21/09/2026
There has been considerable discussion recently concerning the so-called “Secret Note,” its different handwritten copies, and the relationship between the various Foshan Wing Chun lineages. I believe it is important to put the facts, the evidence I have personally examined, and the results of my own research clearly on record.
-The Relationship Between the Lineages-
Our Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun, as taught through the Eternal Spring Institute and inherited through Sifu Wong Kwong Lun, contains forms whose choreography at times resembles that of the Yuen Kay San and Yuen Chai Wan lineages. This should not automatically be interpreted as evidence that one lineage copied another.
In my research, the more logical explanation is that these lineages ultimately share a common source. The same applies to the Yiu Choi lineage.
If we trace the respective transmission traditions, we find, according to the lineage history I have been researching, connections going back through figures such as Fok Bo Chuen and Law Man Gung in the Yuen Kay San tradition, while our own transmission goes through Law Chiu Wing, Law Ting Chau, Law Tai Wan and San Gam.
My research has also led me to investigate whether San Gam may have been the Red Boat Opera identity of Law Man Gung. I have presented this as a research possibility, not as something that should simply be accepted without further examination.
The forms themselves contain differences. The choreography of Yuen Kay San, Yuen Chai Wan and Yiu Choi is not exactly identical, and neither is the choreography of our Internal Snake Crane Wing Chun. There are also differences in the way energy is transferred and expressed.
These differences are precisely what one might expect when a body of knowledge is transmitted through different individuals and branches over generations, particularly when one of those lineages was maintained secretly as part of a Mun a closed-door family transmission.
I have already shown portions of our forms in several YouTube videos and Instagram reels. Because there have been requests for more information, I intend to publish additional footage showing sections of our forms in the future.
-The 1890 Secret Note-
I have also spoken extensively about the Secret Note attributed to Law Tai Wan and dated to 1890 in my YouTube videos.
Following my meeting with Sifu Wong Kwong Lun (Rick Wong) in Toronto, I was given additional information concerning the history of the document and, importantly, the way it was traditionally transmitted.
According to what Sifu Wong Kwong Lun explained to me, students in the past were required to hand-copy the Secret Note from the original.
The original was written on sheep skin in 1890. Over the decades, the combination of age and the humid conditions of Hong Kong particularly before the era of modern air conditioning caused the original to deteriorate to the point where the writing became extremely difficult to read.
According to the account I received, Law Chiu Wing ultimately decided that the original should be discarded and that the information should instead be completely rewritten from it.
This was also consistent with the fact that the material was regarded as belonging to the closed-door Mun and was never originally intended to be released publicly.
This history is extremely important when discussing the existence of different handwritten versions today.
A handwritten transmission document is not necessarily expected to look identical in every surviving copy. The further back in time a handwritten copy was made, the greater its potential historical significance. At the same time, small discrepancies can naturally arise through handwriting, copying, interpretation and the individual Chinese-language ability of the person making the copy.
-The Copies I Have Personally Examined-
I have personally seen four versions of the Secret Note.
I own two versions myself. One of these was given to me by Wayne Yung.
The other version,in my opinion is highly significant because it contains material concerning the Bamboo Dummy form.
Some pages from this version have appeared in my reels and YouTube videos. Those pages are now being used by some people to argue that this version is a copy of the Yuen Kay San Kuen Kuit.
I believe that conclusion is premature and, quite simply, based on an incomplete examination of the document.
Anyone who had access to the complete version rather than selected pages would be able to see that there is considerably more to the document than the portions I have chosen to make public.
This particular version is also significant because it does not contain the later additional material that Law Chiu Wing added, such as personal notes concerning Taijiquan and, at times, even the use of Western Roman characters for page numbering.
In this respect, it is comparable to the version submitted to the Intangible Cultural Heritage protection program of the Foshan Museum, which likewise does not contain these later additions.
Most importantly, I have personally had the privilege of seeing the handwritten copy belonging to Sifu Wong Kwong Lun.
I do not possess a copy of this document. It remains the private property of Sifu Wong Kwong Lun, who has no intention at this moment of making this particular version publicly available.
This copy is also briefly shown in my YouTube material, in Part 1 and Part 2.
Therefore, when I speak about multiple versions of the Secret Note, I am not speaking theoretically. I have personally examined multiple handwritten versions and compared their contents.
-The Bamboo Dummy Question-
For me, one of the most interesting discoveries concerns the Bamboo Dummy form.
For some time, one question remained in my mind:
If the Snake Crane Wing Chun tradition represents the earliest branch of the Wing Chun transmission, why does the Secret Note apparently not contain the Bamboo Dummy, despite the fact that, for example, the Yiu Choi lineage preserves a Bamboo Dummy tradition?
Did the Yiu Choi lineage introduce or develop the Bamboo Dummy independently?
That was a genuine question in my mind.
I was therefore very pleased when I finally obtained access to a version of the Secret Note in which the Bamboo Dummy is actually described.
That discovery does not, by itself, prove every aspect of the lineage history. But it does demonstrate that the assertion that the Secret Note necessarily excludes the Bamboo Dummy is incorrect.
-The Foshan Museum Submission-
There has also been considerable discussion concerning the copy submitted by Sifu Wayne Yung to the Intangible Cultural Heritage protection program of the Foshan Museum.
There has been a debate over whether the document submitted by Wayne Yung should be identified with the Yuen Kay San Kuen Kuit and whether it represents the relevant historical version of the Secret Note.
From my examination of the material available to me, I believe this issue has been substantially clarified.
The version submitted to the museum should not simply be dismissed as a copy of the Yuen Kay San Kuen Kuit. There are important reasons to regard it as an older handwritten version of the Secret Note, and the comparison needs to be made against the complete documents rather than selected pages.
Sifu Wong Chi Ming of the Yuen Kay San/Mai Gei Wong lineage has also addressed this matter publicly and affirmed this position in the relevant YouTube material.
It is also important to acknowledge a fact that nobody should dispute: the version submitted by Sifu Wayne Yung to the Intangible Cultural Heritage protection program was formally accepted, and the museum curator personally came on stage to present the acceptance certificate an unusual and, to my knowledge, unprecedented public recognition of the submission.
Footage has also been released of Miss Cheung Suet Lin, who was head of the research team at the time, in which she agrees with aspects of the historical research presented by Sifu Wayne Yung.
These are facts that should be acknowledged, regardless of anyone’s personal position concerning the different versions of the Secret Note.
One Important Point Concerning the Bamboo Dummy and the Museum Version
Having said that, there is an important distinction between what I know and what I suspect.
In my personal examination of the version submitted to the museum, I do not see the Bamboo Dummy section that appears in the version in my possession.
I have my own suspicions concerning why this may be the case. However, I will not present those suspicions as established fact.
I have heard two separate oral accounts one from a direct student of Law Chiu Wing and another from a grand-student of Sifu Law Chiu Wing both of which suggest that Law Chiu Wing may at some point have decided to remove the Bamboo Dummy section from the Secret Note.
These are oral accounts that I have received. They are not documentary proof, and therefore I will leave them exactly where they belong: as information worthy of further investigation, rather than as established historical fact.
This distinction is important.
There is a major difference between saying:
“This is what the document shows.”
“This is what I was told by someone within the transmission.”
and
“This is my personal suspicion.”
I believe historical research becomes stronger, not weaker, when these three categories are kept separate.
-A Necessary Clarification-
I want to make one thing absolutely clear:
The existence of multiple handwritten versions does not mean that one of them must automatically be “fake.”
On the contrary, if the historical account is that the original was hand-copied by successive students, then the existence of multiple handwritten copies is precisely what we might expect.
The correct historical question is therefore not simply:
“Which person possesses the original?”
If the original 1890 document no longer survives, then nobody today can honestly present a later handwritten copy as though it were physically the original 1890 manuscript.
The relevant questions are:
Which copies exist?
What do they contain?
How do they compare with one another?
What is their documented or claimed provenance?
What can be established through handwriting, language, content and lineage history?
And most importantly:
What does the evidence actually show?
That is the standard I believe should be applied to every version, regardless of who owns it.
Our Position
At the Eternal Spring Institute, we are fortunate to possess two versions of the Secret Note as recorded by Law Tai Wan in 1890, while I have also personally examined other versions, including the private handwritten copy belonging to Sifu Wong Kwong Lun.
I therefore reject the simplistic claim that there is one publicly relevant “true” copy and that every other version must consequently be false.
The documentary evidence is considerably more interesting and considerably more complex than that.
And to be absolutely clear: I am not claiming that my own copies are automatically authentic simply because I possess them.
The documents should be compared.
The Chinese text should be examined.
The handwriting should be examined.
The provenance should be examined.
The contents should be compared in their entirety rather than through selected pages.
And where there are unanswered questions, those questions should remain open until sufficient evidence exists to answer them.
I will continue to present the material I have, show the forms of our lineage, explain what I have personally witnessed, distinguish documented evidence from oral history and personal interpretation, and allow people to examine the evidence for themselves.
History should be established through evidence, not ownership.
