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
_________________________________________________________________________
「改革開放為中國帶來利多於弊。」試參考1978-2000年間的中國歷史，評論此說能否成立。
背景 中共自1978年開始推行改革開放政策，使中國在各方面均帶來了嶄新的轉變。 // 架構其中，改革開放在農業、工商業、教育及科技等方面帶來的利較弊多，但在政治及社會方面的影響則是利弊相當。 // 立場因此，題目所言在大程度上成立。
主旨句 其一，改革開放大大推動了中國農業發展，帶來的利多於弊。 // 項目B(弊) 改革開放後，由於1980年代中期政府將改革重心投放至城市，農業的發展有所放緩，「三農問題」再次轉趨惡化，包括農業機械化程度低、農村基建不足及農民收入少，可見改革開放為農業帶來的弊。 // 項目A(利) 然而，改革開放為農業帶來的利多於弊。中共於1978年起推行「家庭聯產承包制」，放棄集體化生產，規定農民上繳指定的農產量後，可以將剩餘的收成收歸己有或在市場出售。因此，農民的生產力大大提高，其中1979-84年間的農業總產量增加了50%。及後，隨著引進外國耕種技術及機械，農業產量與日俱增，其中糧食產量在1996年就達到5億噸的歷史新高。 // 對比(~20%) 權衡利弊下，改革開放為農業方面帶來的利更多，因儘管改革開放後「三農問題」仍未完全獲得根治，但中國農產量大幅提升，而農村狀況及農民生活也日漸改善，故改革開放實際上是嘗試解決「三農問題」而非使其出現，在農業方面是利多於弊。
其二，改革開放使工商業蓬勃發展，是利多於弊。雖然改革開放後，政府為降低國企的生產成本而精簡職工，開始裁員，至1995年已有約9500萬國企員工「下崗」。加上，大規模的基建發展及信貸投資使通貨膨漲問題出現，於1984-95年間中國便經歷了3次嚴重的通貨膨脹，大大影響產業發展及人民生活。然而，改革開放對中國帶來的利較弊更多。在改革開放前，中國的國企生產力低，部分甚至虧損嚴重，但由於中共於1978年後改革國企及積極發展鄉鎮企業，加上對外開放以吸引外資及技術，因此令全國工商業迅速發展。整體而言，中國國內生產總值於1979-1999年間年均增長達9.6%，人均國內生產總值也由1978年的379元增至1999年的7159元，國家發展欣欣向榮。權衡之下，雖然改革開放為國家工商業發展有利有弊，但改革開放已經革新了社會主義下的工商業體系，大大刺激了經濟發展，使中國整體經濟大為改善，實利多於弊。
其三，改革開放對中國的教育、科學發展也是利多於弊。雖然改革開放後，因政府大量投入人力、物力及資金到教育及科技範疇，使基礎及高等教育迅速發展，結果導致學歷貶值。然而，改革開放對教育、科學的重視大大提高了勞動人口的素質，因教育及科學對於提高國家生產力、軍事國防等均極具重要性，而中共大力發展教育，包括於1986年推行《義務教育法》，規定學生需要接受9年免費教育，並且於1978年恢復全國高等院校及再新增28所，結果使中國教育事業如雨後春筍般發展。隨著教育水平的提昇，科學技術也急速發展，其中航天科技的成就最為顯著，例如於1990成功以自行研製的長征火箭將美國的通訊衛星送入預定軌道，順利加入國際衛星發射市場，為中國航天事業揭開新的一頁。相較之下，改革開放為中國帶來的利明顯遠多於弊，大大刺激了中國的教育、科技發展，糾正了改革開放前「重紅不重專」的思想，是中國教育、科技發展的里程碑。
雖然改革開放在農業、工商業、教育及科技等方面帶來的利多於弊，但在政治及社會方面則是利弊相當。
政治方面，改革開放對政治的影響是利弊相當。改革開放的推行標誌了中國結束階級鬥爭的時代，轉而團結一致集中建設經濟發展，因而令中國在1978年後政治狀況漸趨穩定，擺脫了過去數十年中國長期陷入政治鬥爭、政局混亂的狀況，有助建立一和諧、團結的國家，以促進國家發展。然而，在政局趨向穩定的同時，改革開放卻助長了幹部貪污瀆職，部分官員與其親屬開始利用自身權力及法律上的漏洞，參與或主持各種不法舞弊活動，藉以謀取私利，其中，在1990年代的「陳希同案」就是中共幹部貪污的其中代表例子。貪腐問題對國家的發展產生龐大的不良影響，不但使政府官員因貪污而未有積極參與工作，降低了工作效率，更破壞了法治的精神，使不公的情況出現。因此，改革開放雖然一方面有助中國政局走向穩定，結束鬥爭，同時卻使幹部貪污瀆職的情況與日俱增，故是利弊相當、毀譽參半。
社會方面，改革開放在人口議題上帶來的利弊相當。由於改革開放的推行，中共為減低出生率以減輕社會福利及資源需求的壓力，於1979年推行「一孩政策」，規定城市戶口的夫婦只可生一胎，因此令出生率大減，由1979年至2000年間估計減少生育2.5億嬰兒，有助緩和人口膨脹的情況。然而，儘管「一孩政策」在減緩人口增長議題上取得顯著的成效，同時卻帶來了大量嚴重的後遺症，最明顯的就是使重男輕女的思想再次出現，不少婦女懷有女嬰時會選擇墮胎或於出生後棄嬰，結果導致性別失衡情況嚴重。更甚，基於出生率的下降，勞動人口大幅減少，加上大部分的獨生子女在父母的溺愛下缺乏自立能力，因此大大削弱了中國的競爭力及勞動人口的素質，嚴重不利中國的長遠發展。權衡利弊下，改革開放後的「一孩政策」雖然短暫緩和了中國人口增長的情況，但則帶來極大的後遺症，長遠而言削弱了中國的競爭力，因此是利弊相當。
總括而言，儘管改革開放為中國的政治、社會帶來的利弊相當，但在農業、工商業、教育及科技等方面則明顯利多於弊，中國人民的生活狀況也較改革開放前大為改善，逐步邁向現代化社會，故題目所言在大程度上成立。
‘The Reform and Opening Up did more good than harm to China.’ Comment on the validity of this statement with reference to the history of China in the period 1978-2000.
Communist China started its Reform and Opening Up policy in 1978 and caused drastic changes to the country in every aspect. Among these fields, the policy did more good than harm in agricultural, industrial and commercial, as well as educational and technological aspects, and did as much good as harm politically and socially. Therefore, what the question suggests is valid to a large extent.
Firstly, the Reform and Opening Up greatly promoted agricultural development in China and did more good than harm. After the Reform and Opening Up, the government shifted the focus of the reform to urban areas since the mid-1980s, and this led to sluggish agricultural development and the deterioration of the ‘Three Rural Issues三農問題’, which were the low degree of mechanization in agriculture, inadequate infrastructure in rural areas and low incomes of peasants. These were the harm brought by the policy. However, the Reform and Opening Up actually did more harm than good to China’s agriculture. Communist China introduced the Household Responsibility System家庭聯產承包制 in 1978 to abandon collectivized production and allow peasants to keep their harvest or sell it in the market after handing over a designated amount of it. As a result, their productivity was greatly boosted as illustrated by a 50% increase in the gross value of agricultural production between 1979 and 1984. Subsequently, agricultural production kept increasing with the introduction of foreign farming skills and agricultural machinery, and food production hit a record high at 500 million tons in 1996. To compare the good and harm, the Reform and Opening Up brought more benefits in agricultural aspect since China’s agricultural production greatly increased and improvements were seen in rural areas and peasants’ livelihood. Although the ‘Three Rural Issues’ were not eased after the Reform and Opening Up, the policy was an attempt to solve these problems instead of a cause of them. Therefore, it did more good than harm in agricultural aspect.
Secondly, the Reform and Opening Up stimulated industrial and commercial development and did more good than harm. It was true that after the policy, the government streamlined state-owned companies to cut costs. More than 95 million of their employees were made redundant and became ‘laid-off workers下崗工人’. In addition, the large-scale infrastructure projects and credit investment led to the problem of inflation. China experienced three severe episodes of hyperinflation in the period 1984-95 that greatly affected the development of different industries and people’s lives. But still, the policy did more good than harm to China. Before the policy, Chinese state-owned enterprises (SOEs) had low productivity and some even incurred significant losses. But after 1978, there was rapid industrial and commercial development after the government reformed SOEs, developed Township Village Enterprises and opened up the country to attract foreign capital and technology. Overall, China’s GDP enjoyed an average annual growth rate of 9.6% and its GDP per capita increased from $379 in 1978 to $7159 in 1999. These showed the country’s thriving development. On balance, the Reform and Opening Up brought both benefits and drawbacks with respect to China’s industrial and commercial development, but since the policy significantly stimulated economic development and greatly improved China’s economy by reforming its industrial and commercial structures under socialism, it did more good than harm.
Thirdly, the Reform and Opening Up did more good than harm to the development of education and science in China. It was true that after the policy, devaluation of academic credentials was resulted after the government allocated substantial resources to the education and technology sectors and stimulated the development of basic and tertiary education. However, the policy did improve the quality of the labour force with its focus on education and science, which were both very important in terms of productivity enhancement and military build-up. The Communist Party greatly promoted educational development by introducing the Compulsory Education Law義務教育法 in 1986 that required students to attend school for at least nine years at no cost, and bringing colleges all over the country back into operation while creating 28 more. As a result, China’s education enjoyed rapid growth. With the increasing educational level, science and technology also developed at a rocketing rate, especially for aerospace technology. For example, in 1990, China successfully sent an American communication satellite into orbit as planned with its self-invented Long March rocket長征火箭 and entered the international market. This marked a new chapter for China’s aerospace industry. Comparatively speaking, the Reform and Opening Up clearly did far more good than harm by stimulating China’s educational and technological development and rectifying the emphasis on redness at the expense of expertise重紅不重專. It was a milestone in the development of education and technology in China.
Despite the fact that the Reform and Opening Up policy did more good than harm in the above three fields, it did as much good as harm in political and social aspects.
Politically speaking, the Reform and Opening Up had an equally positive and negative impact on China’s politics. The implementation of this policy marked the end of class struggle in China that was replaced by unity for economic construction. This facilitated political stability in China after 1978 in the aftermath of several decades of enduring political struggles and chaos, contributing to a harmonious and united country for better development. However, while stabilizing the political situation, the Reform and Opening Up also promoted bribery and corruption among cadres. Some officials and their relatives abused their power and legal loopholes to make personal gain through illegal ways. The Chen Xitong case陳希同案 in the 1990s was a representative example of corruption among the Communist Party cadres. The problem of corruption had a huge adverse impact on the country’s development in the sense that government officials were not proactive at work and had low working efficiency due to corruption, and that the rule of law was destroyed with the presence of injustice. Since the Reform and Opening Up helped stabilize China’s political situation and end struggles but at the same time led to a growing trend of bribery and corruption among cadres, the policy worked both ways.
Socially speaking, the Reform and Opening Up cut both ways as to the population issue. Along with the implementation of the policy, the Communist Party introduced the one-child policy一孩政策 in 1979 with a view to alleviating the burden of social welfare and resources by lowering the birth rate. Allowing urban couples to have only one baby, this policy led to a sharp decline in fertility rates and prevented an estimated 250 million births in the period 1979-2000. It helped alleviate the issue of population explosion. Nevertheless, while having significant achievement in slowing down population growth, the one-child policy also led to many serious consequences, and of those, the most significant was the return of the idea of gender inequality, which prompted many pregnant women with female infants to resort to abortion or abandonment, and resulted in severe gender imbalance. Worse still, this policy greatly undermined China’s competitiveness and the quality of its labour force since its working-age population suffered massive decline due to the decreasing birth rate, and most only children lacked self-reliance due to their parents’ overindulgence. This largely worked against China’s long-term development. To compare the good and harm, the one-child policy after the Reform and Opening Up did slow down China’s population growth right away, but it also led to harmful consequences and undermined China’s competitiveness in the long run. Therefore, the policy had equal advantages and disadvantages.
In conclusion, the Reform and Opening Up policy did as much good as harm to China politically and socially, but it clearly did more good than harm in agricultural, industrial and commercial, as well as educational and technological aspects. People’s livelihood also improved much and the country was developing towards a modernized society. Therefore, what the question suggests is valid to a large extent.
Comments