注意：此題目原是DSE歷屆試題，但為免侵犯版權，題目經過修改，同學可以按試題之年份及題號自行查閱原題目。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
_________________________________________________________________________
原題目題號：DSE-2014-Essay-02
「晚清政府未能於1900-12年間使中國蛻變；南京政府於1927-37年間成功令中國蛻變。」評論此說能否成立。
定義 「蛻變」是指本質上的改變，由一種形態轉變至由一種形態，蛻變的前後有著顯著的差異。 // 立場清政府及南京政府於統治期間均嘗試使中國出現蛻變，然而，兩政權均未能革新中國的各個方面，中國並未經歷根本的轉變，故題目所言只能在部分程度上成立。 // 架構以下，將從政治、經濟、社會及外交方面討論。
主旨句 其一，清政府未能使中國政治上蛻變。 // 核心點前的情況中國政治向來專制，皇權至上，缺乏民主成份。// 核心點的影響及往後的情況 儘管清政府於1905年起推行憲政改革，例如於1908年頒布欽定憲法大綱，試圖革新中國政治。 然而，憲法中君主權力超然，皇權至上的特質未有改變。此外，諮議局(1909年)的議員只由少數地方士紳所選出，欠缺民選成份。更甚，資政院(1910年)及內閣(1911年)向皇帝而非人民負責，內閣的官員更全由皇帝任命，皇族壟斷了內閣(13人當中有7人)，實欠缺人民代表性，只是鞏固皇權的工具，專制仍然。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，雖然清政府推行了憲制改革，但改革只為鞏固皇權，並非改變中國專制的政治本質，因此在晚清改革前、後仍然未有出現根本性的轉變，實未能為中國政治帶來蛻變。
主旨句 南京政府也不能為中國政治帶來蛻變。 // 核心點的影響及往後的情況雖然南京政府按孫中山的《建國大綱》逐步將中國由軍政的階段推至訓政及憲政。但憲政階段因中日戰爭(1937年)爆發而被推遲至1946年才正式通過，中國至1937年仍然停留於訓政階段，由國民黨一黨專政，加上，南京政府奉行以黨治國的方針，排除異己，不斷剿共，故專制本質仍然。此外，即使南京政府嘗試推行五權分立，但當時人民仍然缺乏選舉權，選舉制度並未能於中國確立，也缺乏民主成份。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，儘管帝制不在，但南京政府時期的中國政治仍然與其改革前的狀況相似，同樣專制、缺乏民主，因此只是表面上出現改變，但本質上並不能為中國政治帶來蛻變。
其二，清政府在經濟上也未能為中國帶來蛻變。1900年前的中國經濟狀況惡劣，本土企業發展困難，經濟上的人均生產力低。雖然清政府在晚清改革中設商部(1903年)，以及草擬商法(如：公司章程)和大力發展鐵路網，使中國企業開始發展起來，並且使中國出現較現代的商業法則。然而，惡劣的經濟狀況未有得到明顯改善，鴉片的存在持續榨取民間資產，清政府更因八國聯軍的戰敗而需要賠款達4億5千萬兩。此外，受到外國貨品的打擊，本土工業難以發展，營商環境艱難。加上，清政府未有致力推動農業機械化，小農模式仍然維持，以致生產力偏低。相比之下，1900年前中國經濟環境落後、差劣，雖然清政府嘗試推行改革以改善經濟，但成效不大，中國的經濟狀況仍然，生產力低，反映清政府不能使中國經濟出現蛻變。
南京政府同樣未能為中國經濟帶來蛻變。儘管南京政府積極推動商業改革，革新金融幣制，於1935年以紙幣取代銀元，又通過經濟法規，如《交易所法》﹑《度量衡法》，營造了趨向完善的商業環境。同時，於工業方面也積極扶助本地工業，又擴建鐵路，使工業也得以發展。然而，中國的經濟並未得到蛻變，因少數財閥(尤以四大家族)壟斷中國的經濟，使本土中﹑小企業難以發展。此外，中國當時仍然為一農業社會，大部分人口從事農業活動，但農業生產就缺乏機器的投入，生產力偏低。加上，1937年中日戰爭的爆發更使不少地區的商業活動停止，故經濟環境仍然惡劣。相比之下，雖然中國經濟於南京政府改革後有所改善，但成效不宜高估，中國的經濟環境仍然惡劣，落後的農業生產模式持續，反映中國經濟未有因南京政府的改革而出現蛻變。
其三，社會上，清政府仍未能使中國蛻變。中國的社會陋習及傳統封建思想繁多。儘管於晚清改革中，清政府頒布命令，解除婦女纏足﹑禁止吸食鴉片及禁止儲養奴隸等，試圖使社會趨向現代化。但事實上，上述改革並未能徹底實行，例如吸食鴉片只是變為地下活動，未有得到杜絕。而且，社會階級﹑男女不平等的思想仍然存在，傳統封建思想根深柢固，本質上未有因清政府的改革而出現蛻變。相比之下，1900年前中國的社會封建落後，雖然清政府有推行社會改革試圖改變社會狀況，但這些改革虛有其表，封建的社會思想及不文明的陋習仍然存在，並不能為中國社會帶來蛻變。
南京政府也不能為中國社會實現蛻變。雖然南京政府積極推行社會改革，包括秉承民國初年的措施，例如禁止纏足﹑買賣奴婢等，而且於1934年開展新生活運動，提倡「禮﹑義﹑廉﹑恥」等傳統美德。然而，中國社會未有因為南京政府的改革而出現蛻變，儘管纏足及買賣奴婢等陋習受到廢止，但許多陋習及封建思想仍然，如貪污、迷信鬼神、重男輕女等，這些陋習及思想甚至延續至今，並未帶來根本的轉變。相比之下，儘管南京政府廢止了部分陋習，卻未能完全革新中國社會，摒棄封建、不文明的思想及行為，使這時期的中國社會與過往的未有太大改變，沒有出現蛻變。
其四，清政府未能使中國外交上出現蛻變。自1842年鴉片戰爭戰敗起，中國就陷入不平等的外交待遇，例如失去關稅自主權及治外法權，中國未能保持主權獨立。雖然清政府於於1901年成立外交部以取締總理衙門，希望藉此改善中國不平等地位的待遇。然而，這並不能扭轉中國外交不平等的情況，因外務部的成立無助中國於國際事務上與外國談判，中國的國際地位持續低落，《南京條約》(1842年)﹑《馬關條約》(1895年)等不平等條約仍然存在，束縛中國內政，使中國不能達致自主獨立，關稅﹑司法等方面仍受外國干預﹑控制。相比之下，中國受到不平等條約約束的情況在1900年前、後均未有改變，而且中國外交地位不平等的狀況亦持續，反映清政府未能為中國外交帶來蛻變。
南京政府同樣未能為中國外交帶來蛻變。儘管南京政府致力提高中國的國際地位，及廢除外國在華的不平等待遇，例如於1926-30年間收復漢口﹑廈門等的英國租界及於1930年收回關稅自主權，令中國的外交地位有所提昇。然而，中國外交仍然處於不平等的狀況，不平等條約仍然束縛中國，外國也保留在華的治外法權，不平等的狀況並未有於1937年時得以扭轉。此外，中國不單未能保持獨立自主，更成為日本侵略的目標，於1937年全面入侵中國，國家主權未有被尊重。相比之下，直至1937年，雖然中國收復了部分主權，但中國不平等的外交待遇未有完全得到改變，這與南京政府改革前的情況沒有根本性的差別，故蛻變並未出現在當時的中國。
總括而言，清政府於1900-12年間及南京政府於1927-37年間的改革雖然對中國現代化建設不無建樹，然而改變未能達致本質上的轉變，中國在兩時期的本質仍舊，因此清政府並未能為中國帶來蛻變，而南京政府同樣地也不能使中國出現蛻變。
‘The Late Qing government failed to transform China in the period 1900-12, while the Nanjing government succeeded in the period 1927-37.’ Comment on the validity of this statement.
“Transformation” means the change in the nature of subject. Obvious differences existed both before and after such transformation as the nature changes from one to another. Both the Qing and Nanjing governments transformed China during their regimes. However, both of them failed to transform all aspects and China could not experience a total transformation. Hence, the statement could only be agreed to a certain extent. Below, it would be discussed in the political, economic, social and diplomatic aspects.
Firstly, the Qing government could not transform the political aspect of China. The politics of China was autocratic all the time. The emperor had absolute power and democratic element was lacked. The Qing government had implemented a constitutional reform since 1905. For instance, in 1908, the Outline of Constitution欽定憲法大綱was issued, which attempted to transform the politics of China. However, the emperor’s power was still superior and the nature of such superiority was the same as before. Apart from that, members of Provincial assemblies諮議局(1909) were elected from gentries from a few places and electoral element was lacked. Worse still, the National Assembly資政院(1910) and cabinet內閣(1911) were responsible to the emperor but not the people. All ministers in the cabinet were appointed by the emperor and it was dominated by royal families皇族(7 out of 13). It was not representative of the people but was rendered an instrument for consolidating the royal power and autocracy remained. In comparison, although the Qing government implemented a constitutional reform, the objective of the reform was to consolidate the royal power instead of changing the nature of Chinese autocratic politics. Hence, the Late Qing Reform did not bring about a fundamental transformation and could not transform the political aspect of China.
The Nanjing government failed to transform the political aspect of China as well. Although the Nanjing government was to proceed from military Rule軍政 to political tutelage訓政 and to constitutional government憲政 according to the Sun’s ‘Fundamentals of National Reconstruction’ 建國大綱, China still remained in the political tutelage period due to the outbreak of Sino-Japanese War中日戰爭(1937). The Constitution was not adopted until 1946. In 1937, China remained at the state of political tutelage and one-party dictatorship一黨專政 was still practiced by Kuomintang. Also, one-party dictatorship was adopted which the government eliminated dissidents like purging the Communists. The nature of autocracy was still the same. Apart from that, the Nanjing government tried to adopt the five-power system五權分立. However, people at that time still did not have any voting rights and hence an election system was not established in China. Democratic element was missing. In comparison, although monarchy did not exist at that time, the politics of China during the era of Nanjing government was similar to the situation before the reform. They were both autocratic and undemocratic. Therefore, the change was superficial and no real transformation was made in the nature of China’s politics.
Secondly, the Qing government did not make any transformation in the economy of China. The economic situation of China before 1900 was poor, local enterprises faced difficulties in development and the productivity of average population was low. The Qing government attempted to make the country wealthy by establishing the Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce商部(1903), drafting commercial laws (e.g. Articles of Association公司章程) and developing the railway network. Chinese companies started to develop and China passed some commercial laws that were rather modernised. Yet, the economic condition of China remained poor. Opium鴉片 still squeezed the assets of people. The Qing government even had to pay an indemnity of 450 million silver taels because of the defeat of the Eight-Power Allied Forces八國聯軍. Also, local industries could hardly develop with the harm done by foreign goods and it was hard to operate the companies. Furthermore, the Qing government did not actively promote the mechanization of agriculture. Hence, mode of small-scale agriculture still remained and the productivity was rather low. In comparison, the economic environment of China was backward and poor before 1900 in China. Although the Qing government tried to improve the economy by reforms, the effectiveness was limited and the economy of China was the same which the productivity was low. This reflected that the Qing government could not transform the economy of China.
Nanjing government could not transform the economy of China as well. The Nanjing government pushed forward economic reforms. It reformed the monetary system by replacing silver dollars銀元 with banknotes紙幣 in 1935. Economic regulations like Exchange Act交易所法 and Weights and Measures Act度量衡法 were passed to create a sound economic environment. Also, it assisted local industries and extended railways, which helped develop the industry. However, the economy of China did not experience any transformation as the economy was dominated by several plutocrats (especially the “Big Four Families” 四大家族), hindering the development of local small and medium enterprises. Besides, China was still an agricultural society that most people engaged in agricultural activities. But productivity remained low without introducing machines. Moreover, the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War中日戰爭 in 1937 halted commercial activities in many areas and the economic environment was still poor. In comparison, although the economy improved a bit after the reform of Nanjing government, the effectiveness should not be overestimated. The economic environment of China was still poor and the backward agricultural mode of production remained. These illustrated that the Chinese economy did not transform with the reform of Nanjing government.
Thirdly, socially, the Qing government did not transform China. There were a lot of social misbehaviour and feudal thoughts in China. In the Late Qing reform, the government imposed orders such as women were free from foot-binding纏足, opium-smoking吸食鴉片 was illegalised and slavery奴隸 was forbidden. These efforts were put in order to modernize the society. However, in fact, the above reforms failed to implement thoroughly. For instance, opium-smoking became an underground activity and was not totally eradicated. Moreover, thoughts including social classes社會階級 and inequality between men and women男女不平等 still existed. The traditional feudal thoughts were deeply rooted and such nature did not change because of the reform made by Qing government. In comparison, the society of China before 1900 was both feudal and backward. Although the Qing government implemented social reforms in attempt of improving the social condition, these reforms were meretricious. Feudal thoughts and uncivilized social misbehaviour still existed. No transformation was made in the society of China.
Nanjing government failed to actualize transformation in the Chinese society as well. Nanjing government actively implemented social reforms, including following the early republican practices to prohibit foot-binding and slave trade. Also, the New Life Movement新生活運動 was started in 1934 which promoted the Confucian virtues of “propriety, righteousness, honesty and the sense of shame” (li, yi, lian, chi禮﹑義﹑廉﹑恥). However, the Chinese society could not transform with the reforms made by Nanjing government. Although some social misbehaviours such as foot-binding and slave trade were halted, a lot of misbehaviours and feudal thoughts remained, such as corruption貪污, superstition迷信鬼神 and sexual inequality重男輕女. Some of these misbehaviours and thoughts even continued until now, showing its failure in bringing a total transformation. In comparison, although the Nanjing government scrapped some of the social misbehaviours, it could not totally reform the Chinese society and eradicate feudalism, uncivilized thoughts and behaviour. Therefore, in this period, the Chinese society did not have much differences in compared to the time before and no transformation was experienced.
Fourthly, the Qing government did not transform Chinese diplomacy. Since the defeat in Opium War鴉片戰爭 in 1842, China failed into an unequal diplomatic status. For instance, tariff autonomy關稅自主權and extraterritoriality治外法權 were lost. China’s sovereignty and independence were not being respected. Although the Qing government replaced Zongli Yamen總理衙門 with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs外交部 in the hope of improving the unequal international status, China’s status remained low as the Ministry failed to arbitrate with foreign countries in world affairs. Unequal treaties including Nanjing Treaty南京條約(1842) and Shimonoseki Treaty馬關條約(1895) existed and they controlled the internal politics of China. As a result, China could not enjoy her autonomy and independence. Aspects like tariff關稅 and judiciary司法 were still being intervened and controlled by foreign countries. In comparison, China was being restrained by unequal treaties both before and after 1900. Also, the unequal diplomatic status of China still persisted. These reflected that the Qing government failed to transform China’s diplomacy.
The Nanjing government also failed to transform the diplomacy of China. The Nanjing government worked hard in improving the international status of China and scrapping the unequal treatment of foreign countries. For instance, it recovered British concessions at Hankou漢口 and Xiamen廈門 in 1926-30, and regained the tariff autonomy關稅自主權 in 1930 which improved the diplomatic status of China. However, the diplomacy of China was still in an unequal state as unequal treaties were still bounding China. Also, foreign countries had the extraterritoriality治外法權 of China. The unequal situation did not improve in 1937. Apart from that, China failed to maintain her independence and fell prey to Japan. Japan invaded the whole of China in 1937 and China’s sovereignty was not being respected. In comparison, until 1937, although China regained some sovereignty, her unequal diplomatic treatment did not totally change. The situation was the same with that before the Nanjing reform. Therefore, transformation did not exist in China at that time.
To sum up, the Qing government and Nanjing government contributed to the construction of China’s modernization in 1900-12 and 1927-37 respectively. However, the change did not achieve any transformation in nature. The nature of China in the two periods was still the same. Hence, both Qing and Nanjing governments failed to transform China.
Comments