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-2017-Essay-02(以晚清改革和辛亥革命作為例子)
比較晚清改革與辛亥革命作為推動中國蛻變的方法。
「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。「革命」與「改革」同樣希望達致破舊立新的作用，革新狀況，但兩者不同之處在於革命由下而上帶來轉變，但改革則由在位者推行，從上而下實施。其中，晚清改革和辛亥革命均希望為中國帶來破舊立新的變化，以下將從政治、經濟、教育和外交方面比較。
政治方面，晚清改革試圖進行君主立憲改革，辛亥革命則試圖建立一共和立憲政體，其中辛亥革命較晚清改革更能帶來蛻變。晚清改革希望以君主憲制改革方式，將中國打造成君主立憲國家，例如於1908年頒布《欽定憲法大綱》，宣布9年內完成立憲過程，又分別成立諮議局(1909年)、資政院(1910年)及內閣(1911年)，逐步建立立憲政體。相反，辛亥革命是以革命方式，推翻原有政權，建立一個由人民選出的共和立憲政體，落實「民權」思想。其中，武昌起義由受孫中山革命思想所影響的新軍所發動，結果掀起了全國各省的省份獨立浪潮，最終迫使清帝退位，成立了中華民國，試圖建立共和立憲政體。就比較兩者的意識形態而言，晚清改革試圖建立的是保留君主制度的立憲體制，但辛亥革命希望建立的則是廢除帝制的共和立憲體制。而且，就比較兩者的成效而言，晚清改革不但不能破舊立新，更因其鞏固皇權的改革而招致人民不滿，使其被推翻，但相對而言，儘管辛亥革命於推翻帝制後尚未能即時建立共和立憲政體，確立新制，但其推翻了實行達二千年的帝制，已經達致了破舊，成效大於晚清改革。
經濟方面，晚清改革藉大力刺激工商業發展以革新中國經濟，辛亥革命則提倡平均地權以改善國民生計，其中晚清改革成效大於辛亥革命。晚清改革以中央頒布法例的方式，大力推動工商業發展，例如草擬商法，包括《公司律》﹑《公司章程》等，營造有利工商業環境，又同時建立銀行制度，加強對於中小企業的支援。此外，晚清改革又以鐵路帶動經濟發展的策劃，大力發展鐵路，並於1911年試圖將鐵路收歸國有，反映晚清改革極力著重於工商業的發展。相反，辛亥革命則是將經濟重心放於農業方面。由於中國大部分人口從事農業活動，革命黨為改善廣大農民生計及爭取農民支持，就提出了「民生」主義，希望落實全國平均地權，解放富農、地主的土地予貧農、佃農，以刺激農業發展。就比較範疇而言，晚清改革希望透過發展工商業以使中國富強，但辛亥革命則將重心放於全國大部分人口從事的農業，策略上明顯不同。而且，就蛻變的成效而言，儘管兩者對於刺激經濟發展均作用有限，但晚清改革至少革新了中國的商業法例，往後南京政府亦沿用之。相反，辛亥革命後不但未有落實「民生」主義，平均地權，其導致的動盪政局更妨礙了經濟活動的進行，惡化經濟，可見晚清改革在經濟上較辛亥革命更能帶來蛻變。
社會方面，晚清改革由以上而下方式試圖令中國出現蛻變，辛亥革命則是由下而上方式希望為中國帶來蛻變，其中辛亥革命的成效大於晚清改革。晚清政府於20世紀初由在位者頒布命令，進行全國的社會改革，例如解除婦女纏足﹑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。相反，辛亥革命是由孫中山由下而上發起，早於1895年成立興中會時已經提出「驅除韃虜」等的民族革命口號。1911年辛亥革命的成功更象徵是人民推翻在位者，故革命後辛亥革命後人民更自發地廢止社會陋習，例如男性剪辮等。此外，孫中山於辛亥革命提倡「五族共和」，對於長期受滿清壓抑的各族人民而言固然是踴躍支持，有助實現社會上的種族平等。相比之下，就比較兩者的形式而言，晚清改革是以上而下方式進行，人民自主性較低，但辛亥革命則是由下而上帶來轉變，人民的自主性較高。而且，就轉變的深度而言，正正由於人民於晚清改革中的自主性較低，令改革措施不能深入人民思想，許多改革均成效欠奉，例如私下儲養奴隸和吸食鴉片等，相反，由於辛亥革命人民對於社會改革的參與度較投入，令社會開始移風易俗，對於外國事物及思想的接受度亦大增，為社會帶來了一定程度的破舊立新，成效大於晚清改革。
外交方面，晚清改革和辛亥革命均以談判方式試圖改變中國不平等地位的待遇，但兩者成效均乏善可陳。晚清改革早於1901年已經成立外交部取締總理衙門，以專責應付中國與外國的問題，試圖透過對話以逐步改善中國不平等的待遇。此外，於1904年日本與俄國在中國爆發日俄戰爭前，中國在表示中立的同時亦嘗試派出官員居中斡旋，避免兩國在中國爆發戰爭，希望透過對話方式處理問題。至於辛亥革命方面，孫中山於革命成功前已經遊走多國，遊說外國支持中國革命。革命成功後，革命黨及袁世凱亦要求列強保持中立，在尊重中國內政的同時，維持在中國的原有狀況，不要趁虛而入侵佔中國領土。就比較方式而言，晚清改革和辛亥革命均只是透過和平的談判方式嘗試改變中國的不平等待遇。然而，就成效而論，兩者均成效有限。晚清改革只是維持了中國原有的不平等待遇，中國仍舊成為外國的次殖民地。至於辛亥革命後，由於革命黨及袁世凱爭取外國承認中華民國，故不敢反抗不平等條約，關稅、治外法權仍然掌控於列強手中，及後日本更進一步加強對中國的操控，迫使中國簽訂《二十一條》，中國外交不平等待遇仍舊未變。可見，兩者同樣以和平退讓的談判方式均未能為中國外交帶來蛻變。
總括而言，晚清改革和辛亥革命兩者均試圖為帶來中國破舊立新的轉變，希望帶領中國走向現代化，但兩者的方法多有不同，而且對於蛻變的影響亦成效不一，參差不齊。結果，晚清改革和辛亥革命後的中國仍然專制、封建、落後。
Compare the Late Qing Reform and the 1911 Revolution as ways to promote China’s transformation.
Transformation refers to a fundamental change that leads to a transition from one state to another with significant differences in the situations before and after. Both revolution and reform serve the purpose of replacing the old with the new, but their difference lies in the fact that a revolution brings about changes in a bottom-up movement while a reform is implemented by the one in power in a top-down manner. Both the Late Qing Reform and the 1911 Revolution were intended to bring about groundbreaking changes in China, and the following essay is going to compare them from political, economic, educational and diplomatic perspectives.
In political aspect, the Late Qing Reform was an attempt at constitutional monarchy while the 1911 Revolution was the more effective one with constitutional republic as its goal. The Late Qing Reform was an attempt to transform China into a country with constitutional monarchy with reforms implemented accordingly. For example, the Outline of Constitution欽定憲法大綱 by Imperial Order was promulgated in 1908 as an announcement of a 9-year programme of constitutional preparation. Provisional assemblies諮議局(1909), the National Assembly資政院(1910) and the Cabinet內閣(1911) were also established to build up a constitutional regime step by step. In contrast, the 1911 Revolution was to overthrow the existing regime by revolutionary means and establish a constitutional republic elected by the people as an embodiment of ‘democracy民權’. As the starting point of the revolution, the Wuchang Uprising武昌起義 was staged by the New Army under the influence of Sun Yat-sen’s revolutionary ideas. As a result, there was a wave of independence among different provinces of the country and the Qing Emperor was forced to abdicate with the Republic of China中華民國 established as an attempt to build a constitutional republic. To compare the two efforts in terms of their ideologies, the Qing Reform attempted to introduce a constitution while retaining the monarchical system, but the 1911 Revolution was intended to abolish monarchy and build a constitutional republic. Also, in terms of effectiveness, the Late Qing Reform failed to replace the old with the new and even attracted criticisms for its goal of consolidating the imperial office, leading to the downfall of the Qing Dynasty; meanwhile, the 1911 Revolution ended the 2000-year monarchy despite the fact that no new system in the form of constitutional republic was established right after. Achieving the goal of replacing the old, it had greater effectiveness than the Late Qing Reform.
In economic aspect, the Late Qing Reform revolutionized China’s economy by boosting industrial and commercial development while the 1911 Revolution improved people’s livelihood by distributing land equally, and the Late Qing Reform was more effective than the other. The Late Qing Reform greatly promoted industrial and commercial development through laws and regulations promulgated by the central government. These efforts included different commercial laws such as the Company Act公司律 and the Articles of Association公司章程 for a more business-friendly environment, and the establishment of the banking system for greater support for small and medium-sized enterprises. In addition, the Reform entailed the plan of railway development as a way to promote economic growth and the railway nationalization attempt in 1911. It was clear that the Late Qing Reform came with great emphasis on industrial and commercial development. In contrast, the economic emphasis of the 1911 Revolution was placed on agriculture. Given that most of the Chinese population engaged in agricultural activities, the revolutionaries proposed the principle of ‘people’s livelihood民生’ in order to improve peasants’ livelihood and enlist their support. They aimed at stimulating agricultural development through equalization of land rights with land from rich landlords distributed to poor and tenant peasants佃農. To compare the two efforts in terms of their scopes, the Late Qing Reform aimed at making China’s economy strong through industrial and commercial development, but the 1911 Revolution put most efforts into agriculture that was related to most of the population, demonstrating clear differences in their strategies. Also, in terms of effectiveness, both efforts were inadequately effective in boosting economic development, but the Late Qing Reform at least revolutionized China’s commercial legislation that was followed by the Nanjing government, while the 1911 Revolution failed to fulfill the goal of ‘people’s livelihood’ by distributing land equally and even created political instability that worked against economic development, Therefore, economically speaking, the Late Qing Reform brought about economic transformation more than the 1911 Revolution did.
In social aspect, the Late Qing Reform tried to transform China in a top-down manner while the 1911 Revolution was a more effective attempt to transform the country in a bottom-up manner. In the early 20th century, the Qing Court as the one in power promulgated nationwide social reforms such as freeing women from foot-binding纏足, allowing Manzu-Han intermarriage滿漢通婚, illegalizing opium-smoking吸食鴉片, abolishing the salary system of Qing Bannermen清旗人俸祿 and forbidding slavery奴隸 in an effort to modernize Chinese society. In contrast, the 1911 Revolution was started by Sun Yat-sen among the people. As early as 1895, he put forward the nationalist slogan of ‘expel the Northern barbarians’ when establishing the Xingzhonghui興中會. The success of the Revolution marked the rises up in revolt against the existing authorities, followed by proactive efforts to abolish social evil practices such as removing pigtails剪辮 among men. In addition, Sun advocated five-group harmony五族共和 during the Revolution and received enthusiastic support from different races oppressed by the Qing rulers, contributing to racial equality in society. To compare the two efforts in terms of form, the top-down Late Qing Reform with low spontaneity contrasted with the bottom-up 1911 Revolution with high spontaneity. Also, in terms of extent, the Late Qing Reform was not supported by the people wholeheartedly with their low spontaneity and many of the reform measures were ineffective, including the ban on slavery and opium-smoking. On the contrary, as for the 1911 Revolution, people were more involved in social reforms and, as a result, more open to foreign things and ideas. With the changes in social customs, the Revolution replaced the old with the new to a certain extent and was more effective than the Late Qing Reform.
In diplomatic aspect, the Late Qing Reform and the 1911 Revolution were ineffective attempts to change China’s international status through negotiations. As for the Late Qing Reform, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs外交部 was established in 1901 to replace Zongli Yamen總理衙門 as a specialized agency to deal with China’s foreign affairs in an attempt to rectify China’s unfair treatment through communication. In addition, before the Russo-Japanese War日俄戰爭 broke out on Chinese soil in 1904, China sent officials to mediate between them in a neutral position to prevent a war in China, intending to deal with the problem through communication. As for the 1911 Revolution, before its success, Sun Yat-sen had already travelled to many countries to ask for support; and after that, the revolutionaries革命黨and Yuan Shikai袁世凱 also requested the powers to maintain their neutrality and their status quo in China with respect to China’s internal affairs by not invading when the country was off guard. To compare the two efforts in terms of their approaches, only peaceful negotiations were adopted in both attempts as a means to change China’s unfair treatment. However, in terms of effectiveness, both of them were inadequately effective. As for the Late Qing Reform, China remained treated unfairly as a sub-colony. Meanwhile, after the 1911 Revolution, the revolutionaries and Yuan did not struggle hard against unequal treaties in a bid for foreign recognition of the Republic with tariffs and extraterritorial rights controlled by the powers. Japan even strengthened its control over China later by forcing it to sign the Twenty-One Demands. China remained treated unfairly by foreign countries. Therefore, both peaceful attempts with concessions and negotiations failed to bring diplomatic transformation to China.
In conclusion, both the Late Qing Reform and the 1911 Revolution were attempts to bring about groundbreaking changes and modernization in China, but different approaches were adopted and their effectiveness in transforming the country varied in different aspects. In the end, China remained autocratic, feudalistic and backwardness after the two efforts.
Comments