A Billion Hong Kong Dollars and the Renaming of a Faculty — The 2005 Donation Controversy Behind the Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine

HKU Comprehensive Information Database · 08 Finance Module This piece belongs to the factual-article category of the 08 Finance Module, documenting the full sequence of events and the positions of all parties involved in the 2005 naming of the HKU Faculty of Medicine. For a full chronicle of named benefactors, see benefactors-and-donors.md.

---

# 1. What is the lineage of HKU’s Faculty of Medicine?

The Li Ka Shing Faculty of Medicine traces its roots to the "Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese" (香港華人西醫書院), founded in 1887^※. It is the oldest Western-medicine school in Hong Kong and one of the first in the entire Asia-Pacific region. In 1907, it was renamed the "Hong Kong College of Medicine." When HKU was established in 1911, the College was incorporated as one of its founding faculties and was accorded the status of the "premier Faculty" from the University's very first day^※.

The Faculty carries a historical aura that is frequently invoked: Dr Sun Yat-sen, the founding father of the Republic of China, was a student at its predecessor, the Hong Kong College of Medicine for Chinese, and graduated with distinction as one of its first cohorts. During the 2005 naming dispute, this lineage became a pivotal argument for the opposition: a faculty with such origins had never been named after any individual. Why, after more than a century, should it suddenly bear the name of a businessman?

---

# 2. Where did the HK$1 billion come from, and why was it given to HKU?

When Li Ka-shing announced the donation in 2005, he was the chairman of CK Hutchison Holdings and Asia’s richest man at the time. The Li Ka Shing Foundation’s project page^※ characterises the donation as "Asia's largest single donation" at that point in time. HKU's official press release was slightly more reserved in its phrasing: the then Vice-Chancellor and President, Professor Lap-Chee Tsui, stated that naming a faculty after a donor was "unprecedented in the University"^※ and described it as "a new milestone in close collaboration between higher education and the community."

It is worth noting that the donation was not paid in a single lump sum. To align with HKU's phased approach to securing a government Matching Grant, the HK$1 billion was injected in instalments. In August 2013, reports surfaced in the Hong Kong press that the donation had not been fully paid eight years later, triggering a fresh round of discussion. According to a 2013 report in the South China Morning Post^※, Vice-Chancellor Tsui said that "Mr Li has never broken his promise; he has been donating continuously," but declined to disclose the total sums received to date, citing a confidentiality agreement with the donor. Li Ka-shing later stated that the Foundation had "never once defaulted and has, on many occasions, made early payments," emphasising that the instalment arrangement was made solely to accommodate the needs of HKU’s matching grant mechanism.

---

# 3. Why did HKU call the naming "irreversible"?

Following HKU's procedures, both the Faculty of Medicine and the Senate had expressed support^※, and the Council made the final unanimous decision on the naming resolution.

The then Chairman of the Council, Dr Victor Fung, issued a statement on 18 May 2005^※, saying:

"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 a group of alumni petitioned in opposition and demanded the decision be rescinded, Vice-Chancellor Tsui took a clear-cut position when speaking to the media. The South China Morning Post reported^※ that he had already communicated with the Chairman of the Li Ka Shing Foundation, that the person was "very satisfied with the decision," and therefore he "did not think there was a way to reverse this commitment." Tsui also drew parallels with common practice in American universities, where it is routine to name buildings and even entire colleges after major donors. He stressed that this naming was not a "face thing" but a substantive commitment.

The faculty's Associate Dean, Dr Raymond Liang Hin-suen, also remarked^※ that the faculty had no plans to invite Mr Li to a large-scale inauguration ceremony: "There is no specific day for us to hold a major launching ceremony, for which we would, for instance, invite Mr Li to some ritual — and Mr Li has never specifically requested such a thing." This "low-key name-change" arrangement was widely interpreted as a response to the public controversy: the decision was final, so any fanfare would be minimised.

---

# 4. What did the 30 alumni who petitioned object to?

As soon as the naming was announced, controversy erupted in late May 2005. A group of alumni, led by Dr Kwok Ka-ki^※, then the Legislative Council member for the medical functional constituency, swiftly formed the "Concern Group to Preserve the Name of the Faculty."

The opposition's core objections were:

Procedural Objection — The University had not consulted the medical alumni prior to making the naming decision. Alumni argued that renaming a faculty with a 118-year history should have been subject to broad consultation.

A Matter of Principle — Naming an academic faculty after a businessman was decried by critics as a crassly commercial transaction. As reported by The Epoch Times^※, Dr Kwok Ka-ki stated plainly: "For the medical faculty to be named after a businessman will damage its credibility. It also squanders the public's support and effort spanning over a hundred years, which has nurtured the faculty's growth."

The Historical Argument — The medical school that Dr Sun Yat-sen attended had never, in over a century, been named after any individual, not even historically eminent figures. To now, suddenly, name it after a businessman was a violation of tradition.

On 19 June 2005, over 50 HKU medical alumni^※ donned white coats and staged a silent protest outside the university, holding banners with slogans like "Love HKU, Don't Change the Name." Participants stated that "the medical faculty is the fruit of generations of teachers and students working together; the faculty should not just be about money."

According to the South China Morning Post's account^※, when the then legislator Lee Cheuk-yan rose to represent the university's position, he said the naming had followed strict procedure and regulations and did not harm academic freedom. He described the naming as "a reciprocal gesture, not sycophancy," a remark that drew boos from the roughly 50 alumni present.

---

# 5. Did the alumni propose an alternative?

In addition to opposing the plan, the Concern Group put forward a compromise name: the "Dr Sun Yat-sen Li Ka-shing Medical Faculty," placing the historical figure's name before that of the donating businessman.

Reporting by the South China Morning Post^※ quoted Dr Kwok as saying, when he elaborated on this proposal: "I don't think Mr Li would demand that his name be placed before Dr Sun's." He used this juxtaposition to highlight the perceived gap between historical contribution and financial contribution.

The group also announced it would lobby widely within HKU’s global medical alumni network and planned to launch an international fundraising campaign. The goal was to raise a sum equivalent to Li's donation in order to "buy back" the faculty's original name. According to the report^※, the group stated that if the university claimed the naming was purely a matter of a donation figure, they would prove this point by matching it and then request the restoration of the original name.

HKU unequivocally rejected this alternative. The University insisted that the resolution to name the faculty was "impossible to withdraw" and refused to adopt the joint Sun Yat-sen name.

---

# 6. What did Li Ka-shing say?

At the height of the controversy in early summer 2005, Li Ka-shing publicly affirmed his position on the naming. An article headlined "Li Ka-shing breaks silence: will not give up naming of HKU Medical Faculty," carried by NetEase Business Report (2005-06-21)^※, indicated that he would not voluntarily relinquish the naming rights. The Li Ka Shing Foundation itself never made a public response to the specific criticisms raised by the alumni.

During the 2013 dispute over the payment schedule, Li made a rare personal explanation about the instalment arrangement, saying the Foundation had "never once defaulted, and on the contrary, has made early payments on many occasions." He stated that the schedule was designed entirely to accommodate HKU's mechanism for securing the government's matching grants. This was confirmed by HKU: as reported by the SCMP in 2013^※, Vice-Chancellor Tsui stated that Li Ka-shing had "never broken his promise."

---

# 7. After the naming: how did the dispute end?

The naming controversy did not end when the official name change took effect on 1 January 2006. Dr Kwok Ka-ki and the Concern Group continued to speak out, demanding that the university disclose its naming criteria. While the global alumni fundraising initiative never succeeded in overturning the naming, it left a lasting aftershock within HKU over the question of "who does a name belong to?" Over a decade later, Kwok turned his energy to political activism, and the Concern Group faded from public view—the faculty's name remains unchanged to this day.

---

# 8. What does this episode mean in the history of naming at HKU?

Since Sir Hormusjee Naorojee Mody donated the funds for the Main Building in 1912, HKU has had a tradition of naming buildings after benefactors—Loke Yew Hall, Fung Ping Shan Building, and Run Run Shaw Tower are all examples. But prior to 2005, HKU had never named an entire academic "Faculty" after a donor—a point Vice-Chancellor Tsui explicitly described as "unprecedented."^※

This distinction is critical: naming a "building" and naming a "faculty" carry fundamentally different symbolic weight. A building's name marks a physical space; a faculty's name is intertwined with the identity of an entire academic community—its teachers, students, and alumni all work, learn, and practise medicine under that name. It was at this level that the opposition built their argument: the faculty’s century-long history and academic reputation were earned by generations of its members. Was it appropriate for a donor, by writing a cheque, to effectively "purchase" the name of that entire community?

This case also exposed a procedural blind spot in HKU's naming governance: the Council made its decision after consulting the Faculty and the Senate, but the alumni body at large was never included in the consultation. The boundaries around a businessman naming an academic unit, the quid-pro-quo relationship between a donation and naming rights, and the consultation process for major renaming decisions became permanent fixtures in HKU governance debates from that point on.

---

# Unverified / To Be Confirmed

• Number of petitioning alumni: Sources recorded "around 30" who signed the petition opposing the name (May 2005) and "over 50" who participated in the silent protest (June 2005). These figures come from two distinct events in different periods and do not refer to the same action.
• Precise schedule for the HK$1 billion instalments: Neither HKU nor the Li Ka Shing Foundation has ever released a specific payment schedule or the amount of each instalment. This article relies on official statements, noting the arrangement was an instalment plan fully received by late 2013.
• Outcome of the global fundraising initiative: The Concern Group announced it would launch a global alumni fundraising campaign, but no subsequent public reports have shown that such a campaign was formally initiated or reached any specific target. The result of this initiative is in doubt, and no conclusion is drawn here.
• Original wording of Li Ka-shing's 2005 statement: The specific quote for his "breaks silence" statement is sourced from NetEase Business Report; the original link is dead, making it impossible to verify the original wording. This article records only the substance.

---

# See Also

• Benefactors and Naming Donations — A panoramic view of named gifts at HKU
• The Tang Family: A Donor Dynasty — A contrasting early case of "building naming"
• Finance Overview — Annual donation income and matching grants

---