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
_________________________________________________________________________
比較晚清改革(1901-11)及南京政府推行的改革(1928-49)對中國現代化的成效。
定義 現代化指一國家或地區成功擺脫落後及封建，本質上達致先進﹑文明的狀況。 // 立場 雖然晚清改革及南京政府的改革對實現中國現代化的貢獻有限，但相較之下，南京政府推行改革所帶來的成效略大於晚清改革。 // 架構 以下將從政治﹑經濟﹑社會﹑軍事﹑教育﹑外交等方面比較兩者的成效。
主旨句 政治方面，兩政權的改革均未能有效實現中國政治現代化。 // 項目A 晚清改革試圖為中國推行立憲改革，如於1908年頒布《欽定憲法大綱》﹑1909年成立諮議局﹑1910年設資政院及1911年成立內閣。然而，憲制改革乃為保滿清統治，故缺乏民主成份，如內閣的13名閣員中便有7人為皇族，直至晚清政府倒台前，憲法仍未得以落實。 // 項目B 另一方面，南京政府按照孫中山的《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(1937-45)爆發而被推遲至1946年才正式通過，最終卻為時已晚，南京政府的統治已步入尾聲。而且，即使嘗試推行五權分立，但人民仍然缺乏投票權，選舉制度並未能於中國確立。 // 對比(~20%) 相比之下，兩次改革雖然均嘗試推動中國政治現代化，但均未能有效實現，民主的現代化特徵從未植根於中國，專制本質仍然，成效缺善可陳。
經濟方面，南京政府改革的成效明顯較晚清改革大。清政府試圖推行富國之策，如於1903年設立商部以統籌經濟發展的項目；又草擬商法，如《公司章程》﹑《公司律》等，試圖營造較完善的營商環境。然而，經濟方面亦未能因晚清改革而有效實現現代化，因晚清改革發展規模小﹑零碎，並且只集中於沿海地區，農村及內陸地區仍然落後。而且，受到外國貨品的打擊，本土工業難以發展，營商環境艱難。另一方面，南京政府也積極推動商業改革，如改革金融幣制，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》等。但中國的經濟並未因此而達致真正的現代化，因少數財閥(尤以四大家族)壟斷中國的經濟，使中﹑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。雖然兩者均未能實現中國經濟現代化，但相比之下，南京政府改革的成效較大，因南京政府時期，中國的金融﹑交通通訊﹑商業﹑工業均發展起來，較晚清時期的破蔽環境略優。
社會方面，晚清改革的成效也不及南京政府的改革。滿清政府頒布一系列命令，如解除婦女纏足﹑允許滿漢通婚﹑禁止吸食鴉片﹑取消清旗人俸祿及禁止儲養奴隸，試圖使社會趨向現代化。但上述改革並未能徹底實行，而且，社會階級﹑男女不平等的思想仍然存在，傳統封建思想仍舊流行。另一方面，南京政府也推行改革，促進社會現代化，如於1929年已通過《民權法規》，保障公民的基本權利。此外，南京政府於1934年開展新生活運動，提倡「禮﹑義﹑廉﹑恥」等傳統美德，有助喚醒民族醒覺和共融合作的精神，培訓公民意識。相比之下，南京政府改革的成效較大，因滿清時期未獲根治的不少社會陋習至南京政府時期亦獲解決，如禁止鴉片﹑儲養奴隸等，故南京政府在促進社會文明開化﹑自由方面的貢獻均較晚清改革有效。
軍事方面，晚清政府與南京政府的改革均未能有效實現中國軍事現代化。清政府試圖強化中國軍事，如於晚清改革中建武備學堂(1901)及練兵處(1903)，並派軍官到日本受訓。雖然改革成功令中國至1911年擁有27萬新軍，但也未能有效實現中國軍事現代化，因中國軍力仍然軟弱，對外不能抗敵，如中國無力阻止日﹑俄於中國爆發的戰爭(1904-05)。並且，中央軍力不足以控制地方，新軍更如同袁世凱的私人部隊，成為日後袁世凱迫清帝退位的利劍。另一方面，南京政府也推行改革加強中國軍事實力，如利用黃埔軍校培訓士兵，並向美﹑英等國家購買軍備，但也未能使中國軍事達致現代化，但當時南京政府的軍力不足以對內平亂，完成剿共，亦未能對外抗敵，多次受到日本的侵略，如九一八事件及七七事件等。相比之下，兩次改革均未能有效實現中國軍事現代化，中國軍力仍然薄弱，因而使中國未能擺脫長期的戰亂，兩次改革的成效均有欠成效。
教育方面，南京政府的改革也較晚清改革取得了更大的成效。清政府於晚清改革時廢八股文(1902)及科舉(1905)，又於1902年成立由高等學堂﹑中學堂﹑小學堂﹑蒙學堂組成的新學制，但中國仍未因此而達致現代化，因中國的教育水平仍然低落，文盲問題仍然嚴重。加上，新的學制中仍不能成功擺脫科舉的影子，儒家學說仍舊佔主要位置，未能全面培育學生的科學﹑人文等思想。另一方面，南京政府除了重組部分大學與高等教育學院外，也興建大量中﹑小學，更於1932年頒布《義務教育法》，計劃為國民提供免費基礎教育，以令更多的人口獲受教育，又於1933年起先後頒布小學規程﹑中學規程及國外留學規程，至此，中國的學制已趨向成熟。相比之下，儘管1930年代中葉的中國仍然存在嚴重的文盲問題，但學制的確立及發展實有助中國教育趨向現代化，故南京政府改革的成效較晚清改革大。
外交方面，南京政府改革的成效也明顯大於晚清改革。雖然清政府於晚清改革中因應列強要求以外交部取締總理衙門，但此舉並未能為中國外交現代化。因中國的國際地位仍然低落，不平等條約如《馬關條約》(1895)及《辛丑條約》(1901)仍然束縛著中國，使中國的關稅自主權﹑治外法權操控於外國之手。另一方面，南京政府也致力提高中國的國際地位，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，至二次大戰後，大部分的不平等條約也獲得廢除。相比之下，清政府對於外交現代化的成效實為有限，但南京政府則成功提高了中國的國際地位，成功擺脫了列強對中國的不平等待遇，故南京政府改革的成效較晚清政府顯著。
總括而言，雖然兩次改革對於中國現代化的成效均毀譽參半，但仔細端詳之下，南京政府的改革在經濟、社會、教育及外交方面所取得的成效略大於晚清改革。
Compare the Late Qing Reform (1901-11) and reforms introduced by the Nanjing government (1928-49) in terms of their effectiveness in modernizing China.
A modernized country or region must have got rid of backwardness and feudalism, being modern and civilized in nature. The Late Qing Reform and that of the Nanjing government had little contribution to China’s modernization. But in comparison, the reform carried by the Nanjing government was unremarkably more effective than the Late Qing one. This essay is going to compare the effectiveness of the two reforms in political, economic, social, military, educational and diplomatic aspect.
Politically, both the reforms introduced by the two regimes did not modernize China effectively. The Late Qing Reform was an attempt at constitutional reform in China. This is supported by examples like the Outline of Imperial Constitution欽定憲法大綱 promulgated in 1908, provincial assemblies諮議局 established in 1909, national assembly資政院 set up in 1910 and the formation of a cabinet內閣 in 1911. However, the reform was aimed at keeping the Qing rule and therefore lacked democratic elements. This was manifested by the Royal Cabinet, in which 7 of the 13 members were from royal families, and the absence of a constitution before the collapse of the Qing dynasty. As for another reform, the Nanjing government followed the Fundamentals of National Reconstruction建國大綱 proposed by Sun Yat-sen, transforming China step by step through the stages of military rule, political tutelage and constitution government. However, the formation of constitutional government was postponed until 1946 due to the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937-45). It was too late and the rule of the Nanjing government was approaching its end. Also, the people did not enjoy suffrage投票 despite attempts at separation of powers. Electoral system was not established in China. In comparison, both reforms entailed attempts at promoting China’s political modernization, but none of them was effective in realizing it. Democracy, as a feature of modernization, was never firmly established in China and the nation remained autocratic in nature. The effectiveness of these reforms was unsatisfactory.
Economically, the achievements of the Nanjing government’s reform were apparently greater than those of the Late Qing Reform. The Qing government attempted at transforming China into a rich country. For example, it set up the Ministry of Commerce商部 in 1903 to organize programmes for economic development. It also drafted commercial laws like the Company Act公司章程 and the Articles of Association公司律 with the hope of shaping a more business-friendly environment. But China was not economically modernized by the Reform. The Late Qing Reform was a piecemeal approach that was small in scale. It focused on coastal areas only, leaving rural and inland areas economically backward. Also, the introduction of foreign goods stifled the development of local industry. The environment was not business-friendly at all. As for the Nanjing government, it also did a lot to promote commercial reform. For instance, it reformed the monetary system by replacing silver dollars with banknotes紙幣 in 1935. It also issued economic regulations like the Exchange Act交易所法 and Weights and Measures Act度量衡法. Nevertheless, genuine economic modernization did not take place in China. A small group of wealthy families (especially the Four Big Families四大家族) held monopoly over China’s economy, causing difficulties to the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. In addition, China, being an agrarian society, had its population mostly working in agriculture. But the productivity was low due to lack of machinery. It is true that both reforms failed to modernize China economically. In comparison, however, the reform introduced by the Nanjing government was more effective because development could be found in finance, transportation, communication, commerce and industry at that time. The situation was still better than the hardship under the Qing rule.
In social aspect, the Late Qing Reform was less effective than that of the Nanjing government. The Qing Court promulgated a series of new regulations, including prohibition of foot binding纏足, slavery奴隸 and opium smoking吸食鴉片, permission for Manzu-Han intermarriage 滿漢通婚and abolishment of salary system of the Manchu Bannermen. These were attempts at modernizing society. However, these reform programmes were not fully implemented and old thinking like social classes and gender inequality still existed with the prevalence of traditional and feudalistic thoughts. As for the Nanjing government, it also carried out reform for social modernization. For example, it passed the People’s Rights Ordinance民權法規 in 1929 to protect basic rights of citizens. Besides, it launched the New Life Movement新生活運動 in 1934 and promoted traditional virtues like propriety and righteousness. The movement helped promote national awakening, social inclusion and consciousness of citizenship. In comparison, the reform of the Nanjing government was more effective because many evil practices, including opium smoking and slavery, that were not eradicated during Qing dynasty have been solved during the Nanjing government period. Therefore, it was more effective than the Late Qing Reform in facilitating the civilization of the society and promoting freedom.
In military aspect, both reforms failed to actualize military modernization. The Qing government attempted at enhancing China’s military strength. The Late Qing Reform included creation of provincial academies武備學堂(1901) and the Bureau of Military Training練兵處(1903). Officers were sent to Japan for training as well. Though the reform gave China the New Army of 270000 soldiers in 1911, it did not modernize China in military aspect. China remained weak in military strength and failed to resist enemies from the outside. For example, China failed to stop Japan and Russia from having a war in Chinese territory (1904-05). Besides, the central government had not enough military power to control local authorities and the New Army was nothing different from the private troop of Yuan Shikai袁世凱. The army became the most powerful weapon for Yuan to arrange abdication of the Qing Emperor. As for the Nanjing government, it also implemented reform to strength China’s military. It trained soldiers at the Whampoa Military Academy黃埔軍校 and bought armaments from countries like the US and Britain. Despite the efforts, it did not make China a militarily modernized country. The Nanjing government was not strong enough to resolve internal disputes and eliminated the communists. It also failed to defend the country against external threats, which were the aggression of Japan exemplified by the September 18th Incident九一八事件 and July 7th Incident七七事件. In comparison, both reforms did not bring about military modernization in China and the country remained weak in military. China did not escape from lengthy wars and both reforms were not effective in this aspect.
In educational aspect, the Nanjing government had a more effective reform than the Qing Court. During the Late Qing Reform, the Qing government gave up the eight-legged essay八股文 as an assessment tool (1902) and abolished the whole civil service examination科舉(1905). A modern school system, consisting of enlightenment, primary and secondary schools, and universities, was set up in 1902. But China did not become modernized because of the reform. The level of educational attainment was still low in China with serious illiteracy. Also, the new curriculum was strongly influenced by the old examination system and Confucius ideas儒家學說 constituted most of the content. This kind of education failed to cultivate students’ knowledge in science and humanities. As for the Nanjing government, it not only reformed some universities and higher educational institutions but also implemented the Law of Compulsory Education義務教育法 in 1932, planning to provide free elementary education for citizens so that more people could be accessible to education. It also issued regulations for primary and secondary education and overseas study successively since 1933. After that, the educational system of China became much more sophisticated. In comparison, despite the untouched problem of serious illiteracy in the midst of the 1930s, the establishment and development of educational system did help modernize China’s in educational aspect. The Nanjing government thus had a more effective reform than the Qing regime.
Diplomatically, the reform implemented by the Nanjing government was apparently greater than the Late Qing one. As a programme of the Late Qing Reform, the Qing government established the Ministry of Foreign Affairs外交部 to replace the Zongli Yamen總理衙門 upon the Western powers’ request. But this did not modernize diplomatically and China remained its low international status. China was still bound by unequal treaties like the Treaty of Shimonoseki馬關條約(1895) and Boxer Protocol辛丑條約(1901), losing its tariff autonomy關稅自主權 and extraterritoriality治外法權. Concerning another reform, the Nanjing government tried hard to raise China’s international status. It recovered the British concessions at Hankou漢口 and Xiamen廈門 in the period 1926-30 and retrieved tariff autonomy關稅自主權 in 1930. After the Second World War, most of the unequal treaties were also abolished. In comparison, the Qing government brought about limited progress in modernization, while the Nanjing regime successfully raised China’s international status and China was no longer treated unfairly by the Western powers. Therefore, the reform of the latter was more effective than that of the former.
In conclusion, the effectiveness of both the reforms in modernizing China has received mixed reviews. But after careful analysis, the reform introduced by the Nanjing government was slightly more effective than the Late Qing one in economic, social, educational and diplomatic aspects.
Comments