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-2019-Essay-02
「晚清改革(1901-12年)和南京政府改革(1928-37年)均以推動政治發展多於經濟發展為目標。」評論此說能否成立。
晚清和南京政府統治期間在中國大力推行改革，然而，兩政權均將著眼點投放於經濟發展多於政治發展，致力改善中國的經濟困境，營造現代化經濟環境，但對於中國的政治制度及體系發展則是投閒置散。因此，題目所言確能成立，以下將從兩政權改革的動機、內容及結果以證實此說。
就動機而言，晚清和南京政府面對政治壓力而迫使其進行改革。晚清政府方面，其一方面受到孫中山為首的革命勢力所威脅，因孫中山於1905年成立同盟會，團結起革命陣營，使革命聲勢日益浩大。同時，由於1905年日俄戰爭中，憲政日本打敗了專制的帝國俄國，使人民要求憲制的呼聲日高。在此情況底下，晚清政府希望透過憲政改革以攏絡人心，維持統治，故於1905年開始了憲政改革。南京政府方面，儘管辛亥革命推翻了晚清政權，但中華民國僅有口號，實質上並未建立民主政治，更受到袁世凱及軍閥的專制統治。在此情況下，孫山中於1924年草擬了《建國大綱》，將建國步驟分為軍政、訓政和憲政，試圖推翻專制的軍閥政治，逐步建立民主中國。
經濟壓力也是兩政權推行改革的重要動力。晚清政府方面，其在19世紀末開始已經面對嚴峻迫切的經濟困窘，多次對外戰爭的戰敗令晚清政府國庫空虛，包括甲午戰爭需要賠款2億兩，八國聯軍戰敗需要賠償4.5億兩，中國的關稅、鹽稅甚至操控在列強手中，大量外國貨品在中國傾銷，對中國新生的本土工業構成嚴重的打擊。此外，民間也同時受到天災的致命的影響，20世紀初連連的水災使中國糧食出現嚴重的糧食危機，人民在糧食不足的情況民怨沸騰，迫使清政府急需進行經濟改革以維持統治。南京政府方面，其也面對著龐大的經濟壓力。長年的征戰，包括1910年代的軍閥混戰和1920年代的國民黨北伐，農地、工廠受到破壞，嚴重妨礙了經濟生產，民生困苦。加上，關稅操控在列強手上的情況未有改變，外國貨品仍然大量在中國傾銷，例如在1920年時外國資本佔全國產業資本的70%，但民族資本只有不足30%，南京政府在1928年北伐成功後首要任務是重振經濟，推動民族企業的發展，令中國走向富強。
相比之下，兩政權均以推動經濟多於政治發展為目標。就威脅性去比較，中國人傳統以來受儒家的思想灌輸，階級觀念及服從性已經是根深柢固，民主自由對人民而言是無關痛癢之事。相反，經濟、糧食問題與人民息息相關，傳統以來中國人民的起義均是在民不聊生的情況底下發起。人民豐衣足食就不會萌生起起義的念頭，因此，不論晚清抑或是南京政府均急於解決經濟問題所帶來的威脅性，只有在經濟發展起來的情況下，兩政權才能維持下去。可見，從動機而言可推斷兩政權的改革重視經濟發展多於政治發展。
就改革內容而言，晚清和南京政府均在政治改革中大處落墨。晚清政府方面，其於1905年派五大臣到英﹑法﹑日﹑德﹑美考察憲政，及後於1908年頒布《欽定憲法大綱》，宣布9年內完成立憲，及後設立諮議局(1909年)、資政院(1910年)及內閣(1911年)等，逐步構建君主立憲制度。南方政府方面，其按孫中山的《建國大綱》逐步將中國由軍政的階段推至訓政及憲政，希望頒布憲法，確立行政﹑立法﹑司法﹑監察和考試五權分立並分工合作，並且賦予人民擁有選舉、罷免、創制、複決四權，以建立孫中山構想的「萬能政府」。
兩政府在經濟改革上更是費盡周章。晚清政府方面，其於1903年成立商部以統籌經濟事務。往後，其開始建立銀行制度，又草擬商法，如《公司律》﹑《公司章程》等，試圖推動中國的商業及金融業發展。此外，其又於1909年設專職小組以平衡中央及地方收支，希望改善中央的財政狀況。在晚清政府的致力推動下，中國經濟多方面均出現了蛻變。南京政府方面，其於1928年北伐成功後即大刀闊斧地推行全面的經濟措施，包括在關稅上，南京政府派員與外國談判，成功於1928年起逐步取回了關稅自主權，舒緩了外國貨品在華傾銷對本土企業帶來的壓力。在金融業上，其於1928年成立中央銀行以管理金融業的發展，並且逐步廢除銀兩、銀元，改用紙幣，方便交易。在工商業上，其於1928年成立鐵路局，加強鐵路的發展，並且頒布一連串的經濟法規，如《交易所法》﹑《度量衡法》，致力打造良好的經濟環境。南京政府在經濟上的範疇均不遺餘力，改革百花齊放地進行。
相比之下，兩政權明顯地是以推動經濟多於政治發展為目標。就誠意而言，兩政權在政治改革上的誠意不足，晚清改革中的措施多鞏固皇權，例如內閣的13人中就有7人是皇族，被稱為是「皇族內閣」，而且南京政府儘管有嘗試做憲政措施，但同時也不斷剿共，兩政權均是維持專制管治的模式，政治改革只是舊瓶新酒，毫無誠意。相反，兩政權在經濟改革上竭盡全力，其中南京政府更加在1928年北伐成功後就隨即開啟了全面的改革，措施遍佈貿易、工商業、金融業各範疇，改革的誠意十足，亦急切地進行。可見，從改革內容可以觀察到兩政權以推動經濟發展多於政治改革為目標。
就結果而言，晚清和南京政府均並不太著重政治發展。晚清政府方面，由於其政治改革缺乏誠意，在1908年頒布《欽定憲制大綱》時就規定了9年的立憲期，而且更規定皇帝權力至高無上，結果令更多人對憲制改革失去信心，轉而支持革命黨人。於1911年辛亥革命後，晚清政府為了急於挽回民心，才在迫在眉睫之時推出《君主立憲重大條款》，但條款中竟然同樣時強調「皇帝神聖不可侵犯」，反映其根本無意推出真正的憲制改革。正正由於改革只是虛有其表，也導致了其失去民心，最終被推翻。南京政府方面，其在政治改革上也是慢慢騰騰，於1928年北伐成功後，一直未有積極推動政治改革的進行，直至1936年才頒布憲法草案，憲政改革的發展猶然老牛拖車。最終，在1937年南京政府受日本入侵而被迫遷都之前，真正的憲法均未有推出。從憲制未能成功推行的結果可印證南京政府對政治改革根本是無心裝載。
相反，從結果可證明晚清和南京政府極為重視經濟發展。晚清政府方面，其放棄愚昧地堅持官督商辦的壟斷經濟路向，轉而扶植和獎勵私人資本，使1895-1913年間民族資本工業發展年均增長達15%，民族工礦業的數目也由1901年的僅156間劇增至1911年的700多間，令中國的經濟形態出現轉變，擺脫過往的傳統模式，走向現代化商業及工業發展。南京政府方面，其於經濟改革的成就耀目奪眼，更被冠以「黃金十年」的稱號。整體而言，1927-37年間全國工業總產值以年均8.4%的速度高速增長。此外，各個方面也見到南京政府持續不懈的努力，例如在鐵路上，中國鐵路長度由1928年的8,000公里增加至1936年的13,000公里；在銀行方面，商業銀行數量由1927年的57間躍升至1936年的146間，成就超卓。南京政府極為著重經濟發展，其竭智盡力成功締造出「黃金十年」。
相比之下，兩政權著重經濟發展遠多於政治發展。就成效而言，晚清和南京政府在政治上無心改革，改革進度緩慢，最終在晚清政府倒台前和南京政府遷都前均未能真正落實憲政，改革胎死腹中，失敗告終。相反，兩者對於經濟改革不遺餘力，晚清政權初步帶動起中國工商業的發展，而南京政府則進一步奠定工商業現代化的基礎。可見，兩政權均以推動經濟發展多於政治發展為目標。
總括而言，政治發展對於兩政權而言是無足輕重，但經濟發展卻是重中之重，故題目所言確能成立。
‘Both the Late Qing Reform (1901-12) and the reform of the Nanjing Nationalist Government (1928-37) aimed at promoting economic development more than political development.’ Comment on the validity of this statement.
The Late Qing and Nanjing government had put forward great reform in China during their governance. But both regime emphasised on economic development more than political development. While they endeavoured to rescue China from its economic plight and develop a modernised business environment, they showed little regard to the development of Chinese political institutions and systems. Therefore, the statement is valid. Below, this essay will justify this claim based on the rationale, content of reform and its result of the two reforms.
In terms of their rationale, both the Late Qing and Nanjing government were forced to reform because of the political pressure they faced. In terms of Late Qing government. On the one hand, she was threatened by the prevailing revolutionary campaign championed by Dr.Sun Yat Sen, as Sun established the Tung Men Hui同盟會(1905), bringing about the solidarity of the revolutionary camp. Meanwhile, Japan, adopting a constitutional government, defeated the autocratic Russia in the Russo-Japanese War日俄戰爭 of 1905. The demand for constitutional reform became increasingly popular in China. Under such circumstances, the Late Qing government introduced constitutional reform to regain public’s support and consolidate its rule from 1905 onward. In terms of the Nanjing government, though the 1911 revolution overthrew the Qing government. But the Republic of China merely established a formative democratic rule with no genuine achievement. It was even subjected to the autocratic rule of Yuan Shi Kai and other warlords. As such, Sun drafted the “Principles of National Reconstruction建國大綱” in 1924, in which he divided the formation of states into military rule, political tutelage and constitutional rule. He aspires to overthrow the dictatorial warlord politics and gradually establish a democratic China.
Economic pressure is also a profound force that drove the two governments to reform. In terms of Late Qing government, it was subjected to a disastrous economic devastation since late 19th century. External wars forced the Qing government went into the red, for instance, in the First Sino-Japanese War甲午戰爭, China has to pay an indemnity of 2 billion silver taels, while the defeat in the Eight Nation Expedition War八國聯軍 forced her to pay a reparation of 4.5 billion silver taels. The right to impose tariff and salt tax was fallen to the grip of the powers, while enormous amount of foreign goods was sold in China, which ultimately caused a fatal blow to the amateur local industries. Worse still, natural disasters also incurred a detrimental impact to society. Frequent floods in early 20the century led to a shortage of food. Public discontent consequently went rampant and forced the Qing government to introduce immediate economic reform to maintain its rule. In terms of Nanjing government, it also faces enormous economic pressure. Years of prolonged wars, including the conflicts between warlords in the 1910s, and the KMT’s Northern Expedition effort國民黨北伐 in the 1920s resulted in the destruction of factories and agricultural lands. Economic production was severely interrupted. People’s livelihood suffered. Worse still, tariff關稅 was still manipulated by the powers, and foreign goods could be sold in China in great volume, e.g foreign capital accounted for 70% of the aggregate capital of the entire nation. But national capital only accounted for a figure of less than 30%. Therefore, the top priority for the Nanjing government is to revitalise the economy, assist the development of national corporations and bring about prosperity after the success of the Northern Expedition Campaign of 1928.
In comparison, both regimes has prioritized their economies over political development. In terms of the degree of threat威脅性, the hierarchies and obedience emphasised by Confucianism which is deeply rooted in the minds of Chinese has made liberal democratic values irrelevant to them. On the contrary, economic and agricultural issues are closely related to the people. Looking back to Chinese tradition, most revolutionary campaigns launched by the Chinese only took place when there was economic devastation. Should people’s livelihood be well-protected, there would be no desire to resort revolutions. Therefore, both Late Qing and the Nanjing government intended to cope with the threat posed by economic problems. Only when the economy flourished, could the two regimes maintain their authority. As such, inferring from the rationale of reforms, the two regimes prioritised economic development over political development.
In terms of the content of reform, the two governments made major achievement in political aspect. During the Qing Dynasty, the government sent 5 ministers to Britain, France, Japan, Germany, and America in 1905 to investigate their constitutional system. Later in 1908, “Outline of Imperial Constitution欽定憲法大綱” was introduced, declaring a constitution would be drafted in 9 years. Provincial assemblies諮議局(1909), National Assembly資政院(1910) and the Cabinet內閣(1911) were later set up to formulate a constitutional monarchy system君主立憲制度. In terms of the southern government, it intended to gradually transform China from military rule軍政, political tutelage訓政 to constitutional rule憲政 based on Sun’s vision in the “Principles of National Reconstruction建國大綱”. By promulgating a constitution, it is hoped that there is a separation of powers and division of powers between the Five executive, legislative, judiciary, control and examination yuan. People’s give “four rights” of election選舉, recall罷免, initiative創制, and referendum複決. Sun’s imagination of a “perfect government” is hoped to be established.
Both governments also invested loads of effort on economic reform. In terms of the late Qing government, it set up Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Commerce in 1903 in order to coordinate economic affairs. They then started to establish the bank system, and to draft business laws, like “Company Act公司律” and “Articles of Association公司章程”, which attempts to boost the development of the business and financial sectors in China. Furthermore, a focus group專職小組was set up in 1909 to balance the central and regional budget in the hope of improving the budget deficit of the Central government. Chinese economy was in many ways transformed under the effort of the Late Qing government. In terms of the Nanjing government, economic policies were widely introduced after the successful Northern Expedition Campaign in 1928. For instance, it entered into negotiations with the foreign powers to reclaim the autonomy over tariffs關稅自主權. Such autonomy was gradually recovered since 1928. This successfully relieved the pressure on domestic industries caused by dumping of foreign goods. In terms of the financial industry, the Central Bank中央銀行 was set up in 1928 to manage the development of the financial industry, as well as the gradual abolition of silver tael and silver coins and the introduction of bank notes, fostering market transaction. In terms of the industrial sector, National Railway Bureau, set up in 1928 has enhanced the railway development. An array of economic regulations, like the Exchange Act交易所法 and Weights and Measures Act度量衡法, in order to create a friendly economic environment. The Nanjing government has spared no effort to promote a series of economic reforms. Changes in policies blossomed in China.
In comparison, both regimes has obviously prioritized economic over political development. In terms of sincerity誠意, both regimes has lacked sincerity in political reform. Policies from the late Qing government were mostly aimed to strengthen the monarchical rule. For example, 7 out of 13 cabinet members are from the royal families, which was later illiterate as the “royal cabinet皇族內閣”. Also, although the Nanjing government has attempted to implement constitutional rule, it purged on the Chinese Communist at the same time. Both regimes maintained its autocratic rule, and that reforms are formative, with no genuine change in nature of governance. There is a lack of sincerity. . On the contrary, both regimes has put enormous effort on reforming their economies. In particular, following the success of the Northern Expedition campaign in 1928, the Nanjing government swiftly introduced a comprehensive reform, with measures covering trade, industrial and financial sectors. There is adequate sincerity, and a great desire to implement the reforms. Therefore, from the substances of reform, it can be observed that the two regimes prioritized economic over political development as their goals.
In terms of result, both the Late Qing and Nanjing government showed little focus on political development. Due to the lack of sincerity in reform, it stipulated a nine-year period of drafting the constitution in the “Outline of Imperial Constitution欽定憲制大綱”, and reiterated the supremacy of the imperial authority. This consequently shattered more people’s faith in constitutional reform, and forced them to resort to support the revolutionaries. After the 191 Revolution, in the dire hope of soliciting public support, it urgently promulgated the “Nineteen Constitutional Articles君主立憲重大條款”. Regardless, the declaration itself also stressed that “The Emperor is sacred and infringeable”, reflecting that it had no intention to put forward genuine constitutional reform. As the reform is superficial and deceiving, the government eventually lost its legitimacy and was overthrown. Regarding the Nanjing government, it was inefficient in political reform. After the success of the Northern Expedition Campaign of 1928, the administration did not actively implement political reform. Only until 1936 did it introduce the drafted version of the Constitution憲法草案. Constitutional development was disappointingly and unrealistically slow. Eventually, even when the Nanjing government had to move its capital in 1937 due to the Japanese invasion, the real constitution was never introduced. Based on the failure of delivering a constitutional system, it can be reasonably inferred that the Nanjing government was not committed to political reform.
On the contrary, in terms of the outcome, it could be seen that both the Late Qing and Nanjing government strongly emphasized economic development. In terms of the Late Qing government, it abandoned its previous dogmatic approach of monopolizing the economy by appointing government officials to run businesses官督商辦. Rather, it started to encourage and commend the emergence of private capital. From 1895 to 1913, the national industrial capital increased by 15% per year. National industrial and mining enterprises sharply rose from 156 in 1901 to 700 in 1911. This led to a change in the Chinese economic structure: From the previous traditional structure towards modernized commercial and industrial development. In terms of the Nanjing government, its economic achievement was stunning and was even hailed as the “Golden Decade黃金十年”. Overall, the aggregate value of national industry rose at an annual growth rate of 8.4% from 1927-1938. Besides, the unwavering effort of the Nanjing government was manifested in different aspects. For example, in terms of railway, the total length of railway in China increased from 8000km in 1928 to 13000 km in 1936; in terms of bank, the number of commercial banks skyrocketed from 57 in 1927 to 146 in 1936. The result of the Nanjing government was remarkable. Thanks to its prioritization of economic development, did it successfully create the “Golden Decade”.
In comparison, both regimes prioritized economic over political development. In terms of its effectiveness成效, both regimes were insincere in political reform, resulting in inefficiency. Eventually, no constitutional rule was actualized before the Late Qing government collapsed and the Nanjing government moved to another capital. Reform was proposed but never realized. Failure was the only outcome. In contrast, the two regimes did their utmost in economic reform. The Late Qing regime facilitated the early phase of commercial and industrial development of China, while the Nanjing government further consolidated the foundation of industrial and economic modernization. This shows that the two governments aimed to promote economic more than political development.
In conclusion, political development was barely significant to the two regimes. But economic development remained to be a top priority to them. Therefore, the statement is valid.
Comments