HK$1 Billion and a Faculty's Renaming — The 2005 Storm over Li Ka-shing's Naming of the Medical Faculty

Comprehensive Information Database of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) · Module 08: Finance This is a factual article from Module 08 (Finance), recording the full course of the 2005 naming of HKU's medical faculty and the positions of all parties; for a chronology of named donors in full, see benefactors-and-donors.md.

---

# I. What Kind of Faculty Is HKU's Medical School?

The predecessor of the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine can be traced back to the "Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese", founded in 1887^※ — the oldest Western-style medical school in Hong Kong and one of the earliest in the whole Asia-Pacific region. In 1907 the College was renamed the "Hong Kong College of Medicine"; when HKU was founded in 1911, the medical school was among the first faculties to be absorbed into the University, accorded "premier Faculty" status at the University's opening in 1911^※.

The faculty carries a piece of historical prestige that is often invoked: Sun Yat-sen, founding father of the Republic of China, studied at its predecessor, the Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese, and was among the first cohort to graduate with distinction. In the 2005 naming controversy, that heritage became a key argument for the opposition — a faculty of such lineage had never been named after any person, so why, after more than a century, should it suddenly bear the name of a businessman?

---

# II. Where Did the One Billion Hong Kong Dollars Come From, and Why Was It Given to HKU?

When Li Ka-shing announced the donation in 2005, he was chairman of CK Hutchison Holdings and, at the time, Asia's richest man. According to the Li Ka Shing Foundation^※, the Foundation characterised the gift as "Asia's largest single donation" (as of that time). HKU's official press release was worded more cautiously: then Vice-Chancellor and President Professor Lap-Chee Tsui called the naming of a faculty after a donor "unprecedented in the University"^※, describing it as "a new milestone of partnership between higher education and the community."

Note that the donation did not arrive in one lump sum: to fit HKU's phased applications for government matching grants, the HK$1 billion was paid in instalments. In August 2013, Hong Kong media reported that the donation had "still not been fully paid eight years later," sparking a fresh round of discussion. According to the South China Morning Post in 2013^※, Tsui said "Mr Li has never broken his word; he has kept donating," but declined to disclose the total amount received, citing a confidentiality agreement with the donor. Li subsequently stated that the Foundation had "never defaulted and has on many occasions paid early," stressing that the instalment arrangement was required by HKU's matching-grant mechanism.

---

# III. Why Did HKU Say the Naming Was "Irreversible"?

Under HKU's procedures: both the Medical Faculty and the Senate had expressed support^※, and the University Council ultimately passed the naming resolution unanimously.

In a statement on 18 May 2005, then Council Chairman Victor Fung said^※:

"This naming of the Faculty is a recognition not only of the generosity of Mr Li and the Li Ka Shing Foundation, but also of the achievements and contributions of the HKU Medical Faculty in the past and a commitment to its future endeavours."

After the alumni petition opposing the decision and calling for it to be withdrawn, Vice-Chancellor Tsui took an unequivocal line in response to media queries: according to the South China Morning Post^※, he said he and the Council Chairman had both communicated with the chairman of the Li Ka Shing Foundation, who was "very satisfied with the decision," and therefore "I do not see how the commitment could be reversed." Tsui also cited American university practice — at the top US institutions, naming buildings and even faculties after major donors is common. He stressed the naming was not a matter of "face," but a substantive commitment.

Professor Raymond Liang Hin-suen, Associate Dean of the Faculty, also said^※ the Faculty had no plans to invite Li to a grand inauguration ceremony: "We don't have a specific day for a major opening ceremony, like inviting Mr Li to attend — Mr Li has no such request either." This "quiet renaming" arrangement was widely read as a response to public controversy — since the decision was made, best to keep the fanfare to a minimum.

---

# IV. What Were the 30 Alumni Petitioning Against?

The moment the naming was announced, controversy erupted in late May 2005. Led by Kwok Ka-ki^※, then the Legislative Council medical-sector member, a group of alumni quickly formed the "Concern Group to Preserve the Name of the Faculty."

The core objections raised by the opposition included:

A procedural challenge — The University had not consulted medical faculty alumni before making the naming decision; the alumni believed that renaming a faculty with over a century of history ought to have involved extensive consultation.

A matter of principle — Naming an academic faculty after a businessman was, critics said, a "money-grubbing" exercise in "commercial transaction." According to Epoch Times^※, Kwok said plainly: "Naming the medical faculty after a businessman will undermine its credibility and waste the efforts the public has devoted to supporting the faculty's growth over more than a century."

A historical argument — The medical faculty's predecessor had been attended by Sun Yat-sen, and over more than a century the faculty had never been named after any individual, however distinguished their contribution; to name it after a businessman now was a break with tradition.

On 19 June 2005, more than 50 medical faculty alumni^※, wearing white coats and carrying placards reading "Love HKU, Don't Change the Name," held a sit-in protest outside the University. Participants said: "The medical faculty is the fruit of the joint efforts of generations of teachers and students; the Faculty should not bow to money."

According to the South China Morning Post's account^※, then LegCo member Lee Cheuk-yan, speaking in defence of the University's position, said the naming had followed rigorous procedure and complied with the University's regulations, and did not harm academic freedom. He described the naming as "courtesy and reciprocity, not flattery" — a remark that drew an immediate chorus of boos from the roughly 50 alumni present.

---

# V. Did the Alumni Propose an Alternative?

Beyond objecting, the Concern Group put forward a compromise naming proposal: "Dr Sun Yat-sen Li Ka-shing Medical Faculty" — placing the historical figure's name before that of the donating businessman.

According to the South China Morning Post^※, Kwok explained the proposal: "I don't think Mr Li would demand that his name be placed ahead of Dr Sun Yat-sen's." The comparison was meant to highlight the gap between historical contribution and monetary contribution.

The Concern Group also announced that it would lobby widely across the global network of HKU medical alumni and launch an international fundraising campaign, aiming to raise an amount equivalent to Li's donation in order to "buy back" the Faculty's original name. Reportedly^※, the Group said: if the University claimed the naming was purely a function of donation size, they would prove that point by matching the donation and requesting the old name be restored.

HKU flatly rejected this alternative: the University insisted the resolution to name the Faculty "could not be withdrawn," and did not adopt the suggestion to include Sun Yat-sen's name.

---

# VI. What Did Li Ka-shing Himself Say?

In the early summer of 2005, at the height of the controversy, Li Ka-shing publicly affirmed the naming. According to a NetEase Business report (21 June 2005)^※ headlined "Li Ka-shing's first public statement: will not give up the naming of the HKU medical faculty," he wrote to Vice-Chancellor Tsui on 20 June, saying at the outset that "there is no need to dither further over the naming," and adding that "under any high-pressure, high-posture circumstances, no one should, for the sake of one's own lofty detachment, damage the dignity of the HKU Council and the Vice-Chancellor, or the University's international reputation" — in other words, he would not abandon the naming because of objections from some alumni. The Li Ka Shing Foundation itself never publicly responded to the specific criticisms raised by the alumni.

During the 2013 dispute over the payment schedule, Li unusually offered an explanation of the instalment arrangement: the Foundation had "never defaulted on a single payment; on the contrary, on many occasions we paid early," saying the phasing was entirely to accommodate HKU's need to claim government matching grants. This claim was corroborated by the University: according to the South China Morning Post in 2013^※, Vice-Chancellor Tsui said Li had "never broken his word."

---

# VII. After the Naming: How Did the Controversy Play Out?

The naming controversy did not end when the Faculty formally changed its name on 1 January 2006. Kwok Ka-ki and the Concern Group continued to speak out afterwards, demanding that the University disclose its naming criteria. The global alumni fundraising initiative never achieved its aim of overturning the naming, but it left a lingering aftershock inside HKU over the question of "who owns the right to name." More than a decade later, Kwok moved into political activism and the Concern Group faded from public view — and the Faculty's name has remained in use ever since.

---

# VIII. What Did This Affair Mean in the History of HKU Naming?

Since Sir Hormusjee Naorojee Mody funded the Main Building in 1912, HKU has had a tradition of naming buildings after donors (Lui Ming-chi Hall, Fung Ping Shan Building, Run Run Shaw Building, and so on). But before 2005, HKU had never named a whole "Faculty"-level academic unit after a donor — Vice-Chancellor Tsui himself called it "unprecedented"^※.

That distinction matters: naming a "building" and naming a "faculty" differ fundamentally in symbolic terms. A building name marks a physical space; a faculty name engages the identity of an academic community — teachers, students, and alumni all work, study, and practise medicine under that name. It was at this level that the opposition raised its objection: the faculty's century of history and academic reputation had been built up by generations of teachers and students; was it appropriate for a donor to "purchase" the name of an entire academic community with a single sum of money?

The case also exposed a procedural blind spot in HKU's naming governance: the Council's decision was made after consultation with the Medical Faculty and the Senate, but the wider alumni body was not included in that consultation. The boundary of naming academic units after businessmen, the quid pro quo relationship between donations and naming rights, and the consultation procedures for major renaming decisions became standing topics in HKU governance discussions thereafter.

---

# Unverified / Pending

• Number of petitioning alumni: sources record "about 30" alumni signing the petition (May 2005) and "more than 50" joining the June sit-in; the two figures come from different points in time and refer to different actions.
• Precise instalment schedule for the HK$1 billion: neither HKU nor the Li Ka Shing Foundation has disclosed the specific schedule or per-instalment amounts; this article, based on official statements, records the payment as phased, with full settlement by the end of 2013.
• Outcome of the global fundraising initiative: the Kwok Concern Group announced it would launch a global alumni fundraising drive, but no subsequent public reports confirm that fundraising actually began or reached any specific amount; the initiative's result remains unconfirmed, and this article draws no conclusion on it.

---

# Cross-references

• Benefactors and Named Donations — an overview of naming gifts at HKU
• The Tang Father-and-Son Donor Dynasty — an early comparative case of "building naming" donations
• Finance Overview — annual donation income and matching grants

---