium War, Kwan Ri moved his family to British Hong Kong. There, Kwan Yuan-chang worked as a handyman and in printing at the Anglo-Chinese College, which was run by the London Missionary Society. He later studied Western dentistry under Dr. Columbus, an American dentist and missionary, becoming the first registered Chinese dentist and earning the title "Father of Chinese Dentistry." In 1870, he returned to Canton to practice, eventually settling back in Hong Kong. Besides his medical practice, he was deeply involved in the affairs of the London Missionary Society, actively participating in the relocation of the Tai Shek Chu Church and the establishment of the To Tsai Church in Hong Kong.

Kwan Yuan-chang's wife, Lai A Mei, was born into the prominent Li clan of Xiqiao, Nanhai. She was the first matron of Alice Ho Miu Ling Nethersole Hospital and Hong Kong's first Chinese female nurse. Together, they had ten sons and five daughters. Many of their children and subsequent generations achieved prominence in various fields.

Their eldest daughter, Kwan Yuet Ming (1858–1913), was devoted to the church. Their eldest son, Kwan King Wan (1860–1923), graduated from Nanyang Naval Academy and served as a battleship first mate and customs officer. Their fourth son, Kwan King Yin (1867–1919), became an imperial physician and director of the Beiyang Naval Hospital. Among King Yin's sons were Kwan Sung Sing (1892–1960), a prominent architect and founder of K.T. Engineering Co., and Kwan Sung T'ao (1896–1980), a pioneer of neurosurgery in China.

Their fifth son, Kwan King Leung (1869–1945), was a physician, a co-founder of the Chinese Medical Association, and a close friend of Sun Yat-sen. His first wife, Li Yue'e, was introduced by Sun Yat-sen. His daughter, Kwan Wai Heng, married Cheng Yoon-tin, and their son, James K. M. Cheng (born 1947), is a Canadian architect. Their third daughter, Kwan Yuet Ying (1870–1962), was the first female elder of Daoji Church and a midwife. Her sons, Yung Chi Chao (1898–1970) and Yung Chi Tung (1908–1987), became distinguished chemists and botanists, respectively, with significant academic careers in Hong Kong.

Their sixth son, Kwan King Chung (1873–1923), served as a customs officer. His daughter, Margaret Kwan Fu Shing, married a prominent Singaporean doctor, Hu Zai Kun, and their son, Richard Hu Tsu Tau (born 1926), later served as Singapore's Minister for Finance and Health. Another descendant, Kevin Kwan (born 1973), is an American author. Their eighth son, Kwan King Sun (1878–1948), graduated from Cornell University and served as director of the Canton Provincial Department of Industry. His granddaughter is the American actress Nancy Kwan Ka Shen (born 1939).

 Their tenth son, Kwan King Fai (1883–1943), after an early plot to assassinate Empress Dowager Cixi, studied in the US and later held various government positions in the Republic of China.

The earliest historical document recording the West Point school is a report written by Reverend William Lobscheid in January 1859, titled "A few notices on the extent of Chinese education and the Government Schools of Hongkong, etc." In this report, Lobscheid stated: "The school at West Point was established under very unfavorable circumstances. There were few families living about where the school was opened; most of the pupils had therefore to come from Tai-ping-shan and its neighbourhood. Besides, the teacher was a very illiterate man, full of cunning and deception. Finding that his ignorance could no longer be concealed, he engaged another man to explain the Four Books for him. To this I strongly objected, because no respectable man would teach a school for four to five dollars a month, and that was the greatest amount he could earn. I therefore desired his removal. He was the last who tried the old tricks of ruining the school by seducing the pupils under false promises. As the means which they generally employed were illegal, I informed the teachers that transgressors of British laws should be summarily punished. This largely put a stop to the unceasing intrigues surrounding their dismissal from Government service. The teacher appointed in place of Cha was a member of the London Missionary Society’s congregation. He is not a very learned man, but is able to explain the principal Chinese schoolbooks with great facility; and I am happy to state that the number of pupils now amounts to 61, of whom about 52 were always present when I visited the school."

Further historical records from "The Chinese Serial" (《遐邇貫珍》) shed light on the early establishment of free schools. In March 1856, the publication recorded an expenditure of "Silver Dollars---$ 658.17 " for various free schools. An earlier entry in "The Chinese Serial" from June 1855 profoundly documented the Hong Kong government's initial intent and background for setting up these institutions, stating that "Since the opening of the port by Great Britain, the Crown has established free schools in villages to enlighten children, out of compassion and unwillingness to see them remain uneducated..."

According to the 1857 Government Gazette, Victoria City was officially divided into seven sub-districts. Geographically, West Point (西點/西角) was considered a village and a key landmark within the Saiyingpun (西營盤) area. This often led to the interchangeable use of these two names in early documents. For instance, the Gazette specified: "The District of Victoria is divided into Seven Sub-districts. No. 1, Or SEI-YING-POON — From the small village Westward, called Cowee-wan, to the end of Circular Buildings, including all the houses on Bonham Strand, West of No. 1 Police Boat Station." — By Order, Colonial Secretary’s Office, 6th May 1857.

By 1872, the original West Point School was formally renamed Saiyingpun School. This was purely a name change, essentially a direct extension of the same institution. There was a seamless transition, as the school's staff salaries, teacher establishment, and student body remained unchanged. Although the specific reason for the name change is not detailed in official archives, the Saiyingpun School of 1872 was fundamentally a direct institutional continuation of the West Point School of 1871.

In 1858, the Hong Kong colonial government officially stipulated that fees charged by teachers in government-funded schools were strictly limited, allowing only a symbolic 'tea money.' This marked the beginning of free education. In December of the same year, the government, via Gazette No. 100, allocated £125 for the construction of Chinese school premises. A regulation in 1858 specified that each student was to pay the teacher only 25 copper cash per month. For context on contemporary prices, by 1876, one catty of white rice cost approximately 3 cents, and one silver dollar was equivalent to approximately 1100 copper cash.

Vernacular schools at the time were categorized into three types: Private schools (私塾), which received no government funding; Aided Village Schools, jointly funded by the government and villagers; and Government Schools / Free Schools, which were fully funded by the government. The government viewed Aided Village Schools as institutions where teachers were selected by the villagers themselves, and part of their salaries was paid in kind by the community. According to an 1870 report, half of the teachers' salaries in these aided village schools came from the government (approximately sixty dollars per year), with the other half expected from villagers in kind. An 1887 report further detailed that the villagers' contribution was roughly 30 copper cash and 3 catties of rice per month, valued at approximately 12 cents. This practice of paying salaries in kind was considered a traditional Chinese custom.

Improving the quality of local teachers remained a persistent challenge. Teachers in aided schools often struggled to collect full tuition fees due to local poverty, and friction arose between villagers and the government over school premises rent. Early village school teachers had diverse and sometimes questionable backgrounds, with some reportedly involved in fortune-telling, banditry, or falsifying attendance records. Although the government had the authority to veto appointments, these teachers often held significant influence within their villages. An 1871 report described a dispute at Pok Fu Lam School, where villagers refused to replace a teacher deemed by the government to have misconducted himself. This tug-of-war among villagers, traditional teachers, and the government only began to ease after 1876.

An 1887 report thoroughly analyzed the impact of child labor and family circumstances on school attendance in Hong Kong at the time. It identified key contributing factors such as domestic chores, bond-servitude for girls purchased as domestic servants, and fishing work in some villages.

The 1864 education report noted significant fluctuations in attendance at Chinese schools in Hong Kong. Attendance peaked annually from Chinese New Year until May, after which it steadily declined. Enrollment data at the time revealed a very high proportion of new students: 10 out of 21 students in one school, 12 out of 22 in another, and as many as 40 out of 51 in a third. Many students from the previous year did not return, ultimately only able to memorize a few hundred Chinese characters without understanding their meaning. The report attributed this to the fact that respectable Chinese residents rarely brought their families to settle in Hong Kong. It concluded that until this situation changed, educational development in Hong Kong would struggle to achieve anticipated progress.

The 1868 report (Article 56) refuted external accusations that the government's education system was 'immoral'. The report emphasized that while secular education was promoted at the time, and village schools purely taught Confucian principles, this was by no means immoral. Although Confucianism might have lacked a religious dimension, its overall orientation was towards promoting good. In terms of secular life, its moral system was considered no less robust than any ancient or modern ethical framework.

The 1870 report clearly categorized the school system into three types: Central School, government-funded Village Schools, and Grants-in-aid schools. There were 12 government-funded village schools at the time. After assessments of teaching effectiveness, their operational efficiency was ranked as follows, with Sai Ying Pun alone accounting for two of the top positions: Second place went to Sai Ying Pun Local (Sai-ying P’ún, Pún-ti), and third place to Sai Ying Pun Hakka  (Sai-ying P’ún, Hak-ka). These schools exclusively used Chinese textbooks, and their teaching methods were identical to those of traditional private village schools in mainland China.

In 1871, Inspector Frederick Stewart vividly described the traditional 'reading aloud' environment in Chinese schools in his report (Article 9): "It was customary in Chinese schools for students to shout out their lessons at the top of their voices. My entrance was often taken by students as a signal to demonstrate diligence. Unaccustomed to this deafening din, my first reaction was surprise, and my second, anger. I shouted 'Silence!', but this was tacitly understood by the students as 'Read louder!' After several attempts to restore order only resulted in louder noise, I retreated almost in despair to one of the junior classrooms, where I divided the children into smaller groups for more manageable interaction."

The 1873 report stated that, apart from the Central School, all other government schools, totaling 29, were collectively referred to as 'Village Schools'. Of these, 15 were fully funded and controlled by the government; the remaining 14 received an annual subsidy of 60 silver dollars, with villagers responsible for providing school premises and covering half of the teachers' salaries. However, in practice (Article 4), teachers were often forced to deduct school rent from their meager government subsidies, and the other half of their salaries promised by villagers was frequently in arrears. In many extremely poor villages, a teacher earning 5 silver dollars a month was considered well-off. This explained why villagers were reluctant to contribute financially to their children's education. Yet, due to the villagers' strong insistence on their right to select teachers, they would agree to all conditions before a school opened. Once the school was successfully established and teachers were exhausted by their inability to pay rent, villagers would then cite poverty as a reason to demand additional subsidies from the government. By 1874 (Article 10), this discontent gradually subsided.

The 1875 report (Article 6) documented the decline of some previously prosperous schools due to population migration, following two major fires and the relocation of boat dwellers to Causeway Bay. Many villagers at the time even believed that allowing their children to attend school was 'bestowing a favor' upon the government. Regarding curriculum (Article 11), in addition to geography, which was introduced in 1873, the first three volumes of new textbooks compiled by the School Book Committee were implemented in 1874 with significant success. The new subjects were taught effectively without compromising the traditional Chinese curriculum. As for 'Arithmetic,' it was not adopted that year for two reasons: firstly, there was insufficient time to compile suitable Chinese arithmetic textbooks; secondly, the innovations in the educational system within that year were considered sufficient, and it was deemed inappropriate to add further burdens. However, arithmetic was not forgotten and would be incorporated into the curriculum when the time was right.

• 1876 (Para 5): Issues with Village School efficiency were addressed, specifically tackling the habit of masters neglecting sustained effort throughout the year in favor of only working hard at the end.
• 1877: The Sai Ying-p'in schools suffered due to forced relocation and delays in building a new school-house, highlighting the delicate nature of native schools and the significant impact of external circumstances.
• 1878: The Aberdeen school was closed due to a teacher's incompetence and neglect, leading parents to prefer paying for other schooling options over free, neglected education.
• 1879 (Para 6): It was expressed that government-run Chinese schools in town were unnecessary and competed poorly with native educational efforts. Additionally, the scope of the Grant-in-aid Scheme was expanded by removing the "elementary" restriction.
• 1883 (Para 14): A report from Sir John Douglas (Ceylon Times) considered reducing government intervention in education, favoring a shift towards supporting voluntary, Grant-in-Aid institutions over directly funded schools.

“Early Hong Kong vernacular schools ( –1879) operated similar to private tutoring centers where patronage followed specific teachers rather than institutions, leading to a lack of institutional continuity when teachers departed. A shift occurred in 1879 with Fung Fu's appointment by Dr. Eitel, establishing a new model of school heritage that began as one of the five sanctioned schools in 1880, distinct from earlier, fragmented schooling .“

"We all have a concept of school heritage. Government schools and mission schools each possess their own unique characteristics and traditions; it is this very heritage that we are discussing here."

“Foreigners may know something of other matters, especially if they have reference to trade, but, in the matter of education, the dullest villager and the most ignorant boat-woman loudly proclaim their superiority, without the slightest suspicion of its being questioned. They know exactly what books their children are to read, and when and how they are to be read, the opinion of all foreigners to the contrary notwithstanding.” ---1870 Education Report

"...Early vernacular schools, even government free schools, were inherently similar to other Chinese schools under the Qing Dynasty. When a teacher left, everything started from scratch, leaving no institutional heritage behind."

“8. The appointment to the school in Battery Road was successful in every way, and was so from the first, although it was feared that there would be a falling off at the start, so difficult is it to calculate beforehand what will be the effect of a change of master.”   -1875 Education Report

"When a teacher left, even the Inspector of Schools could not foresee its future enrollment situation." 

“8. A new master was appointed to the school at Little Hongkong in the month of March, and the grant was continued, with the understanding that on the next complaint it would be permanently withdrawn. The villagers have, this time, got a man of a very different temper from that of the previous one, who would not bate a tittle of his rights. The present master makes no complaints,but it is currently reported and generally believed in Aberdeen and other adjacent places that,instead of receiving anything, he has to give monthly presents to certain of the villagers for the privilege of getting their children to teach. The school has improved considerably under the present master. In order of efficiency it was last on the list in 1872. It is now twentieth, but it will be long before it is in a very satisfactory state, if the people continue to do as they have been doing.

 11. The schools at Sai-ying Pún, Shéung Wán， Tái Wong Kung， Wántsai and Sháu-kí Wán come next in order. At these, the attendance is very large and very regular. At no place has the advantage of a good master been so evident as at Sháu-kí Wán. Three years ago, it had become a question whether any further attempt should be made to maintain a school in the village. When a Hákká master was appointed,failure was attributed to the indifference of the people. When he was succeeded by a Púnti,similar excuses were never wanting. Under the present master,both Púntis and Hákkás avail themselves of the school, and express themselves as highly satisfied. If the people were more straightforward when anything is really amiss with a school, salutary changes would be effected more rapidly; but, as a rule, they are studiously silent until their information is no longer of any use.”—1873 Education Report

In their essence, early vernacular schools, even government ones, were virtually no different from other Chinese schools during the Qing Dynasty. When a teacher left, everything started from scratch, leaving no school heritage behind. 

 When Fung Fu took over A. Fong's students from 1^st Feb.1879 and stepped into his classroom, the school became something entirely different. Fung Fu established an experimental school for the Inspector of Schools, Dr. Eitel.

 All historical timelines date back to the five new sanctioned schools approved by the Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1880. King’s college date-back has nothing to do with West Point, and tracing the school's lineage any further back before 1879 is fundamentally invalid.

In all educational reports, Hakka Free Schools and Punti Free Schools were consistently listed as independent entities, not subordinate to each other. Therefore, it is inaccurate to refer to them as Hakka and Punti sections "部." Early free schools in Hong Kong generally did not have formal names, often being identified by their location, such as "the free school at West Point." When a location hosted both Punti and Hakka free schools, they were distinguished by the language of instruction.

In 1858, following a suggestion from William Lobscheid, the colonial government allocated £125 to establish "Chinese Schools," as recorded in the Gazette on November 6, 1858. Examples of these early institutions include schools at West Point, Webster’s Bazaar, Bowrington, and Tang-lung-chow, mentioned in reports from 1860 and 1861, with the West Point school specifically noted again in 1864. A report from 1865 stated, "Here, as at West Point, a new and commodious School-room was opened last year. In the same building with this School there is also one for Hakkas, which has suffered very severely from the removal of the houses." This indicates that while a Hakka school might have shared a building, it remained a distinct entity. The Hakka school at West Point only began recording enrollments in 1866, with a minimum attendance of three students, which helped alleviate earlier concerns about its potential relocation to Kowloon.

A significant structural change occurred in 1902 under Edward A. Irving. Prior to this, Vernacular Schools in areas like Sai Ying Pun and Wan Tsai operated under the same roofs as English Schools but were not otherwise formally connected. By April 1902, these English and Vernacular Schools were formally linked, becoming what were then known as Anglo-Chinese Schools. In this new structure, the Vernacular School functioned as the Lower School, and the English School as the Upper School, as detailed in the 1902 Education Report.

Governor J. Pope Hennessy believed that promoting English education was a crucial responsibility of colonial governments. He stated on February 11, 1878, that "in the great Empire of England an important duty of colonial Governments was to spread the language of England throughout the British colonies. Over and over again we have been told, and I heard it from an authority the other day to whose practical opinion I attach some weight, that in that respect the English Government is supposed rightly to imitate the ancient Government of Rome, and wherever it goes throughout the world it imposes its civilisation by beginning with its language."

The "Central School Dispute" began to unfold with public scrutiny. A letter to the Editor of the "CHINA MAIL," dated June 8, 1877, from "A.B.C.," expressed concern that Governor Hennessy had shown great interest in denominational schools but had not yet visited the Government Central School. The author questioned whether the Governor was forming opinions solely based on the experiences of the episcopate, calling such a supposition "preposterous." The letter noted that previous governors, Sir Arthur Kennedy and Sir Richard MacDonnell, had been strong supporters of the Central School, and expressed hope that the new administrator would not deviate from this path.

Hennessy eventually made his first visit to the Central School on Saturday, January 5, 1878. During a subsequent inspection on January 25, 1878, he recounted: "I visited one large classroom, indeed a sort of double classroom, on the other side of that passage. In that room I should think there must have been a hundred and fifty Chinese youths who were being instructed by three Chinese teachers. They were reading the Chinese classics. I found that the three Chinese teachers who were instructing them in the Chinese classics had themselves no knowledge whatever of the English language. These three Chinese teachers spoke no English; and of the pupils in that particular classroom not one could speak English." Hennessy was dismayed to find that neither the three Chinese teachers nor the more than one hundred students in the classroom could communicate with him in English. This was particularly concerning given that the Central School's educational expenses accounted for 65% of the entire colonial education budget. He then asked Frederick Stewart, the headmaster and Inspector of Schools, "How many of the boys now in the school speak English?" Stewart replied, "From fifty to sixty; and that imperfectly."

A month later, at a Prize Day event at St. Joseph's College, Mr. J.J. Francis added fuel to the fire. He stated, "I was astonished to find that, at the recent examination of the Central School, only forty or fifty of the boys had been learning English, or were able to speak any English at all." This statement, reported in the China Mail on February 9, 1878, under the headline "Prize Day at St. Joseph's College," and followed by "Failure of Central School" on February 11, sparked controversy. The China Mail noted, "We will address the Governor’s speech, which unfortunately contained a similar fallacy, in more detail later. It is peculiar that he did not correct the unfair and unjust impression created by Mr. Francis’s misleading remarks." Although Mr. Francis's assertion was not entirely accurate, Hennessy, who was present, did not correct it and seemed to agree, leading to widespread media coverage. Frederick Stewart later commented on the public perception: "The belief now abroad in the Colony is that no attempt is made at the Central School to teach more than fifty or sixty of the boys English; and that the study of that language is subordinated to the study of Chinese, which both the English and the Chinese masters devote their time and their energies to teach. Indeed, it is difficult to see how people could believe otherwise, considering that Mr. Francis, as appears above, stated at St. Joseph’s College on the 9th instant, that he was astonished to find that only forty or fifty of the boys at the Central School were being taught English, and that His Excellency practically endorsed the statement by allowing it to pass unchallenged although touching upon it."

The escalating dispute led to a flurry of correspondence. In just two months, Governor J. Pope Hennessy, Frederick Stewart, and the Colonial Secretary exchanged 19 letters, as recorded in the 1878 Gazette No. 31. Hennessy instructed Stewart to postpone his leave to England, asking, "Could you not therefore postpone your departure for a fortnight?" He demanded a list of all government school students and teachers who could speak English. Stewart immediately replied, "Accordingly, when the Central School was established, the teaching of English was abolished in all the other Schools." He also expressed difficulty in changing his travel plans: "I had to telegraph to Shanghai to secure a passage for the 21st instant, and I have no chance. I should, of course, at once sacrifice my own to be able to get one by the following steamer." Governor Hennessy further demanded a report on the English proficiency of every student at the Central School. Stewart submitted a list of 453 scholars, stating that "336 pupils cannot be said to 'speak English' at all." Hennessy scrutinized the report, questioning, for instance, why one student, enrolled for only 22 months, was listed as having studied English at the Central School for 10 years and 2 months. He then requested the Acting Inspector of Schools, E.J. Eitel, to review the report for any further errors before resubmission.

Frederick Stewart continued to challenge Hennessy's stance. He voted against the fifth clause in the Education Committee, which would have allowed Central School students to decide for themselves whether to study Chinese. Stewart also ultimately compelled Hennessy to issue a public clarification in the Gazette.

Sir John Pope Hennessy KCMG (August 8, 1834 – October 7, 1891) was an Irish politician and colonial administrator. He served as the eighth Governor of Hong Kong from 1877 to 1882 and later as the fifteenth Governor of Mauritius from 1883 to 1889. Although his governorship in Hong Kong was relatively brief, he was noted for demonstrating a traditional British humanitarian spirit and for reforming English education in the colony.

As an Irishman, Hennessy faced prejudice from the British, who I think, viewed him as a "potato and onion-eating native" attempting a "royal" accent with an Irish brogue. Upon his arrival in Hong Kong, he was constantly ridiculed by the English media. His unconventional actions, such as immediately visiting the bishop and kneeling before him (disregarding tradition), drew press criticism. He was also criticized in newspapers in mid-1877 for prioritizing church visits over inspecting the Central School. Furthermore, his review of the inhumane practice of flogging and his stance on it were mocked by newspapers as "starting with a roar but ending with a whimper." His authority was consistently challenged by the British media in Hong Kong.

Early colonial officials often exhibited a dual nature and should not be conflated with later, less significant figures like police officers chasing hawkers. The Legislative Council of that era was an arena where prominent Chinese families vied with British power. A comparison of English and Chinese newspapers from the period reveals two entirely different perspectives: Chinese newspapers focused primarily on turmoil inside mainland China and generally disliked the British. This context somewhat reflects the political activities of Fung Fu after his retirement. In a related vein, during Fung Fu's time, Irish immigrants in America had settled earlier than Chinese immigrants. These Irish immigrants, often impoverished and living in slums, were known for assaulting Chinese coolies. It is suggested that Fung Fu, while selling cigars in New York streets, likely had confrontations with them.

Hennessy's subsequent inspection of the Central School proved controversial, leading to the widely circulated joke that "only a few dozen students at the Central School could speak English." He clashed with Inspector of Schools  , F. Stewart, who was also the headmaster of the Central School. This incident severely damaged Hennessy's authority and had a profound impact, not only leading to the later establishment of Sai Ying Pun (English) but also demonstrating the ineffectiveness of his humanitarian policies during his tenure. The history of King's College's predecessor carries special political significance and is distinct from Queen's College; they cannot be compared, at least before 1928.

According to a December 25, 1883, article in the Hong Kong Daily Press, the Japan Mail appeared to be developing a more accurate assessment of Sir John Pope Hennessy’s administration in Hong Kong. The Japan Mail had recently commented on an article from the Mauritius Argus, which hailed Sir John as the "liberator of the Creoles." While not fully endorsing the Argus's views, the Japan Mail acknowledged that "disaffection and hatred can be the only results of creating political aspirations which it is impossible to gratify." The Hong Kong Daily Press noted that this accurately described Sir John’s actions in Hong Kong and might prove to be an accurate assessment of his actions in Mauritius.

The Hong Kong Daily Press expressed hope that Her Majesty’s Government would reach a conclusion that would lead them to no longer entrust the important duties of a governor to such an individual. The Japan Mail, however, still credited the former governor with good intentions, stating that "Sir John’s aim was to remove, as far as possible, the municipal and political disabilities under which the Chinese residents labour." It further cited the "fundamental principle of British civilization that men who pay taxes ought to have a voice in their disposal." While acknowledging the complexities of balancing the claims of Chinese and English residents, the Japan Mail article asserted that the equalization of those claims should be the ultimate goal of a just administration.

The Japan Mail questioned the true extent of the municipal and political disabilities of Hong Kong's Chinese residents and the hardships faced by Creoles in Mauritius. It suggested that Sir John Pope Hennessy manufactured imaginary grievances and then took credit for addressing them, appearing to follow the same course in Mauritius. He was characterized as a "professional philanthropist" who exploited humanity's finest instincts for personal ambition and notoriety. The Japan Mail believed that Sir John’s actions in Hong Kong had led to disaffection and hatred, and that the Creoles in Mauritius were not under any disabilities.

The Argus, a journal supporting Sir John, had reported that when a Creole doctor in government service named an English doctor as his locum tenens during a leave of absence, the governor expressed displeasure. The Japan Mail interpreted this as the Creoles seeing their new governor as anti-English, stating that his attitude "is interpreted by this class as indicating a desire to give Mauritius to the Mauritians," or, in other words, to grant the Creoles political liberty and representative institutions.

While "political liberty and representative institutions" sounded appealing, the article argued that in a Crown colony, such possessions must remain under the control of the home government. It suggested that such colonies should be given full control over their purely municipal affairs, which Mauritians already possessed. Natural racial distinctions, it noted, had always existed and would continue to exist, but there were no political racial distinctions in Mauritius, except those implied by the island being a British possession while its people were French in language and sympathy. The political aspirations of the Creoles, if any, tended in that direction. They had not been actively disaffected to the British Crown, but they were "at heart French." The article concluded that it was injudicious for the English government to send a governor whose past history had shown he would lose no opportunity of fomenting discontent and impressing upon them the idea that they were a "hardly used race" among such a population. This sentiment was echoed by Hong Kong's English newspapers, which mocked Hennessy when he accepted local demands for self-governance after his transfer to Mauritius.

Following these criticisms, Sir John Pope Hennessy resolved to replace the preparatory or junior classes of the Central School with “the five sanctioned schools”. These schools were intended to "take the place of the Central School in giving an Elementary Education" and ensure that "with regard to the other Government Schools entirely supported by Government, arrangements be made, as soon as possible, to teach the boys English in all of them." Coincidentally, E.J. Eitel met Fung Fu, who had just returned to Hong Kong, and recommended him to head this new, experimental District Government School in Sai Ying Pun (English).

In the 1879 Education Report published in the 1880 Gazette (108), Fung Fu's new school was still referred to as Sai Ying Pun (Punti), but in the grading, "Sai Ying Pun (English)" was used for the first time. Before 1879, the colonial government had never established such kinds of schools. Another similar school, Wan Chai (English), only appeared in 1885. Although Fung Fu utilized the old site on Third Street, it was now a "national free school"—one of five new government free schools in Hong Kong intended to "replace the existing Central School in teaching elementary students." Fung Fu indeed taught using the teaching methods of "teaching elementary students in Central School."

Governor Hennessey's new policies on education included several key initiatives. One such initiative involved a public examination to select the best teacher to serve as headmaster and English teacher at Wong Nai Chung. Among the seven candidates was 18-year-old Ho Tung. An assessment noted that "all except Ho Tung were ignorant of the art of asking questions in English." However, Chan Man Kwong ultimately won the position, though he resigned after only two years.

In September 1880, a normal school was established in Wan Chai, utilizing a government elementary school, with the aim of training Chinese English teachers. A.J. May was appointed as its headmaster. However, this teacher training institution operated for only two years (1881 Education Report).

 Additionally, Fung Fu was assigned to Sai Ying Pun to teach English on a voluntary basis, leading to the establishment of an experimental district school.

Further reforms included altering the class schedule at Central School to dedicate five hours daily to English instruction.

 Hennessey also lobbied the British Crown for the construction of five new schools. Though the first physical construction of the “five sanctioned schools” was carried on long after his retirement. It was the Saiyingpun School new site at the High Street in 1910. 

Of course, the most important reform was the code of Aided Religion Schools. Because of its complexity, I do not prepare to handle here.

Fung Fu's 23 years at Sai Ying Pun School began upon his return to Hong Kong when he met Dr. Ernst J. Eitel, who recommended him for the headmaster position. Eitel, a pastor of the London Missionary Society (LMS), belonged to Congregationalism, as did the American Missionary Society and the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions (ABCFM), with whom Fung Fu had connections. This connection to Eitel and the LMS would later prove more significant for Fung Fu than his origins with the American missionary association. Soon after his return, Fung Fu married Kuan Yue-ming, the eldest daughter of Kwan Yuan-chang, an elder of To Tsai Church.

An American missionary report from 1888 mentioned a "Wong Ock" busy in Christian work, preaching in a Gospel Hall in Hong Kong under Dr. Eitel's direction. Eitel noted that one of Wong Ock's hearers offered himself for baptism after only three weeks of work.

Fung Fu took office on February 1, 1879, and within a year, his school received high praise. At the government schools, except Central School awards ceremony in February 1880, Eitel commended Fung Fu's school as the best to Governor Hennessy. Eitel stated, "Considering these Anglo-Chinese Schools first, I found that the English School kept by Mr. Fung Fú in Third Street, Sai-ying-p’ún, should be classified as the best school. I am confident that the examination results from this school are fully comparable to those of the Central School in corresponding classes." He explained that the school, which opened in early 1879 with about 61 pupils, initially offered both English and Chinese instruction, but after a few months, nearly all parents opted for English only. Eitel was surprised by the "exceptionally high results" when he examined the children according to Grant-in-aid Schedule standards, acknowledging Fung Fu's collegiate education in America and his competence as a teacher.

By 1883, the Anglo-Chinese Government Schools, including Sai Ying Pun, Wan Tsai, Stanley, and Wong Nai Chung, continued to show good results. A report from that year specifically highlighted Sai Ying Pun School's performance: "Out of 52 boys examined in Standards I, II and III, 49 passed, the three failures being in Standard I. Of the total number none failed in reading, 3 in dictation, 8 in arithmetic; of the 32 examined in geography 1 failed; while the 9 that presented grammar all passed with great credit." The report concluded that the school provided "a very thorough education and obtained a remarkably high average of ‘very good’ marks," and that Fung Fu's "excellent discipline maintained... throughout the year, places his school far ahead of the other Government District Schools." The report, however, regretted that Fung Fu lacked "a more commodious and healthy building in which to give his abilities freer scope."

The high cost of English teaching, requiring imported trained masters, expensive materials, and European accommodation, was a general challenge for schools in the Colony. Despite this, Sai Ying Pun School's students excelled. In August 1883, the Acting Inspector of Schools observed that some boys from district schools, including Sai Ying Pun, had sufficient English knowledge for advanced study. To address the deterrent of a $1 monthly fee, he suggested a competition for four annual free scholarships at a higher school. Governor Hennessy approved, and three of the four elected boys were from Sai Ying Pun, all passing their examinations creditably, with one securing the first prize in the 6th class.

Sai Ying Pun (English) was consistently rated as Rank 1 in education annual reports until 1890, when such ratings ceased to be published. In September 1881, Mr. Alfred J. May was appointed headmaster of the new Normal School, and students from Sai Ying Pun School could compete with those from Central School for entry. In December 1881, one pupil from Sai Ying Pun School was among the ten students who satisfactorily passed their probation examination for the Normal School, alongside nine from the Central School. Sai Ying Pun (English) were noted to "provide the same type of education as the lower half of the Central School" and served as "feeders to the Central School," making good progress in 1884. Eitel reiterated in 1885 that these schools "showed decidedly good results," and that their brightest students could become monitors and pupil-teachers, eventually serving as teachers in their own villages. By 1887, Fung Fu's eighth year in office, Eitel's assessment had shifted slightly, noting that "The examinations of these schools showed fair results."

In 1890, Fung Fu moved the school to new premises at the junction of High Street and Pok Fu Lam Road, which provided "Three class rooms... fitted up to accommodate 186 children," addressing the previous accommodation concerns. However, by 1893, government schools faced increasing competition from grant-in-aid schools. While government schools generally had better facilities, they began to experience problems similar to those of King's College in later years. Although the Anglo-Chinese Schools at Sai Ying Pun, Wan Tsai, and Wong Nai Chung still showed "very fair results and are greatly appreciated by the people," the report highlighted "insufficiency or unsuitability of the accommodation and in the almost total absence of properly trained teachers" as main difficulties. Grant-in-aid schools, whose teachers' salaries and promotions depended on their efficiency, were seen as more painstaking. This led to declining attendance in some government schools, resulting in the closure of eleven schools on January 1, 1893, and two more later that year, if they had fewer than 25 scholars and other schools were nearby. Grant-in-aid schools often stepped in to fill the gap.

By 1895, Fung Fu's sixteenth year of teaching, the Inspector of Schools began to view these government schools as a burden. The report noted that "The teachers of these Schools are natives who have had no special technical training," and suggested that if "voluntary effort would take up the work in these places, the Government might well confine its efforts in the sphere of Anglo-Chinese education to the working of Queen’s College." Eitel remained Inspector in 1896, but in 1897, the new Inspector, A. W. Brewin, explicitly stated, "I do not consider the work done by them as effective as that done by Grant-in-Aid Schools." This shift in perception might be what A. Morris referred to in 1928 when he mentioned that "at one time it was proposed to close it down."

Despite these growing criticisms, Sai Ying Pun School still showed good results in some areas. In March 1899, ten boys competed for Free Scholarships at Queen’s College, and two of the four awarded scholarships went to students educated at Sai Ying Pun School, demonstrating continued academic strength.

However, in 1901, Inspector Edward A. Irving initiated a reform of several government district schools. He found Sai Ying Pun, Wan Tsai, and Yaumati schools to be "in as nearly a satisfactory state as can be expected so long as English subjects are taught exclusively by Chinese," but recommended a "complete reorganization." His assessment of Fung Fu's school in 1902 was particularly critical: "At Wan Tsai and Sai Ying Pun (English Schools), English, Arithmetic, and Geography were taught up to the Fourth Standard. The study of the Chinese Written Language was entirely neglected, and in consequence scholars in the uppermost class were quite incapable of composing a few sentences correctly in their own language. Being what they were—schools professing to teach English—an equally serious fault was that from lowest to highest Standard the practice of colloquial English was almost entirely neglected." Irving's negative opinion of Fung Fu seemed long-standing, as he reportedly made a joke about Fung Fu being a long-lived pensioner at a 1924 event, implying a dismissive attitude.

Fung Fu retired on February 1, 1903, and began receiving his pension from February 13. His annual salary before a demotion was $720, with a housing allowance of $72 per year. However, after William took office on December 25, 1902, Fung Fu was demoted to 1st Assistant Master, with a salary of $624, which was his final working salary. He began receiving a pension of $336.4 on February 16, 1903. In 1928, Fung Fu was notably absent from the official guest list for the opening ceremony of King's College, presided over by Governor Clementi, despite over 2,000 guests attending.

When W.H. Williams was appointed, Government English Schools were already headed by European Masters. A European Master was a colonial-era position, recruited in the UK with teaching qualifications. For example, A. Morris held an A.C.P. Assessment Practising Certificate (UK/Specialist teaching), which was two levels below a Bachelor of Arts degree. According to the 1929 Education Report, "English Masters [were] usually appointed from England… successful candidates being required, after graduation, to take an Education Diploma Course in England before coming out to the Colony."

These European Masters enjoyed significant benefits. After three years of service, they were entitled to a six-month holiday in England, traveling first-class by steamer with their wives. Their starting salary was £270 per annum, and a first-class return steamer ticket cost approximately £88 per person. They also received European-style accommodation and an annual Chinese language tutoring allowance of $180. For comparison, in 1878, Central School hired its fourth assistant master with a monthly salary of $120 and a housing allowance of $30 (1878 Gazette No. 32).

W.H. Williams taught until January 1, 1905, when he was transferred to Victoria British School as headmaster, resigning in December of the same year.

 A. Morris was appointed on May 12 of the same year, following a vacuum of several months during which student numbers significantly declined. At the 1906 English Government School prize-giving day, A. Morris complained to the Governor, stating: "My tenure of office has been from the end of June. At the commencement of the summer vacation, I submitted a report on the unsatisfactory condition in which I found the school. The staff consists of 3 Anglo-Chinese assistants, a vernacular master, and myself. The number in attendance throughout the year has been very poor, the highest monthly average being 49 and the lowest 35, while the average for the year is only 44."

From A. Morris's era onwards, the role of the three main English government schools became more prominent. Governor Matthew Nathan stated in 1906: "We have also commenced to raise the general standard of that establishment by doing away with its lowest classes and making the three principal Anglo-Chinese Schools (Wantsai, Saiyingpun, Yaumetei) feeders for Queen’s College." Additionally, "Two free scholars are yearly admitted from Aberdeen into Saiyingpun School, and from Tanglungchan into Wantsai School."

A. Morris developed Scouting activities and the St. John Ambulance Brigade, both of which were highly valued by colonial officials. Ho Kom-tong consequently became a major supporter of Saiyingpun School. Scouting activities included a grand inaugural parade in November 1921.

 The "inauguration ceremony of the Saiyingpun School Boy Scouts (7th Hongkong Troop) was held on the University Football Ground, Pok Fu Lam, yesterday afternoon in the presence of a large gathering of the parents and friends of the boys, including Mr. Ho Kom-tong, the Patron of the Troop." The 1922 Prize Distribution Day report noted: "Our Scouts attended at Government House during the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, when Patrol Leader Lo Kwok Chung was decorated by H.R.H. with the gilt cross for gallantry in saving a boy from drowning at Kennedy Town bathing beach."

A major bus accident occurred at Un Long Bridge in 1924, involving a number of scouts. The 1924 Education Report stated: "Under the able leadership of Scout-master Kong, assisted by assistant Scout-masters Lam and Lau, good scout work has been done. Successful camps were held at Sai Wan, Taipo Market, Telegraph Bay, Pinewood, and Tsin Wan. During the Tsing Ming holidays a number of scouts were involved in a motor-bus collision, on the Castle Peak Road, while proceeding to camp at Un Long. Three were injured—one fatally. The accident, which cast a gloom over scouting, evoked world-wide sympathy. A special letter of commendation, addressed to Scout Master Kong, for devotion to duty and endurance under great trial and distress, was received from the Chief Scout, Sir Robert Baden Powell." The Hong Kong Daily Press reported on April 7, 1924, on the "Terrible Bus Accident: Crash on Bridge in New Territories. Two passengers killed, All Injured. A terrible motor-bus crash occurred in the New Territories yesterday afternoon. Two motor-buses, traveling in opposite directions, collided on a bridge at Un Long. Both buses were completely wrecked, and two passengers died from their injuries. Two more were, at a late hour last night, not expected to live, and seven others were seriously injured. Practically all the remaining passengers suffered from shock and superficial injuries."

Regarding the Hong Kong St. John Ambulance Brigade, the "Saiyingpun School Old Boys' - Mr. Ho Kam Tong - Ambulance Division was inspected by Dr. Sir Erie Stewart Taylor on Sunday morning on the University Football Ground, which was kindly loaned for the occasion... Amongst those present were Lady Taylor, Mr. Ho Kom Tong (Patron of the Division), Mr. B. Ralphs (St John Ambulances Commissioner Overseas), Mr. A. Morris (Superintendent of the Division), and others interested in Ambulance Work." Mr. A. Morris, as Corps Superintendent, held a high position and conducted inspections alongside the Governor.

The school also excelled in other areas. In chess, the "China Mail" reported on July 18, 1917, that "An interesting ceremony took place today at noon, when the Hon. Mr. H.E. Pollock, KC, presented the Challenge Shield of the Hongkong Schools’ Chess League to the winners for this year – the Saiyingpun School." 

Another report on October 4, 1917, detailed a popular match: "SAIYINGPUN SCHOOL v. MIDDLESEX REGT. (B. COY.). Last evening, the members of the Saiyingpun School chess championship for 1917 visited Mount Austin for a friendly match with B Company, 25th Middlesex Regt. An enjoyable evening was passed, and after a keen struggle, the Saiyingpun boys won by 13(1) games to 2(1). The games on boards 1, 2 and 3 were particularly interesting and attracted a large number of spectators." 

Swimming was also popular, with the 1920 Prize Distribution Day report stating: "Swimming was popular, and most pupils were proficient swimmers. The school held its annual aquatic sports on Empire Day. In the Inter-Schools Athletic Sports, the school performed well."

 Saiyingpun School students' calligraphy was consistently praised; in 1921, it was noted that "Handwriting throughout the school continues to merit special praise; at a recent 'Vere Foster’s International Writing Competition,' one pupil from this school sent in a copy which was adjudged to be 'of conspicuous merit and deserving of special commendation,' and was ranked 'fourth.'"

The school consistently produced strong academic results. The 1918 Prize Distribution Day report noted: "The names of three old pupils appear in recent university lists, one as having passed the Matriculation Examination and two as having qualified for the Medical Faculty." In 1920, "four boys from the school who proceeded to Queen’s College passed the Matriculation Examination of the Hong Kong University." By 1923, "the names of thirteen old scholars figure in the recent University examination lists: Matriculation, 3; Senior Local, 1; Junior Local, 1. One, Lo Tung Fan, who won the Alan Morris Memorial Scholarship to Queen’s College where he obtained further honours, has distinguished himself by gaining the President of China Scholarship." The 1923 Education Report added that "All the boys in Class 4A, thirty-four in number, succeeded in passing the qualifying entrance examination to Class 3 at Queen’s College." Further achievements were highlighted in the 1924 Prize Distribution Day report: "Matriculation: One, Yau Fung Hon, (Distinction in Physics) went to Queen’s College as an Alan Morris Memorial Scholar; Senior, one; junior, twelve, one of whom, Cheng Iu Man, also holding an Alan Morris Memorial Scholarship, gained no less than five distinctions."

Among its distinguished alumni was Lo Tung Fan (羅棟勳). In 1941, on the eve of the Battle of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong government appointed Chinese barrister Lo Tung Fan as Deputy Commissioner of Police (Special Constabulary). Tragically, he died during the Japanese occupation of Hong Kong.

The school also demonstrated a strong charitable and humanitarian spirit. On January 30, 1923, it was reported that "the school has done splendidly. From class collections and self-denial, the scholars contributed $800 to the Swatow Relief Fund. Our Scouts assisted the Charitable Associations in street collections and were instrumental in raising $11,000 for the same purpose. Again, when we were unfortunate to lose our head boy, the School came forward, defrayed the whole of the funeral expenses, and handed a substantial sum to the bereaved and aged mother." 

The 1924 Prize Distribution Day report further highlighted the school's humanitarian efforts: "The lad succumbed after a few days’ sickness. The last rites were arranged by classmates, the funeral expenses paid by the school, and a substantial sum handed to the bereaved parents. Never have I witnessed a more impressive sight than this funeral procession, wending its way up the road outside, in an orderly, decorous manner, attended as it was by the whole school – masters and pupils. 'One touch of pity makes the whole world kin.'"

Other notable activities included sports and international engagement. In volleyball, the school's team was highly successful, with the 1924 report stating: "For the second year in succession our Volley-ball team has not lost a single game, and is again the proud holder of the Junior Volley-ball shield." 

The school also received visits from foreign educational delegations. In 1924, "Gentlemen interested in education visited on a number of occasions. The Japanese Education Commission from Formosa called during January, and carried away souvenirs of their visit in the form of maps, the handwork of our pupils. Later, the Vice-Chancellor of the University, the Professor of Education and the Registrar went round, and subsequently the Director of Education of the Fiji Islands." 

A 1924 report also mentioned an innovation in summer activities: "From May to the Summer Vacation, with the approval of the Director of Education, the morning session commenced at 8:30 a.m. The innovation was popular and could be extended. Nineteen years ago this same experiment was tried with the greatest success: school commenced at 7:30 a.m.; afternoons were devoted to outdoor activities - swimming and excursions."

Saiyingpun School's brilliant achievements under A. Morris were continued by King's College in 1928. Among the three main English government schools of the time, Saiyingpun School quickly became pre-eminent. From 1928 until at least 1930, it was the only government district school offering matriculation classes (Class 1).

In December 1926, the school received a visit from a Siamese Prince. A 1928 speech noted: "The Siamese Prince, who visited the school in December 1926, was much impressed with what he saw, and like the Queen of Sheba, who, after viewing the Temple at Jerusalem, was constrained to say, 'The half has not been told.'" At that time, Thailand needed to reform its elementary education, and the Prince and Princess were sent abroad to learn from other systems, visiting Saiyingpun School. The Prince stated that "the King and the government were particularly focused on the advancement of elementary education, which would be the primary focus of his observations during the tour." The Governor hosted a banquet for him, as "Prince Dahni, a younger son of the King of Siam, was on a tour to inquire into education. He was to report to his father upon his return home."

Saiyingpun School also played a role in teacher training. As noted in the "History of HKU" (page 279), "Teacher training (Group 4) continued to be the most popular of the arts courses. There was close co-operation between the government's Director of Education and the University's Professor of Education, especially after Lancelot Forster was appointed to the Chair in 1926. Forster was diligent in introducing the latest educational ideas from Britain, in 1930 proposing a radical review of the government's policy on teacher training. This resulted in a formal submission from the Vice-Chancellor to the colony's Director of Education, suggesting reforms to the system. The government took a cautious approach, however; while it agreed to continue recruiting graduate masters for its schools and to maintain the scholarship system for teacher trainees, a proposal to introduce a post-graduate diploma in education, first mooted in 1924 and endlessly postponed, was once again put on hold. Teaching practice ('school method') was a particular concern in the 1920s and the capacity of the Sai Ying Pun government school must have been seriously overstrained by the large number of student teachers who undertook their practical work there until King's College opened in 1928."

In 1880, among the Anglo-Chinese Schools, the English School run by Mr. Fung Fú in Third Street, Sai-ying-p'ún, was considered the best.

By 1904, after a recitation by pupils of the Saiyingpun School, Mr. Irving presented the annual report on the schools' progress. He noted that the three schools had existed as free institutions since 1901, offering elementary English and Chinese instruction to local children. The Chinese masters were performing excellent work, employing methods that, while common in Europe and America, were revolutionary for Hong Kong. Alongside English classes, vernacular classes were held, but few boys truly understood what they learned by rote. Mr. Irving observed that if boys did not learn their own language, they also struggled with English, often memorizing several school readers without comprehension. This old system had been replaced by a new one, with the schools' organization entirely remodelled under English masters. The results of the last examination showed significant improvement, particularly in elementary geography and first-year arithmetic. While composition remained weak, colloquial English had advanced considerably, with senior boys reportedly speaking English "courageously," as Napoleon once said of Wellington's French. The standard of Chinese language was moderate, with Saiyingpun achieving the best results among the three schools.

In 1905, instruction in District Schools had previously not extended beyond Standard V. However, during the past year, Standards VI and VII were introduced, though the results were unsatisfactory. Boys frequently left school as soon as they secured employment, disrupting the continuity of their education. Given that most boys left after Standard V (or even earlier) to become junior clerks in local firms, earning salaries between $15 and $30, a personal inquiry was made into their performance. Employers from two shipping firms, one wholesale firm, two large retail firms, and three engineering firms provided feedback. While acknowledging exceptions and boys who made good progress, the general testimony regarding the average boy leaving school was concerning. Employers stated that boys from the Anglo-Chinese Schools were proficient at copying letters legibly and taking dictation fairly well, but they "show little or no resource, are lacking in general intelligence, and do not make that progress and show that interest in their work which an employer looks for, while their ignorance of practical mathematics is astonishing." Illustrations of these shortcomings were provided, and attempts to suggest that employers might be expecting too much from junior clerks were met with specific instances. Employers cited boys who, after two or three years, were still incapable of managing a desk, writing proper business letters to foreign firms, or intelligently handling quotations and estimates from Chinese firms, both local and inland, due due to a lack of commodity knowledge or inability to apply what they knew. One example given was a senior clerk using a primitive method to convert £30 sterling to dollars, consuming an entire sheet of foolscap paper and rechecking the same figures.

By 1906, several educational innovations had been successfully implemented with the Inspector of Schools' consent. These included launch trips, walking excursions, swimming, and drawing exercises. Around 30 excursions were made to important factories and places of interest in the Colony, well-attended by both teachers and pupils, and believed to benefit the boys mentally, physically, and morally. Specimens collected during these trips contributed to a school museum, further enhanced by valuable donations from English manufacturing firms. Drawing, including freehand, geometry, and brushwork, was taught for the first time. During summer, bathing parties were organized, and boys were taught swimming. It was suggested that an inter-schools swimming contest, similar to football and hygiene competitions but with more restrictions to level the playing field for weaker schools, would greatly encourage this useful, healthy, and popular exercise. However, due to the small number of students, the school was unable to compete in the hygiene shield contest.

In 1910, Saiyingpun, the largest of the district schools, recorded the least satisfactory results, being surpassed by Wanchai and Yaumati. Examiners noted poor Chinese composition and expressed that the boys' manners left much to be desired. A call was made for improvement in these areas for the coming year. Despite these criticisms, Saiyingpun received a good report in the hygiene examination.

The 1918 Prize Distribution Day report highlighted good reading and conversation skills across all classes, especially among beginners who received their initial English instruction from Mrs. Morris, an English Mistress. Class 4, divided into two sections, showed excellent work despite a few weak arithmetic papers. Class 5, also in two divisions, performed very well, with minor weaknesses in arithmetic in Division A and in arithmetic and geography in Division B. Class 6, with three divisions (the third for newly admitted boys), saw Division A excel, Division B struggle with arithmetic, and Division C achieve highly creditable results in a Mid-Term Examination. Class 7, with three divisions (two for new admissions), showed very good results in all subjects. Class 8 performed very well, though a tendency towards weakness in arithmetic was observed. The Beginners' Class, taught in three divisions, achieved excellent results, with English instruction being particularly successful. The relationship between the Headmaster and scholars at Saiyingpun School was described as "peculiarly happy." Three former pupils were noted in recent University Lists: one had passed the Matriculation Examination, and two had qualified for the Medical Faculty. The school's social life was well-maintained, with Mr. Ray raising the chess players to a high state of efficiency. The School Team won the Hong Kong Schools Chess League Shield, presented by the Hon. Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., at a July function.

In 1923, the school's Scouts attended Government House during the visit of H.R.H. the Prince of Wales, where Patrol Leader Lo Kwok Chung was decorated with the gilt cross for gallantry in saving a boy from drowning at Kennedy Town bathing beach. Mr. Irving concluded by expressing his hope that Saiyingpun School would increasingly serve as a training ground for the University, aiming to educate boys to matriculation standard.

Sir Claud Severn, addressing the pupils in 1924, announced that facing bricks had arrived in large quantities from Formosa, removing any further excuse for delay in completing their new premises. He hoped that 1925 would be their final year before moving into what the headmaster called "the Promised Land." The new Saiyingpun would become a senior school, akin to Queen's College, offering great convenience to boys in the Western districts. The large number of applicants turned away that year was a testament to the Headmaster and his colleagues' successful work and the school's popularity. Sir Claud also commended the School Scout Troop for their individual work, which made them an example of true duty. He concluded by praising the school's high standard of proficiency and expressed hope for a long period of progress as a main Government school in the Colony once the new premises were occupied.

In 1929, the Governor highlighted the significant personal interest shown by parents, who attended classes in large numbers at the Head Master's invitation. He emphasized that this interest and the resulting cordial relationship between staff and parents were vital for the school's success and should be fostered. He then proposed the formation of an Old Boys' Association, noting that 4,856 former pupils had passed through Saiyingpun School (which evolved into King's College) since its opening in 1879, with nearly 900 boys currently enrolled. He cited the immense value such an association held for Queen's College and expressed confidence it would be equally beneficial for King's College.

The 1930 Prize Distribution Day featured reports on popular extracurricular activities. The Woodwork class was exceptionally popular, surprising the headmaster in his 25 years in the East. As many as 120 students in the middle divisions voluntarily enrolled in this class, held after school from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. Excellent results were achieved, with students producing tables, door frames, towel rails, cupboards, knife boxes, and splints for the Ambulance Divisions, in addition to practicing joint-making. The Photography Class also attracted many students with cameras, with enthusiasts often working until 9 p.m. The headmaster suggested that including a section for school students in the University Amateur Photography Exhibition would provide a valuable stimulus.

His Excellency addressed the gathering, drawing comparisons between Queen's College, an older institution with traditions to uphold, and King's College, a younger one with traditions to establish. He noted that King's College had more than doubled its student numbers to its maximum capacity of 940 in just over three years. He emphasized the material advantages King's College offered, boasting one of the finest school buildings in the East, equipped regardless of cost with everything a modern educational enthusiast could desire, unlike Queen's College, which prospered despite its surroundings.

In 1932, a disappointing trend was observed: Senior Classes were depleted during the summer as many promising pupils successfully passed competitive entrance examinations to institutions like the Customs College in Peking, the Naval College at Whampoa, or Ling Nam University in Canton, resulting in the loss of 21 students. Another concerning aspect of the examination system was the migration of unsuccessful boys to other schools, as inability to pass was perceived as a "loss of face." Guardians were strongly advised to cooperate and ensure their wards remained in the same school and form for another term.

In 1933, candidates from the King's College Life Saving Class successfully passed a test for the Royal Life Saving Society's Proficiency Certificate and Bronze Medallions. The examination, held at the Chinese Athletic Association Bathing Pavilion, was overseen by Mr. C. W. Brand, the Society's official representative in Hong Kong. All twenty candidates, including Chan Tak Chun, Heung Iu Nuen, Fong Ho Tuen, Un Shu Man, Chung Sze Yuen, Leung Wing Lau, Chan Chin Un, Taui Wai Shing, Chan Sun Pui, Woo Hei Tak, Chick Sui Ting, Ng Hung Cheong, Chau Wing Chuen, Li Po Tin, Ng Sheung Fai, Chan Kwok Leung, Sing King Leung, Tse Shing Fong, Lau Po Chia, and Wong Yui Man, were successful, with the examiner commending their high standard of proficiency. Mr. Chan Sik Pui, who trained the class, was congratulated for the excellent results. King's College announced its readiness to provide qualified life-saving members for school launch picnics, bathing beaches, and swimming sports, inviting applications for these services.

In 1934, Mr. Alfred Morris, the popular headmaster of King's College, was due to retire the following month, celebrating his 60th birthday on June 18th, after 30 years of educational and public service. Throughout these three decades, Mr. Morris dedicated his life to education, first as headmaster of the old Sai Ying Pun School and then of King's College. Hundreds of young men, predominantly Chinese, benefited from his guidance and now hold positions of responsibility across Hong Kong and China. For over sixteen years, he was also deeply involved in charity work, particularly with the St. John Ambulance Association and Brigade, where he served as Commissioner. He was instrumental in establishing free nursing centres, stations, and clinics in both Hong Kong and the New Territories, providing invaluable assistance to the sick and poor.

Members of the Old Boys' Associations of King's College and Sai Ying Pun School, along with Chinese Merchants of the Colony led by Sir Shou-son Chow, Kt., organized a farewell party in Mr. Morris's honor, held at the Gloucester Building. Beyond his educational activities, Mr. Morris's wide benevolence was greatly appreciated by the people, and he further established more than ten clinics in the villages of the New Territories, offering free treatment and medicine that cured innumerable patients.

A concert in aid of Cancer Research was scheduled to be held at King's College Hall. The program included an attractive new item: Mr. Lum Siu Mui, a former associate of renowned Chinese actors Mei Lan Fong, Siu Yeung, and Yuet Lo, promised to perform the historical dance of Queen Yu Ki in costume. The dance tells the story of Queen Yu Ki, who danced to console Ruler Pah Wang in his despair after defeat, and subsequently committed suicide to avoid capture by the enemy.

In 1935, King's College made a donation of $20 to the Sir William Peel Fund for the Protection of Children, bringing the total subscribed amount to $17,583.60. Notice was given that the Fund would close at the end of June, with further donations gratefully acknowledged by the Hon. Treasurers, Mr. A. McKellar and Mr. Kwok Chan.

The special Jubilee Number, the July issue of the King's College Magazine, was received, noted for its readability and interest to all past and present members. The magazine featured the school's entrance on Jubilee Day as its frontispiece, along with excellent photographs of Hong Kong's Jubilee celebrations, taken both day and night, and full-page portraits of Their Majesties the King and Queen.

The King's College Old Boys' Association was formally established at a meeting held in the College, chaired by Mr. W. L. Handyside, the acting Headmaster, and attended by over 80 past pupils. Its objectives, as per the adopted constitution, were to provide a corporate existence for old boys, strengthen relations between the College and its alumni, and encourage interaction among them. Ordinary membership was open to all King's College 'Old Boys', past and present staff members, and College prefects, with an annual subscription of $2. The elected officers for the ensuing year were: President – Mr. W. Kay, Vice-President – Mr. A. White, Hon. Secretary – Mr. Chung Hon-ki, Hon. Treasurer – Mr. Ho Tse-kin, and General Committee members – Messrs. Edmund Sun, Wu Hei-tak, Li Shan-chung, Lo Hung-sui, Samuel Ling, Au Tin-woon, and Li Shiu-luen.

In 1936, the number of students in English schools in Hong Kong significantly decreased, prompting criticism of the English school system. Many believed improvements were necessary to enhance educational effectiveness and meet general standards. The eight-year curriculum, heavily emphasizing English with relatively superficial Chinese instruction, often led to students failing when transferring to schools in mainland China, and tuition fees were high. Consequently, the system's development had stagnated. According to the Director of Education's report, the total number of students in English schools across Hong Kong decreased from 18,036 to 17,086, a reduction of 950 students. The report also indicated that there were a total of 58,394 Chinese students in Hong Kong, of whom 17,086 were enrolled in English schools.

King's College announced its university entrance results, with Wong Man Hon achieving Honours with Distinctions in English and Chemistry. Those who passed included Chan Kai Hee (Distinction in Trigonometry), Chan Kai Him, Chan Tak Chun, David W. La Chang, Cheung Hok Wing, Chow Hok C. Yee, Chow Yun Pui, Fong Kwai C. Tak, Ho Kai Yin, Ho Tit Yau, Ip Tai Sung, Ko Tsok Yum (Distinction in English), Lam Iu Bun, Leung Man Po, Li Choi Tsun, Li Yun Gun (Distinction in Chemistry), Liu Shiu Wa, Ma Chiu Tung, Ma Sing Fai, Man Shun Yee, Mui Ho Chun, Ng Wah Keng, Ngo Chi-Dao, Pau Kwok Sum, Shum Wing Hong, Tang Hon Chiu, Tang Shu Shing, To Shui Yuen (Distinctions in Chemistry, Algebra), Theodore To, Wong Kam Tim (Distinctions in Chemistry, Algebra, Geometry), Wu Wing Yan (Distinction in Geometry), Yee Pang Fei, Yeung Yuk Nga, and Yu Yiu Hin.

King's College Division scored the most points in the Annual Ambulance Aquatic Sports.

Regarding a badminton problem for an association involving the Chinese "Y" and King's College, Mr. John Pau, Secretary of King's College, stated that their answer would be 'No!' He explained that most of his players had only recently taken up the game, with Chan and Woo being their only truly experienced players. In contrast, the Chinese 'Y' players, all from the Straits, had played since childhood, with most having participated in the 'B' Division of the Singapore Association's league, which was considerably stronger than the local 'A' Division.

In 1937, Mr. Kay articulated a progressive view on education, stating that "Examinations and examination results are not our be-all and end-all. Most educational authorities now admit that examinations are by no means an infallible test of a pupil's ability. That being so, it seems to me all wrong that a boy's whole future should depend (as so often it does) on how he happens to perform in one particular examination. More account should be taken of the lad's school record, his character, his capability for leadership and the like." He noted that only 10 to 15 percent of senior boys entered university, yet this small percentage largely dictated the curriculum. Efforts were underway to change this, with the new School Certificate Examination, run by the Education Office and introduced that year, not qualifying for matriculation. A certificate winner wishing to enter university would need to continue studies at school for at least another year.

In 1938, King's College volleyball and basketball teams both achieved victory during a tour of Macau. In their first match against the 'Roaring' team, they won both games. Over a hundred spectators watched the exciting matches, where the seasoned King's College team consistently demonstrated superior skill. Despite strong players, the 'Roaring' team's lack of coordination led to their defeat, losing 0-3 in volleyball and 42-47 in basketball after initially holding an advantage.

In 1940, at King's College Speech Day, the Acting Governor noted that in September, Class 4 was almost entirely moved from district schools and concentrated in King's and Queen's Colleges, resulting in King's College having five divisions of Class 4. Headmaster Mr. H. G. Wallington expressed concern that among the 31 students who passed, five were boys from Class 2 who entered as private students. He stated this was unknown to him until the examination and, while pleased they passed, he did not consider it a good thing. He explained his concern: "For one thing, boys who pass in this way are usually too young to enter the University and have to waste a year before entering. Also, usually, they leave, thus depriving the school of some of its best students one year early. If the entry of students from a non-matriculation class is permitted, I can see no reason why, in future years, boys from Classes 3 and 4 should not try their luck, provided they can get someone outside the school to sign the entrance forms."

King's College announced the successful candidates for Class 8 new admissions, with 50 regular and 10 reserve admissions. Admitted candidates were required to assemble in the school hall at 8:15 AM on the 9th for placement, and transfer students were not accepted. The regular admissions included Liu Siu Hung, Au Ka Hung, Li Wang Chung, Kwok Ming Sung, Chan Sum Wang, Tsang Ching Ming, Chan Hoi Chan, Yu Shu Wah, Choi Tai Kin, Man Yi Hung, Wong Siu Tat, Lam Chik Ching, Mak Chim Kwong, Tsang Koon Yau, Yung Koon Sing, Tse Siu Kwan, Suen Cho, Mak Siu Ping, Chan Yau Kan, Li Koon Cheung, Tong Tai Kwan, Chan Ting Chung, Yeung Ying Chan, Chan Man Chi, Lui Nai Moon, Yiu Chun Tang, Lam Sing Cheung, Mak Ping Kwan, Lui Kwai Sang, Chan Yiu Wah, Yung Shu Wing, Kwan Nai Sing, Ng Kuen Wah, Poon Kau, Yip Sai Chan, Li King Wai, Pang Hon Ming, Pang Shu Tang, Chan Pui Chi, Chan Fai Kai, Yip Tai Chi, Lo Shu Chi, Leung Nai Mo, Leung Chi Keung, Yiu Kwong, Pang Hon Wah, Pang Ching Kwong, Yeung Wai Tak, Hung Kwok Kan, and Li King Leung. Reserve admissions were Leung Sing, Yip Duk Kwong, Lui Hip Sing, Leung Ping Chung, Lai Yui Suk, Koo Hong Wing, Cheung Yi Tin, Ng King Tong, and Chow Leung Ming.

Seven English secondary schools in Hong Kong held their annual athletic meets in spring to review the year's achievements. King's College's athletic meet was scheduled for the 21st of the month. In the King's College Table Tennis Tournament, student Poon Sai-on, a top player in Hong Kong, successfully retained his championship, having repeatedly won the school's annual competition. He and 'Wah Szabados' were particularly renowned.

The 1940 English Secondary School Certificate Examination results were announced, with King's College achieving the best performance among boys' schools, while Belilios and Sacred Heart were the top girls' schools. Additionally, fifty more students applying for relief were approved after review.

In 1941, King's College secured a significant victory in Wednesday's "B" Division matches, defeating Chung Wah. The win was particularly meritorious as one of King's players, K. H. Lo, was hampered by a leg injury, effectively making him a passenger. Despite Lo and Lam failing in all three games, the other two pairs, Chan and Chung, who won all three, and Woo and Liu, who won two, carried the team to victory. Chung Wah's performance was disappointing, but it was hoped they would improve with more practice from players like Choy Wing-chiu.

King's College held its eleventh annual athletic sports at the Caroline Hill track, where no less than ten new records were established. Mrs. J. J. Ferguson, wife of the Second Master, distributed the prizes. Sin Kwok-bun, the 1939 champion, regained his Senior title, and Wong Man-ying was crowned Junior champion. West House won the House championship with 163 points. The new records included: 100 metres (Junior) by Wong Man-ying in 12 2/5 secs; 400 metres (Senior) by Sin Kwok-bun in 58 1/5 secs; High Jump (Junior) by Ching King-chow with 5 ft. 3/4 in.; Small Boys Long Jump by Lee Cheuk-Sang with 14 ft. 6 in.; 200 metres (Junior) by Leung Ylu-kow in 26 3/5 secs; Small Boys High Jump by Lee Cheuk-Sang with 4 ft. 2 in.; 1,500 metres (Senior) by Liu Sin-chi in 5 min 19 2/5 secs; Long Jump (Junior) by Wong Man-ying with 17 ft. 11 in.; 400 metres (Junior) by Wong Man-ying in 64 4/5 secs; and 110 metres High Hurdles (Senior) by Wong Kilim in 18 4/5 secs.

The history of King's College should be traced back to Saiyingpun School.

When Fung Fu first took office, only a portion of parents were willing to let their children learn English. However, Fung Fu was very engaging, and within a year, all students were eager to learn the language. At the prize-giving ceremony in February 1880, Inspector E. A. Odell addressed the Governor, expressing his satisfaction and stating, "However, I must explain that this school operated throughout the year on the optional principle, which, with Your Excellency’s permission, I applied to this school as an experiment." The 1883 Education Report further praised Fung Fu's school: "This, taken together with the excellent discipline maintained by Mr. FUNG FU throughout the year, places his school far ahead of the other Government District Schools; and it is much to be regretted that he has not a more commodious and healthy building in which to give his abilities freer scope."

Due to insufficient space, the government constructed a new school building in 1891 at the junction of High Street and Pok Fu Lam Road, a project that had been approved by the British Crown 12 years prior. The single-story building soon became inadequate. By 1908, during A. Morris's tenure, another floor was added, and Morris himself resided in the school quarters, as noted in the 1908 Public Works report. Even the two-story Saiyingpun School quickly became insufficient. By 1914, plans to add a third story were budgeted, but the approved expansion project was withdrawn after the government took over Ellis Kadoorie School. Saiyingpun School had become the most important among the Government District Schools, and its original site was no longer large enough for a new building. The search for a new site became a point of contention between non-official members of the Legislative Council and the government.

In 1917, the Hon. Mr. Pollock raised concerns in the Legislative Council: "With regard to Saiyingpun School, I think there was a committee which reported on that school a few months ago. I think they mentioned something about the class-room accommodation being deficient." His Excellency responded, "The Saiyingpun School report, to which the hon. member representing the Justices of the Peace referred, condemned the site of this school. It is cramped and crowded in by a large number of buildings. The only real remedy is to remove the school altogether. That is an expensive and rather difficult project. Crown land in that vicinity is very scarce. It is a matter which will doubtless come one of these days, but, in the meantime I do not see any immediate remedy."

By 1918, several Chinese members relentlessly pursued the matter. After extensive negotiations, the government exchanged land with the Catholic Church, as documented in file HKRS58-1-80-37, titled "SAIYINGPUN SCHOOL - INSUFFICIENCY OF ACCOMMODATION. PROPOSED REMOVAL TO A MORE SUITABLE SITE. I.L. 2364 SITE FOR ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, BROADWOOD ROAD." By 1921, the project began to materialize, with "Item 10 provides a sum for beginning the new buildings for Saiyingpun School on a site on Bonham Road, which will probably be acquired during next year." From 1917 to 1927, the construction of the new Saiyingpun School was debated 18 times in the Legislative Council, where the new school building was consistently intended for Saiyingpun School. A. Morris was preparing to take over this new school building and indeed took possession of it as the headmaster of Saiyingpun School.

The Hong Kong Daily Press reported on January 30, 1923, from the annual prize-giving at Saiyingpun School, quoting A. Morris: "The school remained full throughout the year, and many prospective pupils were unable to secure admission. The school anticipated the completion of its new building, which would accommodate a greater number of students." Public Works reports from 1923 detailed the site formation for the New Sai Ying Pun School, followed by contracts let for its superstructure in 1924. Interestingly, the 1925 Public Works report noted "Good progress was made on the New King’s College," while the 1926 report simply mentioned "111. Bonham Road School."

In October 1925, the government announced plans for Saiyingpun School. In response to a question by the Hon. Mr. P. H. Holyoak at the Legislative Council meeting, the Colonial Secretary stated that "if no unforeseen circumstances arise, it is hoped to complete and open Saiyingpun School by the 30th June, 1926. The work was delayed for about two months mainly owing to the Strike." The Director of Public Works confirmed in the Official Record of Proceedings on April 22, 1926, that "the structural work would be completed in June," though furniture and fittings might be late. By April 1926, the construction of the new Bonham Road campus was largely complete, with "The school authorities have occupied a portion of the building." The school was partially occupied in June, the building completed, and furniture (except desks) provided by the end of July. It was fully occupied in September after the summer holidays, despite delays in desk delivery. Less than a month later, the media already knew the school was named King's College. An editorial in the Hong Kong Daily Press on June 22, 1926, titled "KING’S COLLEGE, HONGKONG," stated: "The completion of King’s College near the University provides the Colony with one of the best school buildings in the Far East. However, buildings alone do not make a school, and it is fortunate that the first Headmaster, Mr. Morris, will take with him a full-grown and conspicuously successful organization. Sai Ying Pun School has been made by him from very small beginnings in twenty-one strenuous years, and it is safe to say that his flock would have followed him to any other District School during that time." This sparked controversy, with one reader submitting a letter suggesting "it would have been wiser to have kept the word 'School' and to call the students 'Schoolboys.'"

In 1927, the newly completed King's College building was occupied by the military. "The College began the year well with 644 pupils in January, but during the Chinese New Year Holidays (Wednesday, February 2nd, 1927) the building was handed over to the Military. Boys in Classes 8 to 5 (inclusive) were transferred temporarily to the Ellis Kadoorie School and the remainder to Queen’s College." The Headmaster, Mr. A. Morris, was transferred to the Education Office, and Mrs. Morris to the Victoria British School. The remaining staff members were transferred with their classes. The 1927 Education Report confirmed: "In February, King’s College was taken over by the Military Authorities for use as an emergency hospital. The pupils were accommodated partly in Queen’s College and partly in Ellis Kadoorie School... At the end of the year, King’s College was restored to this department to be ready for the reopening of school at the New Year." Morris returned to the school as headmaster on January 26, 1928.

Just as Fung Fu moved the school from Third Street to High Street in 1891, A. Morris moved it from High Street to Bonham Road. The only difference was that during his headmastership, the school's name was changed by a distant authority. A name change does not signify the start of a new school. For instance, the former West Point (Punti) was renamed Saiyingpun (Punti). Similarly, the University of Hong Kong's Faculty of Medicine was renamed the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine, but its predecessor remains the Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese, founded in 1887. One argument suggests that the Education Department formally terminated and then re-contracted A. Morris internally. If so, all old teachers should have undergone the same process. Indeed, there were changes in the 1928 Civil Establishment, with A. Morris's date of appointment listed as January 1, 1927, and Temporary Mistress Ellen L. Philips's appointment on October 10, 1926. These changes were due to the school building being handed over to the military hospital, unrelated to the name change.

Saiyingpun School's brilliant achievements under A. Morris were directly continued by King's College in 1928. Among the three main English government schools at the time, Saiyingpun School quickly became preeminent. From 1926 until at least 1930, it was the only government district school offering matriculation classes (Class 1). The 1926 Education Report stated: "Boys are no longer sent to Queen’s College after passing this (Class 4) Examination but remain at King’s College, which now has classes preparing for the Matriculation Examination." The 1927 Education Report noted Queen's College's maximum enrolment, "including 192 from King’s College," indicating student transfers. Some argue that King's College was a new school due to the different curriculum, reasoning that "it has a new name" and "it has matriculation classes" therefore "it is a new school." However, times change, and later all government schools could offer matriculation classes, which certainly did not make them "new schools." As early as 1923, the outgoing Inspector of Schools, Mr. Irving, had expressed a desire for Saiyingpun School to offer matriculation classes, stating, "He would like to see the school educate boys up to the matriculation standard."

In December 1924, Colonial Secretary Sir Claud Severn, speaking at Saiyingpun School's annual prize-giving ceremony, unequivocally stated that the new site was a continuation of Saiyingpun School. He expressed hope that 1925 would be their last year before entering "the Promised Land," where Saiyingpun would become a senior school, similar to Queen’s College. He concluded by remarking on the school's high standard and expressed hope that "when the new school came into being, they would inaugurate a long period of progress as one of the main Government schools in the Colony."

There are several compelling reasons why the history of King's College should be traced back to Saiyingpun School:

1. In Legislative Council and government documents, the new Bonham Road campus was consistently referred to as an expansion of Saiyingpun School.

2. During the transition period, Legislative Council documents referring to "King’s College" often included annotations like "then Saiyingpun School" or "New Saiyingpun School," indicating a reference to the building rather than a new institution.

3. The subsequent renaming after completion was purely to honor King George V and fulfill a promise made to his grandmother, Queen Victoria.

4. The introduction of matriculation classes was a natural progression; all other secondary schools later offered such classes, altering Queen's College's status. This change in curriculum does not justify considering it a new school.

5. A. Morris's relocation with the original staff and students to the new site represents a natural continuation, unequivocally demonstrating its educational legacy and community transmission.

6. A. Morris's contract modification in 1927 was solely due to the new school building being occupied by the military for 11 months that year.

7. At the 1928 opening ceremony, Governor Sir Cecil Clementi and A. Morris both affirmed that King's College's predecessor dated back to 1879. This assertion was upheld by principals, including Mr. Madan in 1976.

8. In Governor Clementi's view, the name change was merely a formality, unrelated to the school's heritage or A. Morris's work. Thus, the Director of Education only briefly mentioned it in the 2016 Education Report, not even highlighting King's College and Queen's College jointly admitting government school boys for matriculation, as this intention had already been stated by his predecessor when it was still Saiyingpun School, reflecting a general trend.

9.  A 1928 editorial affirmed, "The name of Morris of Saiyingpun is already well known and well-loved, but future generations will have cause to honor and revere the name of Morris of King’s."

The history of King's College's predecessor is often traced back to 1879, every official documents link it to “five new schools gazetted in 1880”. For instance, the 1910 Report of the Education Committee noted that the erection of a new District School building at Saiyingpun, the first of five new buildings sanctioned in 1882 (or 1880), commenced in the autumn of 1890. This project was part of a larger initiative, as Sir M. Hicks-Beach had approved 10,000 dollars for the construction of five schools. The Colonial Secretary, Derby, further inquired about these "five sanctioned schools" in December 1882, questioning whether they recommended a more expensive class of school than previously approved. 

However, by 1890, this sum was only sufficient to build the first schoolhouse on High Street.

In September 1926, Saiyingpun School, which had been founded in 1891, moved to magnificent new quarters on Bonham Road and was renamed King's College by His Excellency, King George V. While the 1926 Education Report stated the school was "founded in 1891," this date specifically refers to the completion of its building, which was the first of the five schools promised by Queen Victoria. The institution's history, however, was recognized as predating this. At the opening ceremony in 1928, A. Morris, the headmaster, explicitly stated, "Saiyingpun School dates back to 1879." Governor Sir Cecil Clementi, speaking at the same event, concurred, noting, "The career of the school under another name and in another premises has already been a long one, dating back to 1879. Next year, therefore, it will celebrate its jubilee."

Several reasons support the 1879 origin for King's College's institutional history. Firstly, the Saiyingpun (English) school that emerged in 1879 was a new entity, distinct from the Saiyingpun (Punti) schools, which did not teach English and were viewed differently by the British. The 1869 Education Report, for instance, highlighted the general state of "Village Schools" without special consideration for English instruction. West Point School, established in 1856, was renamed Saiyingpun (Punti) and Saiyingpun (Hakka) in 1882. Before 1879, Central School was the only government free school that taught English.

Secondly, the 1879 school marked a significant shift in English education. A. Morris, despite knowing of earlier schools, referred to Mr. Fung Fu, a returned student from America, as the "first Headmaster" of this new school. Similarly, the Industrial and Commercial Evening News reported Fung Fu as the "first Chinese to serve as headmaster in a government school primarily teaching English in Hong Kong." This distinction is crucial because, while many government schools before 1879 had Chinese headmasters, they were not primarily focused on English instruction, unlike Central School, which had foreign headmasters. This new school was also an experimental initiative under Governor Hennessy's reforms for English teaching, operating on an "optional principle" as an experiment.

Finally, and most conclusively, Governor Clementi officially endorsed the 1879 origin in 1929. At the Prize Distribution Day, he suggested the formation of an Old Boys' Association, stating that former pupils, numbering 4,856 "since the Saiyingpun School (which evolved into King's College) opened in 1879," should be included. This statement, made after the school's renaming, unequivocally links King's College's alumni history to 1879, solidifying its institutional foundation in that year.

Clues regarding the naming process of King's College appeared in a March 1928 newspaper report. It stated: "—school to be known by the proud title of King’s College, which was to provide for higher education up to the Matriculation Standard. To you, Sir, the College is indebted for its name, for you will recollect that in March, 1926, when you visited the building in its incomplete state, you selected the name King’s College, a title of which we all can be justly proud." (Hong Kong Daily Press, 1928-03-06). This raises questions: The new Bonham Road school building was still under construction in March 1926 and not fully operational by the end of that year. Why did the Governor take time out of his busy schedule to visit the construction site and meet A. Morris then? And why was the school named before it was officially opened for use?

It turns out this hasty decision was related to another event. Britain's Crown Prince Edward visited Hong Kong on March 15th, 1926, to bestow honours on behalf of King George V. During this visit, Cecil Clementi was awarded the Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George. At the time, the Bonham Road school building was one of Hong Kong's most significant newly completed structures. As a gesture of gratitude, Clementi presented it as a tribute. However, a secondary school seemed somewhat inadequate for such a tribute, so it was elevated to the status of a 'College'. Yet, in Britain, only institutions like Trinity and King's were typically referred to as 'College'. Consequently, when the public became aware of the situation, they submitted letters to newspapers, criticizing the decision: "Every means possible should be made to keep the School boys and School girls in their proper places and such terms as “colleges” and “graduation ceremonies” should be rigidly avoided."

The entire naming process likely took place in March 1926. From the later speeches of the Governor and A. Morris, it is evident that they never considered this renaming as the opening of a new school. The 1926 Education Report explicitly stated: "The name of the School has been changed from ‘Saiyingpun School’ to ‘King’s College’." A China Mail report on April 22, 1926, further revealed that while the Education Department still used 'Saiyingpun School', the Public Works Department was already using 'New Bonham Road School' – a new term that had not appeared before. The Public Works Department also used the name 'Bonham Road School' in its April tenders, indicating that the government internally was already aware of the school's renaming.

This raises another question: why does the 'Report of Public Works 1925', page 23, contain the phrase, "good progress was made on the New King’s College"? This is likely because the complete report was submitted to the Legislative Council on November 4th of the following year (1926). This was standard practice, and by then, the entire renaming process had been completed. This also suggests that the naming process occurred during the construction period. Notably, Morris took a ten-month leave in 1925, vacationing in the UK and procuring items for the new school building.

The old school building was handed over to the Vernacular Normal School in March 1926. The "Administrative Reports for the Year 1926" noted that the "Vernacular Normal School provided a nucleus for this new institution which was started in March in the premises of the old Saiyingpun School." The Legislative Council approved transitional arrangements in April, stating that "$780 is required for the rent of two flats for the Vernacular Middle School" because "structural work would be completed in June, but he could not give an exact date as regards furniture and fittings. Some would be quite late, but there would be nothing to prevent the school being carried on there after the end of June." Arrangements for the relocation of students from Saiyingpun School were also made. Class 8 (in four divisions) was transferred to the New King’s College building, occupying first the Gymnasium and later the classrooms on the top floor, where they were joined by Class 7 after the Ching Ming Vacation (April 5th, 1926). The remainder of the school moved into King’s College in September after the summer vacation.

By December 1925, construction was still ongoing, with "a few alterations and additions... made to the original design, notably the provision of tile dados to all classroom walls, and a granite portico to the Main Entrance." Progress reports from 1926 further detailed this: on April 12th, "The electric wiring and installation of water service are both almost completed. The erection of granite portico to front entrance is progressing and brickwork is generally being cleaned. The school authorities have occupied a portion of the building." By July 28th, "the granite portico to front entrance is nearly completed."

Particular attention should be paid to the alteration of the granite portico design for the main entrance. A. Morris stated in 1928 that "the designs and drawings were the work of Mr. Dawbarn whose plans have since been selected from amongst many competitors, for the now Raffles College at Singapore." The design of the granite portico was a major part of the building and could not have been altered so close to completion. This might be related to the widening of Bonham Road. However, widening Bonham Road would have required tenders, and despite this not being a minor project, no relevant tenders could be found for those years. Tenders related to Saiyingpun School included: "Tender for Formation of Site, Laying Foundations and Building Retaining Walls for Bonham Road School" (November, 1922) and "Tender for Bonham Road School Superstructure-- The work consisting of Erection on Existing Foundations of Bonham Road School" (March, 1924). Judging from the garden wall of King's College, the widening of Bonham Road also seems unlikely to have affected the main entrance design. Another possibility is that the original name on the main entrance was 'Saiyingpun School', and the plans were altered after the impending renaming was known. Mr. Dawbarn should have included the school's name when designing the plans, and that name would, of course, have been 'Sai Ying Pun School'.

Fung Affoo, born on February 5, 1849, and died on January 19, 1934, was one of three young Chinese men whose admission to Howard University was requested by the American Missionary Association (AMA) just three years after the university opened. The AMA found these three men at New York City’s Five Points House of Industry, a charitable organization that provided assistance, English instruction, and religious guidance to the destitute. All three were Cantonese from Guangdong province and had initially arrived in the United States as laborers.

Fung Affoo, aged 20, was born in Heshan, Guangzhou, and orphaned at 15. He was sold to Cuba, where he worked as a house servant, narrowly escaping the slavelike conditions of a coolie laborer in the sugar cane fields, before arriving in America. Choy Awah, 21, came to America as a ship’s cabin boy. Leong Sing, 18, had studied to be a bookkeeper for six years in China before sailing to the United States. Like Fung, Leong had been in America for only six months prior to their enrollment. As a condition for accepting the AMA's offer of a full scholarship, all three were asked to renounce "paganism."

On February 20, 1870, the trio entered Howard’s Normal School (Model School), whose preparatory course required a basic knowledge of reading, arithmetic, spelling, and geography. They remained at Howard for two years, and both Fung Affoo and Leong Sing were baptized there in 1872. The men were popular among their peers and excelled in their studies. A schoolmate, Cornelius Scott, wrote in 1872, "Fung is very sociable, polite and funny. Sing is also very sociable and good-natured. We were playing football the other evening and in running at the ball we came in contact with each other and I being the heavier knocked him down; he just jumped up and went on playing and said nothing about it."

The only known photos of the three, taken around 1870, show them in various stages of assimilation. While some had adopted Western clothing, others still retained their queues, the long, signature braids of hair they were required to wear under Chinese law. It is noted that Fung Affoo did not wear a queue, suggesting that Choy Awah and Leong Sing were the ones depicted with braided queues. These images were circa-1870 halftone prints, likely "cartes-de-visite" or similar small-format albumen prints typical of 19th-century portrait studios. Such portraits, costing one to five dollars, were popular among Howard students. The photos are housed at Howard University Library's Moorland-Spingarn Research Center, with catalog entries for "Affoo, Fung," "Awah, Choy (Student)," and "Assing, Leon (Student)," indicating they were taken shortly after their enrollment.

After their time at Howard, Leong Sing's subsequent story remains unknown. However, both Fung Affoo and Choy Awah remained in the United States. Fung Affoo moved to San Francisco and became a teacher at the Chinese Mission School. Choy Awah stayed in Washington, D.C., opening a tea shop on Pennsylvania Avenue in the area that would later become Chinatown. In 1874, Choy became a U.S. citizen, and the following year, he married a woman of Irish descent. His marriage certificate listed his race as "White (Mongolian)." By the end of 1876, Choy was a tea salesman at 721 12th Street NW, and by 1880, he was a grocer at 431 L Street NW.

The American Missionary Association's primary mission after the Civil War was to provide education and evangelism to freed slaves. However, in the years leading up to 1870, the powerful Presbyterian denomination resolved to extend its missionary work to Chinese laborers in the United States. Unlike earlier German and Irish immigrants, Chinese laborers were often perceived as stubborn and unwilling to assimilate, leading to tense relations with American workers. The AMA's records are considered the most original accounts of Fung Affoo's background.

 An AMA monthly journal from May 1870 featured "OUR CHINESE PROTEGES," stating that three young Chinese men had been sent to Howard University to complete their education. The article described Fung Affoo as a 20-year-old orphan who had attended school in China for six years before being sent as a coolie to Cuba five years prior, where he worked as a house servant. He had been in New York for six months and was reading at a "Third Reader" level. If calculated from this account, Fung Affoo likely left Cuba in July 1869, arriving in New York to begin his American life at the poorhouse.

The AMA's interest in Chinese laborers was set against the backdrop of the harsh Cuba Coolie Trade. In 1867, it was reported that six to eight depots in Macao shipped 30,000 to 40,000 coolies annually to Peru and Cuba. These coolies were supplied by recruiting agents, both Chinese and Portuguese, many of whom were disreputable and suspected of piracy. The Hong Kong Gazette recorded a 14% mortality rate among 9,600 Chinese coolies transported to Cuba on 26 ships in 1857, with many reportedly jumping overboard. One Chinese emigrant, Pang Akan, recounted being kidnapped from Macao, bound, and held in a barracoon before being shipped to Cuba. The AMA's 23rd Annual Meeting in December 1869 passed resolutions to initiate vigorous missionary work among Chinese in the U.S. and to be ready for "Christian labors" following the "soon-coming emancipation in Cuba."

Fung Affoo's journey to New York in May 1869, after escaping slavelike conditions in Cuba, placed him at the Five Points House of Industry. Although the institution typically housed street children aged five to sixteen, it had expanded around that time, and Fung Affoo, then 20, stayed for about half a year. Coming from Cuba, he likely only knew Spanish.

 The New York Times reported on the Five Points House of Industry's work with Chinese immigrants. In March 1869, an evening class for "grown Chinese" was established, where members proficiently read lessons from the Scriptures in English and Chinese, demonstrating their industriousness and eagerness to learn. Mr. and Mrs. Railsback, missionaries at Five Points, were noted for their "excellent work with the Chinese," holding evening lessons and even visiting their homes, stands, and workshops. An October 1869 report described a festival held by the Chinese class, where about forty participants, many of whom made and sold cigars during the day, showcased their progress in English. This institution aimed to train them as "teachers and leaders of their countrymen." Fung Affoo, who may have sold cigars during the day, was likely a participant in these evening classes and social events, given the limited number of Chinese youths in similar circumstances in New York at the time.

Fung Fu, along with Leong Sing and Choy Awah, arrived at Howard University in February 1870, during the Winter Term, which ran from January 3 to March 29. The university's academic calendar for that period also included a Fall Term (September 13 - December 20) and a Spring Term (April 3 - June 12), followed by a thirteen-week Summer Vacation. On February 18, 1870, an application was made for their reception into the institution. Two days later, on February 20, 1870, they were admitted as unclassified students. By November 1870, they had converted to Christianity, and on January 21, 1872, they were baptized as Baptists by Dr. Rankin, who later became president of Howard University. This baptism attracted many witnesses, and the American Missionary Association expressed gratitude for the success of their evangelization efforts.

Records from the "Catalog of the Officers and Students of Howard University" show Fung Fu as an unclassified student for both the 1869-70 and 1870-71 academic years. In the 1871-72 academic year, they entered Class A of the Model School. There is an inferred suspension of studies for Fung Fu and his companions during the 1872-1873 academic year, coinciding with a period when Howard University may have suspended operations for a year. 

This inference arises from a lack of published "Catalog of the Officers and Students" for 1872-1873 and significant drops in student progression. For instance, in the Preparatory Department, only 13 out of 47 junior class students from 1871-72 entered the 1873-74 middle class. Similarly, in the Normal Department, only 2 out of 25 middle class students from 1871-72 advanced to the 1873-74 senior class, and in the Collegiate Department, only 1 out of 24 freshman class students from 1871-72 entered the 14-student sophomore class of 1873-74. 

This period of disruption was likely due to early disorganization and a lack of funds, though "The Capstone of Negro Education" does not explicitly mention a suspension of operations. If this inference is correct, Fung Fu and his companions would have paused their studies for a year. During this time, their living expenses were supported by the American Missionary Association, and they could have found work in D.C. or been assigned to the industrial department of Howard University, making leather and furniture.

After this inferred year of suspension, Fung Fu and his companions returned to their studies in 1873-74, entering the Junior Class of the Preparatory Department. They left the university after the Spring Term in June 1874. Fung Fu, despite having studied elementary school textbooks at a night school in  New York Industrial House of Five Points, had not formally attended elementary school, making his admission to Howard University's Model School appropriate. The Model School functioned as an elementary school attached to the Preparatory Department.

Unlike many students who "came to dig, literally, to dig their way through school" by bringing picks or shovels and working to drain hills and grade land, Fung Fu and his companions were fortunate to have their living expenses covered. This contrasted sharply with the struggles of other applicants, such as a 19-year-old orphan who wrote, "Is there any way in which I can enter your school. I am a white boy 19 years of age an orphan and poor and have no money and want an education." Fung Fu might also have held various part-time jobs while at school, as the university had industrial ventures, including a planned "Shoe factory and tannery."

The Model School served as a "school of practice and observation," preparing students for either the Normal or Preparatory Department. Candidates for admission had to be at least twelve years old and pass examinations in Arithmetic (through long division), Reading, Spelling (common words of two syllables), and Elements of Geography. Its curriculum included Reading, Spelling, Penmanship, Drawing, Grammar, Geography, United States History, Mental and Written Arithmetic, Loomis’s Elementary Algebra, and Natural History, arranged for classes A, B, and C. 

The Model School, including elementary grades A, B, C, and D, was established in a large frame building on Georgia Avenue, which had previously been a German dance hall and beer saloon. An ungraded class was later added beneath it to prepare pupils for the Model School, illustrating how "Howard University went down to the people."

The Preparatory Course itself was designed to prepare students for the Collegiate Department, with its Junior Course curriculum including Latin, Arithmetic, Ancient Geography, Algebra, and History. That year, out of 58 students in Class A, 14 entered the Preparatory Junior class (which had 36 students), and 4 entered the Normal Department Junior class (which had 23 students). Enrollment in other classes was almost zero.

Howard University faced significant challenges during this period, described as "a period of confusion" or "anarchy" from 1874 to 1877, following an "early period" from 1866 to 1874. The university was plagued by financial difficulties and corruption scandals. By 1874, conditions were so severe that salary reductions were necessary, and an application for a $75,000 loan was denied. In 1874, the American Missionary Association withdrew its funding, leading to the departure of Fung Fu and his companions. For many years afterward, Howard University had no more Chinese students. Some students during this tumultuous time found ways to earn money without attending classes, with records indicating, "They do not pay their debts although many make more money than their teachers."

Fung Fu and his two companions were housed in Room No. 29 M.H. in the basement of Miner Hall, a three-story women's dormitory designed to accommodate one hundred students and instructors. Boarding fees ranged from over one hundred to two hundred dollars annually. Miner Hall was razed in 1961, with the School of Education now occupying its site.

A rare glimpse into Fung Fu's personality comes from a letter written by Cornelius Scott to his parents on November 4, 1872. Scott described Fung as "very sociable, polite and funny." He also noted Leong Sing's sociable and good-natured disposition, recounting an incident during a football game where Sing, after being accidentally knocked down by the heavier Scott, "just jumped up and went on playing and said nothing about it." Cornelius Scott himself graduated from the Preparatory Department on June 16, 1873, and joined the Collegiate Department as a freshman that same year, later becoming a learned minister.

Choi Awah, one of Fung Fu's companions, also achieved success. He likely left school a year earlier than Fung Fu and became a U.S. citizen in 1874. He married a woman of Irish descent and opened Choy's tea shop on Pennsylvania Avenue, one of the first Chinese-owned businesses in Washington, D.C. This historic tea shop, located in the 300 block of Pennsylvania Avenue NW, became a cornerstone of the city’s original Chinatown, which later moved to 819 E Street NW.

Three Chinese youths were studying at Howard University, Washington, D.C., one of whom was Fung Affoo, the writer of the following letters. When he arrived in America, he had been in the country for only 18 months and had no English education. Although he had studied for six years in a private school at home before going to Cuba at age 15, he may have forgotten everything, as he was illiterate before attending night school at an almshouse. His academic level was probably equivalent to the first year of high school, and his English writing ability was approximately at a high school level.

D.C. Jan 9, 1871

Dear Mr. S,

I thank you for your kind present, which I received last Thursday. It keeps me very comfortable. I could not find words to express your kindness, but "God" knows how you are doing in this world. As the Bible says, "Beloved, if our hearts do not condemn us, then we have confidence toward God."

Our school commenced last Wednesday for the Winter Term. I am glad that I have something to do, for studying is the best thing for everybody, as it will guide me to a good way. In this term, I am studying the same books as I did last term. I also received a valuable lesson today, which I'd like to share. It was a story about a woman who had taught her little children to pray. One evening, as the little girl was saying the Lord's Prayer aloud, her mother stopped her in the middle. "How is it," she asked, "that when you have prayed for daily bread, you always add something I cannot understand? You must tell me what that is." The little one lay silent and ashamed, looking at her mother. "What is it you said after our daily bread?" the mother pressed. "Dear mamma, don't be angry, I only said, 'and plenty of butter on it.'"

I liked this lesson very much because that little girl spoke very truly, for I, too, put plenty of butter on my daily bread, just like her. But when I say the Lord's Prayer, I do not say it in that way. After "our daily bread," I just say, "and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors." That is how I say it every day.

Last Wednesday, I went to the President's Building and saw General Grant, and shook hands with him. I had a nice time at Christmas with my friends here, and I hope you enjoyed yourself very much.

Choy Awah and Leon Sing send many thanks to you. God bless you, dear Friend S.

Yours affectionately,

FUNG AFFOO.

WASHINGTON, D.C., March 30th, 1872.

Dear Sir,

Since I saw you last time here at Howard University, I felt quite happy, and I wished you could have stayed a little longer until my school was out, so that I could talk to you and tell you what I desire to be able to do by and by. As I have been here about two years, I feel that I have learned many useful things which will do me a great deal of good in my future.

Besides that, I have learned another thing, most importantly: to reconcile with God, Jesus Christ, our Redeemer. I know that I was a heathen, and I find myself living in darkness, so I am trying to seize this opportunity, which will bring great pleasure in the afterlife. As I read John Bunyan's book, *Pilgrim's Progress*, it greatly interested my mind. It seems to me it will show me everything in my life and tell me how to be happy while I live on earth. I am very fond of that book because the words are not so hard for me to read and are easy to understand.

Yours most affectionately,

FUNG AFFOO.

June 5th, 1872.

When I was in China, I never thought I would be here in America, and when I came to New York, I did not think I would have the opportunity to come to this school at Howard University to learn the doctrine of Christ. But God has placed me under the care of you and some other friends, and I have been well cared for. Now I can see my life is in the hands of the Lord. I can only look up to Him for guidance and see if I will be able in my future to follow the example you are setting for me now, and that I may gain pleasure in another world; that is what I desire.

As I read the A.M.A. paper, "Advance Supplement," the other day, about my countrymen in San Francisco, when I read that they had formed a Chinese Christian class there to meet weekly for study and prayer with American Christians, I felt so happy. I hope that by this opportunity, they will continue to live nearer to God and join the army of Christ, so that they may have the power to turn those who are worshiping idols to worship the true God who is in heaven. I desire that I myself will be able to take part with these Christian men, working together in San Francisco or China, wherever God's will may lead.

I am preparing myself to be an English teacher, knowing that they need this language. I hope these Christian men will be successful; then I will have good partners and good help.

Yours truly,

FUNG AFFOO.

Fung Affoo seemed to enjoy writing to Rev. Pond. The last letter was written before the summer break of his second year. It is believed that he may have suspended his studies in his third year to work for the school, and the coursework in the Preparatory Department during his fourth year was likely demanding, leaving him no time to write. He studied in the Preparatory Department for one year.

Fung Affoo expressed his aspiration for missionary work during his university years. In a letter dated March 30, 1872, he wrote, "As I have been here about two years, I feel that I have learned many useful things which will do me a great deal of good in my future. Besides that, I have learned another thing better than all; that is, to be reconciled with God, Jesus Christ, our Redeemer." A few months later, on June 5, 1872, he further articulated his desire: "As I had read the A.M.A. paper, 'Advance Supplement,' the other day, about my countrymen in San Francisco, when I read that they had formed a Chinese Christian class there, to meet weekly for study and prayer with American Christians, I desire that I myself will be able to take part with these Christian men, working together in San Francisco or China."

When Fung Affoo left Howard University in June 1874, Rev. Pond's mission school work in San Francisco was just beginning. Rev. Pond consolidated scattered mission schools for Chinese laborers across California, noting in April 1874, "Immediately upon receiving my commission as superintendent, I wrote to each of the teachers and received prompt replies." A new movement began in June 1874, calling for a church, which was secured by generous contributions from Chinese converts. 

Fung Affoo went to San Francisco and was appointed as a teacher before February 1875.

He actively participated in the work of the recently established Chinese Young Men's Christian Association. In an address published in January 1878, Fung Affoo stated, "I have only a few words to say about the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association, of which I have been a member for about three years. This Association was organized not quite four years ago." 

He also played an important role in the newly formed "California Chinese Mission," which was organized as a new and promising auxiliary in connection with the General Association of California on October 5, 1875. He led 13 Chinese laborers to conversion, prompting Rev. Mr. Pond to write: "Besides the thirteen conversions reported by Affoo, two are reported from the Los Angeles school, and two in the school in Stockton; a total of seventeen during the month of December. It is an amount of saving result—a harvest—that almost staggers my weak faith." 

In the same year, Fung Affoo translated the Chinese membership rules of the "Association of Christian Chinese" into English and hung them on the wall. These rules, "originally written in the Chinese language, and in that form adopted unanimously, framed, and hung on the wall in the room of the Association, so as to be read and understood by every one proposing to join the Association," were translated by him.

Fung Affoo was invited to speak at the annual picnic of the Sunday schools. A report noted: "On Friday last, Woodward's Garden [a well-known landmark] was opened to the Chinese Missions and Sunday-schools, for their annual picnic. The attendance was large, -- But the gem of the occasion was an English address by Fung Affoo." He was very popular and was again invited to speak at the annual meeting of the Plymouth Chinese Sunday School. His missionary work was very successful, and he was invited to give a testimony. Rev. Pond, in the February 1876 issue, alluded to "the remarks made by Fung Affoo at the anniversary of Plymouth Chinese Sunday School." 

In August 1876, Fung Affoo went to Oakland to teach and evangelize.

Teaching English for the church was a salaried position, but it was merely a means to an end; evangelism was his true calling. At 27 years old, having found his true calling after his studies, he was in his element, dedicating himself to his work with great enthusiasm. His achievements were highly praised, and he was considered a rising star. Fung Affoo received praise from Presbyterian minister T. M. Oviatt in a letter to Rev. Pond, who wrote: "I enclose from last week's 'Pacific' a brief address by Fung Affoo. He is winning a high place in the esteem both of his own countrymen and of American Christians: a man of most excellent spirit and of rare ability." T. M. Oviatt further reported on Fung Affoo's assistance in baptisms: "

Visiting Bro. McLean's church at Oakland, nearly one year ago, when several Chinese converts were there baptized and made a public profession, they inquired diligently, there and here, to know the ways of God more perfectly, and at their urgent request, these three were examined carefully by the session here, assisted by Fung Affoo and Jee Gam (whom you well know), and they were found worthy of baptism and reception."

During the Lunar New Year in 1877, Fung Affoo lavishly decorated the Chinese Young Men's Christian Association rooms to welcome the new year, competing with the neighboring temple for adherents. At that time, the Christian church and Chinese temples, where incense was burned, were fierce rivals. The acceptance of incense burning for ancestor worship by Christians came much later. A report described the New Year's activities: "On New Year's eve we gathered together to watch the old year out and welcome the new year. The hour between 11 and 12 o'clock we spent in thanking God. From 12 o'clock to 1:30 A.M., we prayed God to give us strength. We retired to bed about 2:30 A.M. to get rest. About 6 o'clock, our friends and pupils began coming to give us New Year's calls; and about noon many of our Christian brethren from the country arrived. We commenced singing and preaching at one o'clock P.M. And though there is a Chinese 'joss house' just four or five doors from our Mission, many of our countrymen left it and came over to hear our preaching of Jesus." By August 1877, Fung Affoo became a teacher at the Central School of the San Francisco Church, a large school rented by the church. Fung Affoo and other helpers had their own lounge, and he effectively served as the pastor's assistant there.

In October 1878, Fung Affoo wrote an article for the "American Missionary Association" annual meeting, introducing the Sunday Bible class work at the Central School. He described the class: "On Sunday we have the 'Bible-class,' commencing at 11:30 A.M. and continuing for an hour and a half. We sing for about half an hour, either in Chinese or in English, then offer a prayer, and then read a chapter from the Bible. Each verse they read after me, then I translate it into Chinese; after interpreting, on each verse or paragraph I make some remarks which I have studied during the weekdays. After we get through the chapter, I speak about ten minutes on a subject selected from that chapter beforehand, then one of our brethren offers prayer; we then unite in singing the Doxology and close with the Lord's Prayer."

 Records from the Third Annual Meeting of the "California Chinese Mission" on October 11, 1878, indicate that he was a teacher at the Central School in San Francisco. The June 1878 issue introduced his work in the Bible Class, titled "Sabbath Worship at the Central Mission - Bible Class, By Fung Affoo." He was likely still leading the Sunday services in San Francisco around that time. In the October 1878 issue, he published an article titled "More about a mission at Hong Kong," expressing his hope to start missionary work upon his return.

 It is inferred that he returned to Hong Kong in mid-to-late 1878, met with E. J. Eitel, and was recommended for the Sai Ying Pun School. The timeline was quite tight, making it unlikely that he taught at Hong Kong's Central School before becoming the headmaster of Sai Ying Pun School. Upon leaving the U.S., Fung Affoo was commissioned by Rev. Pond to gather Chinese converts' views on starting missionary work in Hong Kong.

Ho Kom-tong, the half-brother of Ho Tung, was a prominent figure in the community, particularly during Principal Morris's tenure at Saiyingpun School. He frequently attended prize-giving ceremonies and supported school activities, especially the Boy Scouts and St. John Ambulance Brigade. According to the China Mail on November 31, 1921, Ho Kom-tong, as Patron of the Saiyingpun School Boy Scouts (7th Hong Kong Troop), attended their inauguration ceremony held at the University Football Ground in Pokfulam. Earlier that month, on November 1, the Saiyingpun School Old Boys' Ho Kom-tong Ambulance Division was inspected by Dr. Sir Erie Stewart Taylor on the University Football Ground. Among those present were Lady Taylor, Mr. B. Ralphs (St John Ambulance Commissioner Overseas), and Mr. Morris (Superintendent of the Division). Beyond his patronage, Ho Kom-tong is credited with founding the St. John Ambulance Brigade in Hong Kong and was its sole supporter for its first twelve years.

An intriguing, previously unrecorded historical detail reveals Ho Kom-tong's indirect role in the establishment of a Saiyingpun (English) under Fung Fu. This occurred when Ho Kom-tong was just 12 years old, two years before Fung Fu became the school's principal. Student's name, which rarely appeared in public records, was discovered on the Central School student register (no. 310) when Inspector of Schools Frederick Stewart was ordered by Governor Hennessy to produce the list. The record indicated he was Chinese, aged 12, and had been enrolled for one year, with the note "cannot be said to speak English at all." Historical records from Ryan Ka Chun Iu's "The Government Central School and the Elite Network in Early Colonial Hong Kong" confirm he enrolled in Central School in 1877 at the age of eleven. After graduating, he began his career in 1886 as a Chinese agent in Jardine Matheson & Co.'s insurance department. This timeline confirms he completed his studies at Central School, graduating from its highest class.

Entry to Central School was highly selective, admitting only elite students through examinations. Ho Kom-tong's reported lack of English proficiency was not uncommon, as the school in its early years did not prioritize spoken English, with junior students primarily focusing on Chinese. A 1920 Educational Report noted, "Twenty years ago, our effort in English education was largely meaningless, because the teaching of spoken English was almost entirely neglected." It further explained that in the Preparatory Classes, where the first rudiments of English pronunciation were taught, instruction was "left in the hands of native assistants, whose own pronunciation is by no means perfect." The school also faced significant challenges with overcrowding. An 1874 Educational Report highlighted that "existing accommodation is limited to bare sitting room. Each class-room contains on an average 100 boys... Three or more masters have to teach simultaneously in the same class-room." This meant that over 150 junior students, including Ho Kom-tong, would often be crammed together for Chinese lessons, further illustrating the challenging learning environment. Consequently, most junior Chinese students, like Ho Kom-tong, were assessed as having minimal English ability.

The disparity in English proficiency between foreign and Chinese students eventually led to calls for segregated education. Ho Tung later donated a school in Yaumati to the government, stipulating inclusive teaching for all races. However, the government had already decided to establish separate schools for European children. Official records from November 19, 1903, confirm that petitions for separate schools for European and "better classes of Chinese" children were approved. Ho Tung's newly completed school in Kowloon, originally intended as a mixed-race institution, was subsequently dedicated for European children. In return, the government undertook to build a replacement school in Yaumati. At the 1906 Prize Distribution Day, it was further noted that Ho Tung consented to his Robinson Road school being maintained for European British children, rather than all nationalities, on the condition that an equally good school be provided for Chinese boys in Yaumati. This building was erected in partial fulfillment of that condition, marking a significant development in the history of education in Hong Kong.

Rev. Pond, a San Francisco helper from Hong Kong responsible for Chinese work in the Bay Area, naturally hoped to bring missionary work back to Hong Kong for the American Missionary Association. A speech by a senior helper, Jee Gam, clarified the background of this initiative.

In his address, Jee Gam recounted, "It was ten years ago when our Chinese brethren first felt the need of a mission in China. For the first three years, we often expressed our great desire among ourselves for this mission, but never thought of telling our superintendent, Rev. W. C. Pond. Not a word was said to him until, at our usual Wednesday afternoon Bible class about seven years ago, when the subject of foreign missions was accidentally mentioned. We then told Rev. W. C. Pond what we so much desired. He at once approved of it. Hong Kong was chosen for the seat of this mission, and Rev. Pond requested that those who were able to write a letter should do so, explaining why this mission was so much needed. He accordingly forwarded these letters to the American Missionary Association." Jee Gam further added, "In early October 1879, I attended its annual meeting in Chicago. I felt moved by the Holy Spirit to make an earnest plea for it. I also spoke for it at all the meetings I attended while East."

The date Rev. Pond requested these letters from supporters might be incorrect; it should have occurred in 1878, when Fung Affoo was about to return to Hong Kong. In the October 1878 issue of *MISSIONARY*, Rev. Pond wrote, "Regarding the proposition for a mission in Hong Kong, which I proposed last month to be closely connected with our Californian Mission, I asked our helper, Bro. Fung Affoo, to consult the Chinese brethren on the subject and get their opinions. Soon after, I began receiving letters, and I now have about twenty on file. I thought that extracts from these letters would interest the readers of the *MISSIONARY*. Some of them I can copy verbatim; others will need slight revisions to their English for clarity. However, the ideas are their own, and the expressions will be modified as little as possible. First, Affoo himself says: 'I told the brethren at the meeting last Sunday what you said to me about establishing a mission at Hong Kong. They were very glad; their faces beamed with joy. They all wish, with one accord, that this enterprise will be accomplished before long.'"

Fung Affoo was ambitious at the time, and money was not his primary concern. Had the American Missionary Association agreed, he might have taught at this mission school, taking a different path. Without Fung Affoo, the history of English promotion in the colony might have been delayed by several years. This crossroads, however, indirectly led to a significant turning point in Sun Yat-sen's life. The American Missionary Association had close ties with the US Congress, and its mission was to aid the large number of freed slaves after the Civil War by providing education and religious instruction. To undertake missionary work in Hong Kong, they would need to amend their constitution. They resolved this at their annual meeting in 1880: "That while your Committee recognize the difficulties in the way of establishing a mission in China, they also see that there would be great advantage, both direct and indirect, in thus connecting a foreign with the home work, and they recommend the Board to give serious consideration to the proposition, and to carry it into execution, if, on a more thorough inquiry, it shall be found practicable to do so without interfering with the other work of the society, or with the work of other Evangelical missions in China."

Actual preparations began in 1882, with extensive discussions within the American Missionary Association. Rev. W. C. Pond, in the January 1882 issue, envisioned the mission: "Two American missionaries, a little property in Hong Kong, a rented chapel here and there in the larger villages and the small stipends of the Chinese evangelists; this would be all."

Rev. Charles Robert Hager, M.D., D.D., of the ABCFM, was born in Switzerland and arrived in China from the United States in 1883. He died on July 13, 1917, in Claremont, California, USA. He labored in Hong Kong and Canton in educational and evangelistic work and famously baptized Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Rev. C. R. Hager's involvement began in 1883. Rev. W. C. Pond reported in February 1883: "The memorable event of the month of February—so far as our work is concerned—is the inauguration of the mission of the American Board to Hong Kong, and through Hong Kong to those districts of South China from which most of our Chinese have come. Rev. C. R. Hager, a recent graduate of our Pacific Theological Seminary, and for more than a year past a very successful and greatly beloved pastor at Antioch, in this State, having offered himself to the Board as a Foreign Missionary, was at our own suggestion and request appointed to take charge of this new work, and was ordained as a Missionary at Bethany Church, on Friday, Feb. 16."

By July 1883, the mission was underway. The Congregational Association of Christian Chinese, at its last annual meeting, voted to give $500 toward establishing this Hong Kong mission and pledged to do all in its power to help in the future. Rev. C. R. Hager and Lee Sam, sent by the American Board to establish a mission in the South China districts from which Chinese in America had come, were already at work. A house had been rented, and an evening school for English instruction for the Chinese was provided. The plan for instilling the truths of the Gospel into the minds of the scholars by using the Bible to some extent as a textbook, which had been so successful in California, was adopted. By October 1883, "Bro. Hager has established his headquarters at Hong Kong and has gathered there a school similar in all respects to ours in California."

This demonstrates the power of faith, as they quickly began their work in Hong Kong with meager funds. In 1883, Charles Robert Hager preached and established the American Congregational Mission Preaching Hall at 2 Bridges Street in Central, Hong Kong. The original building was a three-story house that served as a preaching hall, school, and residence. The mission became the spiritual home for early converts, most famously Dr. Sun Yat-sen, who was baptized there in June 1883.

Two letters are widely cited regarding Hager's baptism of Sun Yat-sen. In a letter to Clark dated May 5, 1884, Hager wrote: "...At present there are some seven members in the interior belonging to our mission, and two here, one I baptized last Sabbath, a young man who is attending the Government Central School. We had a very pleasant communion service yesterday..." Similarly, in a postscript to Pond on May 5, 1884, Hager noted: "...We had a pleasant communion yesterday and received one Chinese into the church..."

Sun Yat-sen and Charles Robert Hager both arrived in Hong Kong in early 1883, full of vigor. At that time, there were many churches in Hong Kong, raising the question of why Sun Yat-sen chose to be baptized in this small, rented place. With his unconventional character, he would quickly assess a person, and only after gaining his trust could a friendship be established. From the letters, it can be inferred that Sun Yat-sen liked Hager. There is a theory that Sun Yat-sen learned English from Fung Affoo at Hop Yat Church. As an excellent student, Sun Yat-sen would primarily need to converse with foreigners to learn spoken English, making Hager an ideal candidate. Hop Yat Church, Bridges Street, and Central School were all located nearby. Fung Affoo, Hager, and Sun Yat-sen were likely friends. Fung Affoo's suggestion before returning to Hong Kong, though it did not materialize as planned, indirectly fostered the relationship between Sun Yat-sen and Hager.

Logically, Hager should have first sought out Fung Affoo upon his arrival in Hong Kong. However, this was not the case. In "[For The Pacific] The First Sabbath in Hong Kong," it states: "After I had carefully made my toilet, and quietly surveyed the scene from a third-story verandah, and been invited to partake of a little breakfast tea, I repaired to the house of Mr. Wang Ching Kai (a California Chinese) and found Lee Sam there." Wang Ching Kai was a wealthy merchant who helped Rev. Hager rent a three-story house at 2 Bridges Street in Central, Hong Kong, to serve as a base and residence. Lee Sam was also a key figure in the "California group." Both had a significant connection to Sun Yat-sen's later baptism.

Fung Affoo also belonged to this "California group." His notable students included Kong Wing-wen, who was a student at Sai Ying Pun Fung Fu School before enrolling in the Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese in 1887—the same inaugural class as Dr. Sun Yat-sen. Another former student under Fung Fu, Lau Sz-fuk, also joined the Hong Kong College of Medicine in 1887 and graduated in 1895 with a degree in Western medicine. Fung Affoo might have joined the London Missionary Society instead of an American church due to his father-in-law's connections.

Fung Fu was never listed as a civil servant, except during his tenure at Sai Ying Pun School from 1879 to 1903. Several misconceptions about his life have emerged from A. Morris's introduction at the 1928 King's College opening ceremony and from newspaper reports following Fung Fu's death. As my research neared its end, I encountered these three reports and sensed something amiss. I may have inadvertently stumbled upon a 150-year-old scandal. The British authorities might have later become aware of it, but due to the involvement of a former Governor and Inspector of Schools, they might have been hesitant to act.

It should be noted that not being a civil servant does not entirely rule out the possibility of having taught at Central School, as not all Chinese masters were paid as civil servants at the time; temporary teaching positions were funded through miscellaneous expenses. However, the claim that Fung Fu served as a Chinese master is refuted by a mismatch in timelines. During his funeral, several of Fung Fu's sons were in Hong Kong. Three media outlets made the same erroneous report that he had studied at Harvard University, which is curious.

I had overlooked one detail: Eitel's introduction of Fung Fu to Governor Hennessy at the 1880 awards ceremony. Eitel stated, "I knew that Mr. Fung Fú, the master, who had a collegiate education in America, was a thoroughly competent teacher." The 1881 Education Report also noted, "At Saiyingp’ún there is a native Master, educated at Howard University, Washington, U.S.A., teaching English, whilst there is another Government school in the same building teaching only Chinese, so that those who wish to learn Chinese in addition to English, have an opportunity of doing so. But few, however, avail themselves of it, and the majority devote the whole of each day to learning here English only, having private opportunities to keep up their Chinese knowledge." Fung Fu did not conceal his history at Howard University. Eitel, who held a doctorate from the University of Tübingen, would have been well aware of the requirements for obtaining a B.A. or A.B. degree. Fung Fu had not even completed the preparatory department of a collegiate college. This suggests he misrepresented his academic qualifications to Eitel, who then accepted his account at face value.

A. Morris stated in 1928: "Saiyingpun School dates back to 1879, in which year the Government decided to establish a Free School at West Point (Saiyingpun(English)), and appointed as the first Headmaster Mr. Fung Fu a returned student from America, and who was selected after a competitive examination as an assistant teacher for the Central School where he remained for one year." However, there is no record of him teaching at Central School, and the timeline does not align. Fung Fu did not, and could not have, taught at Central School before his tenure at Sai Ying Pun School. Chinese individuals could only be examined for the position of Chinese Master. Fung Fu, having only attended school in China for "six years" before the age of 15, could not have passed the entrance examination for Central School. The examination, held in March, required candidates to complete tasks such as "2. Explanation.-Select passages from any of the thirteen classics" and "5. Literature. Prolegomena to any of the thirteen classics."

Newspaper reports, presumably from his sons, stated that Fung Fu returned to Hong Kong at the age of 27 (in 1876) to become a coal merchant. However, Fung Fu left university in mid-1874 and was employed as a teacher before February 1875. He was actively and continuously involved in missionary work in San Francisco during that period. Crossing the ocean was not a simple matter in those days. The obituary's mention of Fung Fu's business failure upon his return to Hong Kong at age 27 (in 1876) might be significant, as obituaries rarely include negative details. At the age of 27, Fung Fu was teaching in San Francisco. He was an orphan and appeared to have no family wealth. Although he might have earned some money as a domestic servant in Cuba and during a year-long leave from Howard University, it likely would not have exceeded a thousand silver dollars. This raises the question: did he leave university, return to Hong Kong for an arranged marriage, and then, amidst the wartime demand for coal, quickly lose all his money and incur significant debt? He might then have returned to America to seek refuge with the church. This timeline is plausible, as a third-class passage to San Francisco cost approximately 100 silver dollars at the time.

This leads to an investigation into the background of the Fung Fu’s wife. Kwan Yuet-ming was the eldest daughter of Kwan Yuan-chang, a lady from a prominent family. Fung Fu's father-in-law, Kwan Yuan-chang, was China's first Western-trained dentist, and his mother-in-law, Lai Ah-mui, was China's first female teacher, nurse, and court translator. The Kwan family made numerous significant contributions to modern China. Fung Fu's first daughter, Fung Sui-king, was born on August 16, 1879. Fung Fu likely married Kwan Yuet-ming around the end of 1878. At that time, the Taoist Society was an exclusive club, admitting only about 20 newborn baptismal members annually. This aligns with records from the American Missionary Association, indicating that Fung Fu hastily returned to Hong Kong at the end of 1878. He was quickly recognized by Eitel and appointed headmaster of Sai Ying Pun English School on February 1, 1879.

Two English newspaper obituaries simultaneously reported that "The second son of the deceased, Mr. Fung Yiu Wing, is the managing director of the Fung Keong Rubber Manufactory, one of the largest concerns of its kind in Hongkong and South China." However, the actual managing director of Fung Keong Rubber Manufactory was Fung Yat-hing (馮日興). The Governor visited the factory in December 1934, and Fung Yat-hing was present. In a 1935 case, Fung Yat-hing testified on behalf of the company. Fung Yiu Wing was likely accepted into Fung Keong's core team due to his experience as a lawyer in Shanghai.

Fung Fu never served as headmaster of Wanchai School after his retirement. Official records from April 20, 1903, show a discussion regarding the Education Vote. During this discussion, Hon. R. Shewan inquired if the schools were Chinese schools, to which the Chairman replied, "Yes. These are schools for Chinese learning English, called Anglo-Chinese schools." When asked if they were in charge of foreign masters, the Chairman confirmed, "Yes. The new system is to have a foreign master at each of these schools—Saiyingpun, Wanchai, and Yaumati. I may mention, however, that the master at Yaumati is not an European; he is a Chinese educated in America and has a good knowledge of English, so that he is able to do the work of an English master." The vote was agreed to. At that time, policy dictated that government district schools be headed by "foreign masters." The headmaster of Wanchai School mentioned here was Young Hee, who served from 1904 to 1910, followed by William Curwen. Later headmasters included William Kay in 1914, Arthur Robert Sutherland in 1918, and Reginald Joseph Birbeck in 1923. Fung Fu died in 1934. Therefore, Fung Fu never held any position, including headmaster, at Wanchai School. William Kay was reassigned as headmaster of Wanchai School on September 9, 1914. He eventually returned from Queen's College to take over from A. Morris as headmaster of the new King's College on June 18, 1934. King's College has a 'Kay House' named in his honor, which attests to the historical ties between King's College and Sai Ying Pun English School.

Fung Fu's post-retirement life is documented in two historical records. The first is his inclusion in Feng Ziyou's "Revolutionary Anecdotes." In July 1905, the Tokyo headquarters of the Chinese Tongmenghui was established. Sun Yat-sen, recognizing that party affairs had stagnated since the Gengzi Incident and that Chen Shaobai and comrades in Hong Kong and Guangdong were not in harmony, dispatched Feng Ziyou to Hong Kong on August 10 to organize the Tongmenghui and serve as a reporter for *China Daily*. At that time, the editorial staff included Lu Xin, Liao Ping'an, and Chen Chunsheng, with Fung Fu serving as a translator. This brief mention should not be underestimated. It occurred when Feng Ziyou was commissioned by Sun Yat-sen to develop party affairs in Hong Kong. The office of *China Daily* served as the headquarters of the Revive China Society. This indicates that Fung Fu actively participated in politics immediately after his retirement and was likely a party member. Although he was not on the official guest list for the King's College opening ceremony in March 1928, which had over two thousand attendees, it is plausible he was among them. This period was a turbulent time for China, and many Chinese intellectuals harbored reservations about the British. On May 21, 1928, the *Hong Kong Chinese Daily News* reported on a public memorial held by the Tongmenghui at the fountain in "Hong Kong's First Park" (now Hong Kong Zoological and Botanical Gardens, commonly known as "Government House Garden"). Four hundred people attended, creating a grand scene. Fung Fu might have been among them. Szeto Wah organized similar gatherings 60 years later. Fung Fu possessed a chivalrous character. His involvement with the Revive China Society brought a fitting conclusion to his life.

Fung Fu's eldest daughter married Ruan Jiaxiang, a wealthy merchant from Nanyang (Southeast Asia). Ruan Jiaxiang was the general agent for Watsons in Nanyang and a supporter of Sun Yat-sen's Tongmenghui. Fung Fu's second daughter married into the Zhao family in Nanyang, who may also have been a prominent clan. However, she died prematurely at 36. It is possible her marriage was unhappy due to her inability to bear sons for the Zhao family. Fung Fu brought her three young daughters back to Hong Kong and enshrined her spirit tablet. Two of Zhao's three daughters remained unmarried, as did two of Fung Fu's five daughters, possibly due to related circumstances. Fung Fu's eldest son who remained in Hong Kong, Fung Yiu-cheung, had an arranged marriage into the Ho family, marrying Ho Man-fai. However, this was also an era of burgeoning free love and youthful rebellion. The Fung family was highly Westernized, and arranged marriages for their children may have been less frequent. Fung Fu's second son who remained in Hong Kong, Fung Yiu-wing, became very prominent. He worked as a lawyer in Shanghai early in his career, earning a substantial amount of money. Upon returning to Hong Kong, he became the deputy to rubber magnate Fung Keong, a well-known supporter of Sun Yat-sen's revolution. Fung Fu's in-laws also contributed to modern China. Fung Fu meticulously cultivated his network, and many people around him were connected to Sun Yat-sen's revolution, reflecting the high hopes many Chinese bourgeoisie placed on Sun Yat-sen at the time. Feng Ziyou's brief description likely carries significant weight. A photograph at the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hall showing Fung Fu participating in a ship reception further illustrates his standing. Comparing English and Chinese newspapers from that era reveals a general distrust of the British among Chinese elites.

The second historical record mentioning Fung Fu after his return to Hong Kong is found in the 1889 annual report of the American Missionary Association, where Joe Jet states: "I have seen Tsing Ki, Fung Foo and all my friends at Hong Kong." Reverend Hager's missionary work in Hong Kong encouraged many helpers from San Francisco to return, with Joe Jet being a key figure among them.

His obituary reported: "Philanthropic work also claimed his attention, and a free school which he has established at Castle Peak for poor boys will always remain as a memorial to him." In memory of his father, Fung Fu's son, Fung Yiu-cheung, funded the construction of But San School. The school's founding in 1920 originated as an enlightenment institute of the Tuen Mun Evangelical Church of the Church of Christ in China. Initially, there were only nine students, which grew to over forty within ten years. In 1931, members of the New Territories Mission, recognizing the high demand for school places, proposed building a new school. With donations from brothers, including Fung Yiu-cheung, the school building was completed and officially named "Butsan School" in memory of his father, Mr. Fung But San (Fung Fu). This enlightenment institute was likely founded by Fung Fu himself, which explains why his obituary specifically mentioned "a free school which he has established at Castle Peak for poor boys." However, a question arises: Fung Fu was 71 years old in 1920. If he voluntarily established a free school in Castle Peak, it would have been more likely during his younger, more active years.

Fung Fu, born on February 5, 1849, passed away on January 19, 1934, and was interred on January 21, 1934, at the Chinese Christian Cemetery in Pokfulam. His wife, Kwan Fung Shi (real name is Kwan Yuet Ming), born on January 17, 1859, died on September 2, 1933, and was buried on September 4, 1933. Fung Fu occupies three grave plots in the "Zion Hill" section of the cemetery. His tombstone lists his grandsons as Cong, Xin, Li, Rong, Rong, Cai, Yang, and Guang.

The "Zion Hill" (郇崗, pronounced "Waan Gong") section holds deep Christian spiritual significance. "Zion" in the Bible represents God's dwelling, the Holy City, and the gathering place of the chosen people, symbolizing the glory of the Kingdom of Heaven. "Gong" means a high ground or hill. Thus, naming the burial ground "Zion Hill" symbolizes it as "God's holy mountain," reflecting the Christian belief in resting in the Lord's embrace after death and reuniting in heaven. The Pokfulam Chinese Christian Cemetery, established in 1882 after receiving land from the Hong Kong government, was the first permanent Christian cemetery for Chinese people in Hong Kong. The "Zion Hill" section was one of its core original areas.

This cemetery is renowned for interring many pioneers who significantly influenced the development of Christianity in Hong Kong and the Xinhai Revolution. Among them are figures like Au Fung-chi (1847–1914), Sun Yat-sen's Chinese tutor and revolutionary confidant; Tse Tsan-tai (1872–1938), a core revolutionary of the Furen Literary Society and Revive China Society, and a co-founder of the *South China Morning Post*; Cheng Si-leung (1863–1901), a Triad leader and key member of the Revive China Society who led the Huizhou Uprising; and Li Yuk-tong (1851–1936), a prominent Guangdong merchant and crucial financial supporter of the Xinhai Revolution. The cemetery also serves as the resting place for modern literary, educational, and academic luminaries such as Xu Dishan (1893–1941), a renowned writer and New Culture Movement pioneer; Ma Jian (1883–1959), a distinguished scholar who succeeded Xu Dishan as head of the Chinese Department at the University of Hong Kong; Wu So-ching (1890–1979), a celebrated female educator and long-serving principal of St. Paul's Co-educational College; and Lin Zifeng (1892–1971), a banker and educator who founded and served as the first president of Hong Kong Baptist College. Another notable individual buried here is Fung Shui Sang (1858–1932), who was eight years younger than Fung Fu and likely knew him.

News Summary

Mr. Fung Fu, a prominent Chinese educationalist, passed away on Friday, January 19, 1934, at 3:55 AM, at his residence at 1 Third Street, Saiyingpun, Hong Kong, at the age of 85. He had been in retirement for nearly thirty years. Approximately fourteen months prior to his death, he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage, which impaired his mobility, and his condition worsened in the days leading up to his passing. He was remembered as an exceptionally unassuming and good-natured man, well-liked by a large circle of friends and students.

His funeral took place on Sunday, January 21, 1934, at the Chinese Christian Cemetery in Pokfulam, following a service at the Cemetery Chapel officiated by the Reverend Cheung Chuk-ling. Three generations of his family followed his mortal remains. The profound respect for Mr. Fung was evidenced by a large procession of mourners, many following in cars. In accordance with his dying wish, the coffin was of native style, encased in a beflowered catafalque, and borne by uniformed bearers. Other notable features of the cortege included a large photograph of the deceased carried in a canopied chair and two European-style bands playing appropriate music and hymns. The immense mass of floral tributes required five motor trucks for transport to the cemetery.

The news also reported that:

"Fung Fu was among the first Chinese individuals to receive a foreign education. At a young age, he traveled to the United States with relatives, where he studied at Harvard University, earning an education degree. (which is not correct)He returned to Hong Kong at the age of 27 and briefly worked as a coal merchant, an endeavor that unfortunately failed. Recognizing his deep knowledge of education, the Hong Kong government subsequently appointed him as a headmaster in government schools, making him the first Chinese to hold such a position. Over four decades prior to his death, he served as headmaster of Saiyingpun Government School (which later expanded into King's College) and Wanchai Government School (also known as Wanchai Gap Government School). He also held a senior professorship at Queen's College. He retired from government service at the beginning of the 20th century, leaving behind a record of exceptional work and earning general esteem for his fine character, marked by good nature and a quiet demeanor. He took a keen interest in Church activities, particularly in the development of the Church of Christ in China, serving as one of its elders, and was also a committee member of Ying Wah Boys' College. His philanthropic work included establishing a free school at Castle Peak for poor boys, which stands as a memorial to him.

Mr. Fung Fu is survived by five sons, two daughters, and a number of grandchildren. Four of his five sons and two daughters were present at the funeral. His second son, Mr. Fung Yiu Wing, is the managing director of the Fung Keong Rubber Manufactory, one of the largest concerns of its kind in Hong Kong and South China."

The text details the contributions of Fung Fu and his family to the church and educational institutions in Hong Kong, along with biographical information for several individuals.

Fung Fu (also known as Fung Butson, 1849-1934) was a prominent figure whose family, spanning three generations, were devoted Christians. He served as a deacon at To Tsai Church in 1908, supporting Rev. Cheung Chuk Ling in church affairs. Fung Fu was also a member of the Ying Wa College Re-establishment Committee in 1914.

Fung Fu and his wife, Mrs. Kwan Yue-ming, had a large family. Their children included:

Firstborn

Fung Shu-king was born on August 16, 1879, and passed away on June 2, 1920, at the age of 41. She was buried on June 4, 1920, according to cemetery records, and her headstone was erected in 1922. It she did not buried with her husband and returned to their mother's home before her death, leaving her infants behind.

Hilda Mo-Yin Yuen, the 6^th born, was born in 1905. She was among the first ten female graduates of the University of Hong Kong's Faculty of Medicine, following Eva Ho Tung, who was the first. Hilda enrolled at the University of Hong Kong in 1924 at the age of 19 for her first degree and entered the Faculty of Medicine in March 1926.

Her medical studies progressed through several examinations. In December 1926, Miss Yuen completed the 1st Degree Examination by passing Physics, Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, and Biology. In December 1928, she passed Anatomy and Physiology. By May 1930, she had completed the 3rd Degree Examination, having passed Junior Pathology and Pharmacology. (At this period, the examination at the end of the second year in Junior Anatomy and Junior Physiology, now known as the 2nd Degree Examination, had not been instituted.) She passed Senior Pathology, Medical Jurisprudence, and Public Health in May 1931. Finally, in December 1931, she passed Medicine, Surgery, and Obstetrics & Gynaecology, thus completing the Final Degree Examination. The Degree of MB BS from the University of Hong Kong was conferred upon Miss Yuen on January 11, 1932. This record was signed by L.T. Ride, M.A., M.B., Ch.B. (Oxon), M.R.C.S., L.R.C.P., Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, on February 3, 1932.

Following her graduation, Hilda Mo-Yin Yuen practiced medicine in Hong Kong, and then back to Kuala Lumpur and died there.

A significant social event in Chinese society at the time was documented in a report published in the Nanyang Siang Pau on Friday, July 18, 1930, on page 6 of its news column. The headline read: "Mr. Yuan Ka-tseung's Daughters Depart for England to Study Construction and Surveying." The article detailed that Mr. Yuan Ka-tseung, a prominent businessman from Kuala Lumpur, had recently sent his daughters to London, England, for further studies.

The report highlighted Mr. Yuan Ka-tseung 's prominent background as the owner of Wencheng Printing Bureau and the general agent for Hong Kong Watsons soda in Nanyang. It noted that his children were well-versed in both Chinese and Western languages, and his sons, including Mr. Sishun, had followed their father into business. The article specifically mentioned his eldest daughter, Mo-yan (Hilda), then 25 years old, who was studying medicine in Hong Kong and nearing graduation. It further stated that his second daughter, Mo-ting (22), and third daughter, Mo-yu (20), both graduates of Kuala Lumpur English Girls' High School, intended to study construction and surveying in England. They were scheduled to depart from Singapore on July 25 aboard the British mail ship 'Mooltan'. This plan for the younger daughters to specialize in fields like architectural design, civil engineering, and surveying was considered a groundbreaking endeavor in female education in the 1930s.

Secondborn

Fung Shu-lian was born on February 18, 1881, and was buried on May 26, 1916, at the age of 37.

Chiu Fung Shi, real name is  Fung Shu-lian, was born on October 13, 1881, and passed away on June 13, 1917, at the age of 36. She had several daughters. One daughter married and moved to Nanyang (Southeast Asia). Two of her daughters remained single and rented an apartment on the second floor of 4 High Street. Some of Chiu's daughters trained and worked as nurses at Nethersole Hospital.

Chiu Hu-kang, the second daughter of Chiu Fung Shi (Fung Shu-lian), was born in 1909 when her mother was 28 years old. She passed away on April 30, 1981, at the age of 72. Chiu Hu-kang was commemorated in the church history book. Her contributions included: visiting the Central District on the Tuesday after the second Sunday of each month; serving as an offering statistician on the third Sunday of each month; and visiting Happy Valley on the Tuesday after the third Sunday of each month. She also visited Shau Kei Wan on the Tuesday after the fourth Sunday of each month. Furthermore, she served as a Sunday usher, distributed weekly publications, and acted as a reserve on the fifth Sunday of each month at Hengmen. Additionally, she counted savings box donations on the fourth and fifth Sundays of each month.

Chiu Hu-an, the third daughter, married and moved to Nanyang. The fourth daughter, Chiu Hu-fu, was also commemorated in the church history book. Her contributions included serving as an offering statistician on the third Sunday of each month and counting savings box donations on the fourth and fifth Sundays of each month.

Thirdborn

Fung Shu-lan (065-3) was born approximately between 1883 and 1885, when her mother was estimated to be 24 to 26 years old. She was known as the third aunt and remained unmarried.

Forthborn

Fung Yiu-sheng (066-3) was born approximately between 1886 and 1888. His mother was estimated to be 27 to 29 years old at his birth.

Fifth born

Fung Yiu-kai (067-3) was born approximately between 1889 and 1890. At the time of his birth, his mother was estimated to be 30 to 31 years old.

 His descendants include Fung Hin-wing (tenth in rank), born in 1934, who immigrated to Australia around 1997 after a successful business career in Hong Kong. 

His wife is The 6th daughter of Seaward Woo's first wife (Ng Chiu-man)Woo Mo-ling, Moline.

Woo Mo-ling, Moline has passed away a few years ago in Syney.

 Other descendants include Fung Xianrui (fifth in rank), who died in Sydney, and Fung Cihui (ninth in rank), who resides in a nursing home.

Sixth born

馮瑞群 was born around early 1891, when her mother was approximately 32 years old. She was the sixth aunt and remained single.

Seventh born

馮耀基 was born around late 1891, when his mother, Ms. Guan, was approximately 32 years old. He lived from 1891 to 1953, passing away at the age of 62. He was originally buried on September 19, 1978, in Section E, Row 16, Plot 34. This original burial took place 25 years after his death. On July 23, 2004, his remains were exhumed, cremated, and the ashes were removed from Si En Yuan.

妙嫦 (the eldest sister) served as the offering statistician on the third Sunday of each month and as the savings box donation counter on the fourth and fifth Sundays. At one point, she worked as a night nurse at St. Stephen's College in Stanley.

妙玲 (the second sister) passed away in her sleep.

妙清 (the third sister).  Ms, Elite Fung know all three sisters well; two of them lived together, while one lived alone.

Seventh Born

Fung Yiu-wah was born on March 16, 1892, and passed away on June 14, 1916, at the age of 24. His burial took place on June 15, 1916.

The tombstone bears the inscription '同懷祿耀 彰,榮, 根, 剛立'. It is curious that his other brothers’ names were not there.

One theory said that :In traditional Chinese society, the inclusion of '某某立' (meaning 'erected by so-and-so') on a tombstone signifies more than just a name. It represents a substantial commitment, indicating active participation in the funeral, being present at the time of death, and contributing financially to the arrangements. Consequently, if a brother, for instance, was not physically present in Hong Kong, their name would not typically be listed among those who erected the tombstone. But this theory may not sound.

The tombstone also includes the inscription '少年德育會同仁泐' (inscribed by fellow members of the Chinese Christian Youth Moral Education Association). According to authoritative historical documents from the University of Hong Kong concerning the To Tsai Church, this association was formally established in the summer of 1907. It was founded by five enthusiastic young Christians who recognized the need for nurturing and supporting the children of fellow church members.

Ninth born

Fung Yiu Cheung, also known as Ninth Uncle, was born on June 13, 1893, and passed away on October 29, 1966, at the age of 73. Born in the Year of the Snake, he was the ninth child of his mother, who was approximately 34 years old at the time of his birth. Around the age of 30, in 1923, he traveled alone to the United States. By 1929, he had returned to Hong Kong and taken on significant church responsibilities, remaining in the city thereafter. He played a crucial role in the church during the Japanese occupation.

Fung Yiu Cheung's involvement in Christian activities began early. In the summer of 1907, he was one of the five founders of the Chinese Christian Youth Moral Education Association. In 1919, he served as one of six directors of the New Territories Mission, representing To Tsai Church. Other representatives included Rev. Cheung, Wong Wing Tak, Tse Kwai Fan, Kwan Ba Gu, and Wong Si Gu. That same year, resident evangelists were stationed in various New Territories chapels: Wong Shut Fong in Yuen Long, Ku Kai Tak in Tuen Mun, Law Hang Shek in Lam Tsuen, Lin Yat Tsing in Tsuen Wan, Lan Hon Shang in Tai O, and Chan Pin Kwong in Ping Shan.

Upon his return to Hong Kong, Fung Yiu Cheung became deeply involved in church administration. At 35, in March 1928, he was one of three representatives for the church's property acquisition. By August of the same year, he was one of five committee members responsible for debt clearance and fundraising for the church. In 1929, his activities included purchasing the "Universal Library" in July, pledging 30 yuan, serving on the committee for salaried staff pensions in April, and the committee for the use of "Thanksgiving donations" in September. He was appointed Chairman of the Choir in September 1931. In October 1932, as one of three church trustees, he signed an agreement with Messrs. W.K. Kwok & Co. Solicitors to safeguard the property of "Sham Oi Church." In June 1933, he was part of the committee defining qualifications for salaried staff. The church also appointed Rev. Cheung Chuk Ling and two representatives to receive important documents in October 1933.

His service continued in 1934, when he became one of four advisors for Ying Wa Girls' School in May. In September, the church subscribed to one share of Hong Kong Bible Society Ltd., and Fung Yiu Cheung was a member of the church's constitution drafting committee. In April 1935, he served on the committee for property acquisition for Wanchai Church. When the church's bank collapsed, he became a creditor for the church and was responsible for selling its Aberdeen property. He remained an advisor for Ying Wa Girls' School in March 1936 and was appointed Director of Public Banquet in May. In September 1936, Fung Yiu Cheung, along with his brothers Yiu Wing and Yiu Kei, honored their late father's will by donating HKD 1,000 from his lifelong pension fund to the church. In December, he joined the committee for designing vestments for pastors and the choir.

Fung Yiu Cheung and his brothers also played a pivotal role in education. Butsan Primary School was founded in 1920, initially serving as an enlightenment center for the Chinese Christian Church Tuen Mun Gospel Hall. It began with just nine students, growing to over forty within a decade. In 1931, recognizing the significant demand for school places, members of the New Territories Mission proposed building a dedicated school. With generous donations from Fung Yiu Cheung and his siblings, the school building was completed and officially named "Butsun School" in memory of their father, Mr. Fung But Sun. The school steadily developed until the Japanese invasion forced its closure.

On October 10, 1939, Fung Yiu Cheung was appointed as one of six deacons. During the challenging period of the Japanese occupation (1942-1945), he served as Vice Chairman of the church, with Ngan Shing-kwan as Chairman. During this time, Senior Pastor Cheung Pat Ling was arrested by military police and subjected to torture.

Ho Man Fai, also known as Ninth Aunt, was born on April 14, 1895, and passed away on February 27, 1991, at the age of 96. She attended Sacred Heart College.

Fung Miu Yung was born on February 7, 1921, and died on April 17, 1927, aged 6. Her burial date, according to cemetery computer data, was April 18, 1927. Her grave is located in Section B, Level 10, Plot 26.

Fung Miu Chun was born on January 18, 1922, and passed away on September 30, 2011, at the age of 89. She was the mother of Ms. Elite Fung Yee Lai.(the story teller) . 

Tenth Born or twin born

Fung Shu-yan was born on June 13, 1893. Her mother was approximately 34 years old at the time of her birth.

Based on her church identification number, she is possibly Fung Yiu-chang's twin sibling. If this is the case, she would have been closely related to Fung yee-lai's family. She lived a reasonably long life .However, it is peculiar that she appears to be the most enigmatic member of the Fung family, as she has never been mentioned by anyone. 

Eleventh born

Fung Yiu Wing was born in 1897 and passed away on May 8, 1938, at the age of 41. He had five sons and three daughters. He was initially interred on May 8, 1938, in Section D, Row 3, Plot 27. In 2004, his remains were exhumed, cremated, and the ashes scattered in Si Yan Garden.

He was an active member of the Hop Yat Church. At age 29, in May 1926, he served on the committee for the church's bazaar and the opening of the new church hall. In July of the same year, he was on the committee for dormitory allocation. At age 30, in May 1927, he served on the committee for amending church borrowing regulations. In July 1929, he contributed thirty dollars towards the purchase of the "Wanyou Wenku" (Universal Library). After his passing in May 1938, the church council, in November 1938, accepted donations from his wife, Mrs. Fung Yiu Wing, in his memory. These donations included $1,500 for the church fund, $1,000 for the sacred music department fund, $300 for the old age pension fund, and an additional $500 for the purchase of a phonograph.

Fung Yiu Wing's wife, Lee Chung Chun, was born in 1901 and passed away on January 25, 1973, at the age of 72. She was buried in a cemetery.

Their second son was Hin Wing.

Their daughter, Miu Fong, passed away at the age of one day. She was originally interred on January 16, 1928, in Section B, Row 9, Plot 32. In 1976, following a landslide, her name was inscribed on a memorial tablet located in Section A, Row 3.

Another daughter, Miu Ping, was born in 1930 and passed away on September 20, 1932, at a young age.

Their third daughter, Miu Wo, was born in 1931 and passed away on July 1, 1982, at the age of 51. She married into the Yu family at the age of 40 and had two sons, Yu Ka Kong and Yu Ka Bo. She resided at 3/F, 4 High Street. Her mother later sold her property and distributed the proceeds between Miu Wo and her sister Miu Hing, who was in the UK. Miu Wo was initially interred on July 1, 1982, in a temporary burial plot. Her remains were later exhumed and placed in an ossuary on February 28, 1989, specifically in Ossuary No. 3, GS Section, Plot 16. However, there is no information available regarding her niche wall.

Their daughter, Miu Hing, was born in 1938, after her father's death. She moved to the United Kingdom in 1962 at the age of 24. At that time, her sister was 31.

Twentieth born

Fung Yiu-kan (馮耀根), identified by member number 12 (reference 302-3), was born in 1898 (a year inferred from his membership number) and passed away in 1965 at the age of 67. In May 1926, at 28 years old, he served as a co-organizer for the Union Church bazaar. Later, in June 1939, at the age of 41, he was a member of the drafting committee for departmental regulations.

Au Yeung Suk-yuen (歐陽淑媛).

Fung Hin-yeung (馮顯揚) and Fung Miu-cheung (馮妙嫦) were sponsors for the church history book.

Fung Miu-hang (馮妙蘅) was registered or born in 1934.

Thirtieth born

Records indicate Fung Yiu-gang (358-3) was buried on June 1, 1923. Born on September 30, 1901, he passed away on June 1, 1923, at the age of 22. His grave is located in Section C, Row 22, Plot 37, with a stone erected in early autumn 1929.

Sponsors for the clan history book include Fung Miaochang, Fung Xianyang, the Fung Xianrui Memorial, and the Wang Congzhen Memorial. Associated names mentioned are Miaochang, Miaoling, and Miaoqing. Additionally, Zhao Xianguang, who lived from 1928 to June 30, 2024, passed away at the age of 96.