以下內容乃K.W.Ho之補習教材，於課堂教授，內容乃配合K.W.Ho之答題方法及風格所製作，同時內容可能有錯誤之處以供在課堂上糾正。非補習學生在未有得到課堂教學的情況下錯誤使用，恕不負責，同學請敬請留意。
【Free】6000頁筆記及60份5**考卷免費使用：按此
Youtube教學：按此
_________________________________________________________________________
1967年的暴動在什麼程度上是香港歷史的轉捩點？參考20世紀期間的香港歷史，解釋你的答案。
立場 1967年的暴動是香港有史以來最大規模的暴動，事後，港英政府為了緩和人民的不滿聲音，掀起了大規模的改革運動，使1967年後的政治及社會方面出現了許多的轉變，在大程度上是轉捩點。 // 架構以下，將印證政府對民意的重視態度、法定公營機構及反貪運動、社會福利措施等方面是轉捩點。
主旨句 政治方面，1967年暴動令政府對民意的重視態度由輕視改變為重視，為一轉捩點。 // 核心點前 1967年暴動前，雖然政府在施政時會諮詢本地華人社團的意見，例如鄉議局(1926年)就是政府與新界鄉民溝通的橋樑，但政府對民意的重視程度不高，在制訂政策時較少徵收民意，同時也缺乏吸納民意的政府機構，令港人意願往往受到忽視。 // 核心點的影響及核心點後的情況然而，1967年的暴動為港英政府的統治敲響警號。六七暴動歷時近8個月，是香港開阜以來最大規模的暴動。事後，港英政府希望透過增加官民溝通的渠道以緩和人民的不滿聲音，避免暴動再次出現。例如，政府於1968年開展「民政主任計劃」，把香港與九龍劃分為10個區域，在各區設立民政處以收集民意。及後，於1982年更進行首次區議會選舉，允許港人以投票方式積極參與該區的事務，加強人民對政治的參與。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，就政府對民意的重視程度，1967年暴動前港英政府輕視民意，但六七暴動卻使港英政府產生統治危機，使其於1967年後廣設諮詢機構，更允許港人參與地區政治，對民意的重視程度大大提高，因此是一轉捩點。
政治方面，1967年暴動是香港法定公營機構及反貪運動出現的轉捩點。於1967年前，由於港英政府對民生政策的重視程度較低，故鮮有成立專為改善人民生活的法定公營機構。同時，儘管1967年前貪污問題十分嚴重，但當時卻未有足夠的社會壓力令港英政府採取積極措施以打擊貪污，例如沒有成立專責調查貪污的機構。然而，六七暴動的出現一方面使政府意識到必須改善人民生活質素，以緩和社會上的不滿聲音，另一方面反映市民不滿公職人員的貪污情況，令往後出現了大規模的改革。事後，在法定公營機構方面，政府成立了香港房屋協會(1973年)、消費者委員會(1974年)及地下鐵路公司(1975年)等機構，為人民提供各類型服務，以舒緩民怨。在反貪運動方面，政府為挽回形象及民心，於1974年成立「廉政公署」，致力消除貪污及推廣反貪污教育，使反貪運動於六七暴動後出現。相比之下，就法定公營機構及反貪運動而言，1967年香港的法定公營機構不多，且貪污情況嚴重，但六七暴動後，法定公營機構如雨後春筍地湧現，反貪運動亦積極進行，情況大大扭轉，故六七暴動是一個轉捩點。
社會方面，1967年暴動令政府對社會福利措施的態度由消極改變為積極。於1967年前，雖然政府在1958年已經將社會局改組為社會福利署，又於1961年推行了「廉租屋計劃」，提供社會福利予有需要人士。然而，1967年前政府在社會福利方面的措施較為消極，規模較小且較多限制，例如「廉租屋計劃」有入息限制，低層市民仍然被排除在外。然而，六七暴動反映了市民對生活抱有極大的不滿，政府為了消除民怨及安撫民心，在1967年後推行了排山倒海的社會政策。事後，在救助貧窮方面，於1973年推行「公共援助計劃」，提供經濟援助予生活有困難的人士；在房屋方面，於1972年推行「十年建屋計劃」，為180萬香港居民提供設備齊全的公共屋邨單位；在教育方面，於1971年推行6年義務教育，及後又於1978年提高至9年，反映政府在社會福利措施上的態度已變得十分積極。相比之下，就社會福利改革而言，1967年政府在社會福利措施上的態度消極，但六七暴動完全扭轉了此一情況，政府於1967年後推行了大規模的社會福利措施，涵蓋各個範疇，且受惠者眾多，態度十分積極，可見是一個轉捩點。
然而，六七暴動對於部分方面只是延續，而非轉捩點。
政治方面，1967年暴動只是華人精英對政府參與的延續。於1967年前，港英政府已經推行吸納華人精英進入政府以協助管治的方針，例如在政務官方面，1948年徐家祥成為首位華人政務官；在行政及立法兩局方面，1962年時分別有3位及5位華人是該兩局的議員，反映港英政府在六七暴動前已經吸納華人精英參與對香港的管治。至1967年暴動，事件顯示人民對港府統治存有重大的不滿。事後，政府為了緩和市民的不滿聲音，進一步吸納更多華人進入政府，例如在政務官方面，人數由1962年的12人增加至1968年時的23人及1978年時的91人。在行政、立法兩局方面亦然，兩局的華人議員人數於1966-74年間分別由11人增至19人(行政局)及10人增至23人(立法局)，反映愈來愈多華人精英身居政府要職，參與對香港的管治。相比之下，就華人對政府的參與而言，1967年前港英政府已經陸續委任華人精英進入政府，而六七暴動只是加速此一進程，使更多的華人能夠晉身政府高層，因此在這方面而言，六七暴動只是延續而非轉捩點。
經濟方面，1967年暴動並非是香港經濟產業發展的轉捩點。自1959年起，香港的出口額已超越轉口額，顯示經濟已由轉口貿易成功轉型至工業發展，經濟以工業為重心產業。各類型的輕工業在港發展十分蓬勃，例如1950年代的紡織﹑成衣和塑膠業和1960年代電子﹑鐘錶及玩具產品等，可見工業在六七暴動前是香港的主要經濟產業。至1967年暴動，儘管暴動打擊了投資者對香港的信心，在60年代後期在港的投資率急劇下跌至不足國內生產總值的20%。然而，此只是短期的影響，並未對香港經濟發展構成根本性的轉變。事後，香港經濟在六七暴動後仍然是以工業發展為主，例如在1970年代，製造業仍然是香港的經濟支柱，在勞動人口及本地生產總值的份額均佔首位。相比之下，就香港經濟發展而言，六七暴動前後的香港經濟仍然是以工業發展為主，儘管1970年代末開始香港經濟漸趨多元化，但此乃受中國改革開放而非六七暴動影響，因此六七暴動並非是香港經濟產業發展的轉捩點，只是延續。
總括而言，儘管六七暴動在吸納華人精英及經濟產業發展方面只是轉捩點，但六七暴動對於政府對民意的重視態度、法定公營機構及反貪運動、社會福利措施等方面均帶來了根本性的轉變，此等轉變大大改變了香港的整體狀態，故大程度上是轉捩點。
To what extent were the 1967 riots a turning point in Hong Kong’s history? Explain your answer with reference to the history of Hong Kong in the 20th century.
The 1967 riots were the largest scale turmoil ever in Hong Kong’s recorded history. In the aftermath of that, the British Hong Kong government introduced sweeping reforms in an effort to remedy the people’s grievances, leading to many political and social changes after 1967 that made the year a turning point to a large extent. This essay is going to prove this with reference to the government’s attitude towards public opinion, statutory public bodies and anti-corruption campaigns, and social welfare policies.
In political aspect, the 1967 riots prompted the government to change its attitude towards public opinion from disregarding to listening, serving as a turning point. Before the 1967 riots, the government did consult local Chinese associations about its governance, including the Heung Yee Kuk鄉議局(1926) as a channel of communication between the government and New Territories villagers, but it did not put much emphasis on the popular view and rarely considered that when formulating policies. Also, there was a lack of government departments to collect public opinion and the will of Hong Kong people was often ignored. However, the 1967 riots served as a wake-up call to the British Hong Kong government for its governance. Spanned nearly eight months, the riots were the largest in Hong Kong in terms of scale since its founding. After this incident, the government wanted to alleviate the people’s discontent and prevent the recurrence of a similar riot by creating more channels of communication with them. For example, the government launched the City District Officer Scheme民政主任計劃 in 1968 to divide Hong Kong Island and Kowloon into ten districts and set up a City District Office民政處 in each district to collect public opinion. Afterwards, it held the first District Council election區議會選舉 in 1982 and allowed Hong Kong people to get involved in affairs within the district they belonged to, promoting their political participation. Comparatively speaking, regarding the extent of British Hong Kong government concerning public opinion, the British Hong Kong government before the riots ignored public opinion, but the 1967 riots gave rise to a crisis of governance that prompted the government to establish many advisory bodies and allow its people to take part in regional political affairs after 1967. Therefore, the year was a turning point with regard to the increasing emphasis on public opinion.
Politically speaking, the 1967 riots were the turning point leading to the advent of statutory public bodies and anti-corruption campaigns. Before 1967, due to its scant attention paid to people’s livelihood, the British Hong Kong hardly set up any statutory public body aimed at improving people’s lives. Meanwhile, despite the serious corruption problem before 1967, there was not enough pressure from society on the government forcing it to combat corruption by ways like setting up organizations dedicated to investigation of corruption cases. However, the 1967 riots made the government realize that it was necessary to improve people’s standard of living in order to stem their discontent. On the other hand, it also reflected the discontent of the citizens over the corruption of the government officials. Different types of statutory public bodies therefore burgeoned, including the Hong Kong Housing Society香港房屋協會(1973), Consumer Council消費者委員會(1974) and Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited地下鐵路公司(1975), to provide all kinds of services to the people as a way to dispel their grievances. Moreover, one of the reasons for the riots was people’s disaffection with how corrupted government officials were. Hence, regarding anti-corruption activities, in an attempt to regain reputation and popular support, the government established the ICAC廉政公署 in 1974, which was committed to eliminate corruption and promote education against corruption, to start anti-corruption campaigns after the riots. Comparatively speaking, regarding statutory public bodies and anti-corruption activities, there were not many statutory public bodies and corruption was serious before 1967, but these organizations mushroomed and anti-corruption campaigns were in full swing after the 1967 riots. Reversing the situation completely, the riots were clearly a turning point.
In social aspect, the 1967 riots changed the government’s attitude towards social welfare from passive to active. Before 1967, it was true that the government restructured the Social Welfare Office into the Social Welfare Department社會福利署 in 1958, and introduced the ‘low-cost housing scheme’ in 1961 to provide social welfare for those in need. However, the government’s social welfare policies were more passive before 1967, characterized by smaller scale and more restrictions. For example, the ‘low-cost housing scheme廉租屋計劃’ had income limits and the lower class was excluded from the coverage. However, the 1967 riots demonstrated the extreme dissatisfaction of the people towards their lives, and the government, with a view to pacify its citizens, introduced a wave of social policies after 1967. Afterwards, regarding the relieve of poverty, a public assistance scheme公共援助計劃 was introduced in 1973 to provide financial aid for those living in difficult circumstances. In terms of housing, the Ten-year Housing Programme十年建屋計劃 was introduced in 1972 to provide 1.8 million Hong Kong citizens with self-contained public housing flats. In terms of education, compulsory education of six years was enforced in 1971 and extended to nine years in 1978. These show that the government had taken an active role in providing social welfare. Comparatively speaking, regarding social welfare reform, the government took a passive attitude towards social welfare before 1967, but the 1967 riots reversed this situation and the government showed a positive attitude by implementing extensive social welfare policies covering different scopes and benefiting many. The year was therefore clearly a turning point.
However, in some aspects, the 1967 riots gave rise to continuities rather than act as a turning point.
Politically speaking, the 1967 riots only marked a continuity of the Chinese elite’s involvement in government affairs. Before 1967, the British Hong Kong government had already been absorbing the Chinese elite into its structure for better governance. As for administrative officer, Paul Tsui Ka-cheung徐家祥 became the first Chinese AO in 1948. As for the Executive and Legislative Councils, there were three and five Chinese members in these two councils respectively in 1962. It was clear that the government had already included the Chinese elite in Hong Kong’s governance before the riots. Until the 1967 riots, the incident shows the citizen’s dissatisfaction towards the government. After the 1967 riots, to relieve the dissatisfaction, the government further brought more Chinese into the government in order to comfort its people. For example, the number of Chinese administrative officers increased from 12 in 1962 to 23 in 1968, and eventually reached 91 in 1978. For the two councils, the number of Chinese members also increased from 11 to 19 (ExCo) and from 10 to 23 (LegCo) in the period 1966-74. These show an increasing number of the Chinese elite holding key positions in the government and getting involved in the governance of Hong Kong. Comparatively speaking, in terms of the Chinese participation in the government, the government started introducing the Chinese elite into its structure by appointment before 1967, and the riots only sped up this process and allowed more Chinese people to be promoted to senior government positions. In this regard, the 1967 riots represented continuity instead of a turning point.
Economically speaking, the 1967 riots were not the turning point that changed the industries driving Hong Kong’s economy. Since 1959, Hong Kong’s total exports had outweighed the total re-exports. This indicated the successful economic transition of Hong Kong from entrepot to industrial city with manufacturing as its core industry. Rapid development could be seen in different light industries, including textile, clothing and plastic industries in the 1950s as well as the production of electronics, watches, clocks and toys in the 1960s. It was clear that manufacturing was already the major industry of Hong Kong before the riots. After the 1967 riots, the disturbances impaired investors’ confidence in Hong Kong. As a result, their investment in the city only took up less than 20% of its GDP in the late 1960s, showing a sharp decline. But this created only short-term impact and did not cause any fundamental change in Hong Kong’s economic structure. Afterwards, the city’s economy was still based on industry and the manufacturing industry demonstrated its importance to the economy by contributing the most to employment and the GDP of Hong Kong in the 1970s. Comparatively speaking, in terms of the economic development in Hong Kong, Hong Kong’s economy was driven by industrial development before and after the 1967 riots, and although steady economic diversification was seen starting from the late 1970s, it was a result of China’s reform and opening up policy instead of the riots. Therefore, the 1967 riots were not a turning point that changed the industries driving Hong Kong’s economy and they led to continuity only.
In conclusion, although the 1967 riots brought only continuities of the inclusion of the Chinese elite and industries driving Hong Kong’s economy, they caused fundamental changes in areas like the government’s attitude towards public opinion, statutory public bodies and anti-corruption campaigns, and social welfare policies. These changes greatly influenced the overall situation of Hong Kong and the riots were therefore a turning point to a large extent.
Comments