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-01
香港的社會經濟及政治發展於1967-97年間在什麼程度上經歷了蛻變？
蛻變即根本性的轉變，比喻事物出現形態上或本質上的劇變，使前後出現截然不同的情況。香港在1967-97年間於代議政制、高級公務員、社會福利、經濟型態等均出現了重大的蛻變，使香港在1997年時與1967年前迥然不同。因此，香港在1967-97年間大程度上經歷了蛻變。
政治方面，香港的代議政制發展在1967-97年間經歷了重大的蛻變。在1967年前，香港政府機構的民選成份十分低，只有市政局具有有限度的民選成份，但立法局、行政局議員全由港督委任，完全沒有選舉成份。而且，當時政黨的發展並未成熟，未有出現政黨政治。然而，至1967-97年間，政府陸續下放更多的選舉權。例如在地區方面，於1982年舉行首次區議會選舉，允許21歲或以上並同時在港住滿7年的香港永久性居民擁有投票權，登記選民人數接近90萬人。在中央方面，隨著1984年中英簽訂《中英聯合聲明》，港英政府希望在香港回歸前盡量提高香港的民主程度，故於1985年開始在立法局引入首次的間接選舉。及後，於1995年更將全數60個立法局議席改為由選舉產生，選舉成份大大提高。由於選舉權的開放，政界人士紛紛組成政黨參與選舉，例如香港民主同盟(1990)、民主建港協進聯盟(1992)、自由黨(1993)及民主黨(1994)等，政黨政治百花齊放。相比之下，就代議政制而言，1967年前香港的民選成份十分低，但1967-97年期間，隨著政府推行大規模代議政制改革，選舉已經擴展至區議會、立法局，選民人數也大大增加，令到普遍成年人口均有投票權，而且政黨也紛紛湧現。可見，香港政治在代議政制方面經歷了重大的蛻變。
政治方面，1967-97年間香港在高級公務員本地化方面出現了重大的蛻變。1967年前，儘管港英政府開始委任華人任職政務官，例如徐家祥於1948年成為首位華人政務官。但港英政府當時未有進行高級公務員本地化。為了維持港英政府的殖民地管治，港督、所有司級和處長級別的公務員均由外籍人士壟斷，本地華人未能擠身核心的管理層。然而，至1984年《中英聯合聲明》簽訂，確定了香港將於1997年回歸中國，並且制定了「港人治港」的原則。為培訓回歸後的領導班子，令香港能夠順利交接至中國管治，港英政府開始逐步委任華人出任司級官員之職。在處長方面，港英政府於1980年代末開始委任華人為處長，例如李君夏於1989年成為首位華人警務處處長。在司級官員方面，港英政府在1993年和1995年分別委任陳方安生及曾蔭權成為首位華人的布政司及財政司，使華人能夠晉身司級官員職位。至1997年回歸後，華人董建華成為了首任香港特首，至於司級官員也全由華人出任。相比之下，就高級公務員轉變而言，本地華人在1984年前未能擠身高級公務員的職位，但1984年《中英聯台聲明》的簽訂使港英政府需要陸續委任華人任職高級公務員，以培訓華人的管治班子，令香港的管治班子在1997年後基本上全由華人所主導。可見，香港的高級公務員在1967-97年間經歷了蛻變。
社會方面，香港的社會福利措施在1967-97年間也經歷了顥著的蛻變。於1967年前，雖然政府在1958年已經將社會局改組為社會福利署，又於1961年推行了「廉租屋計劃」，提供社會福利予有需要人士。但1967年前政府在社會福利方面的措施較為消極，規模較小且較多限制，例如「廉租屋計劃」有入息限制，低層市民仍然被排除在外。然而，1967年的六七暴動反映了市民對生活抱有極大的不滿，政府為了消除民怨及安撫民心，在1967年後推行了排山倒海的社會政策。例如在救助貧窮方面，於1973年推行「公共援助計劃」，提供經濟援助予生活有困難的人士，及後更在1993年實行「綜合援助保障計劃」，提供更全面的保障予弱勢社群。在房屋方面，於1972年推行「十年建屋計劃」，為180萬香港居民提供設備齊全的公共屋邨單位。在教育方面，於1971年推行6年義務教育，及後又於1978年提高至9年。相比之下，就社會福利措施而言，1967年前政府在社會福利措施上的態度消極，市民缺乏完善的社會保障安全網，但六七暴動完全扭轉了此一情況，政府於1967年後推行了大規模的社會福利措施，涵蓋各個範疇，且受惠者眾多，令1997年時的香港人基本上可以享受到各方面的社會福利。可見，香港社會在社會福利措施方面經歷了根本性的轉變。
經濟方面，香港的經濟型態在1967-97年間出現了明顯的蛻變。1967年前，香港是單一經濟模式。自1952年中國因參與韓戰而被聯合國禁運後，香港的轉口貿易額銳減，香港自此轉型至工業發展，成為一工業城市，例如在1950年代時紡織﹑成衣和塑膠業發展蓬勃，在1960年代時則是電子﹑鐘錶及玩具產品等百花齊放。相反，其他行業未見起色。然而，1967-97年間，香港經濟逐漸擺脫了過往單一化的發展，轉口貿易﹑工業﹑金融﹑零售及旅遊業等均有所長足，如轉口貿易方面，香港轉口貿易總額由1970年的30.8億元升至1980年的300.7億元，到2000年更高達13,960億元。此外，金融業於本地生產總值中所佔的百分比也於1980年超過製造業，於1990年代更佔本地生產總值的超過1/3，香港也成為全球第三大金融中心。雖然工業開始於香港沒落，但製造業仍在本地生產總值中佔有一定的百分比。相比之下，就經濟結構而言，香港經濟在1967-97年間逐漸蛻變，由1967年前的集中於工業發展變成1997年時各行各業百花齊放，工業、金融、轉口貿易、服務業等均成為香港經濟的重要支柱，香港成為了一個多元經濟的國際城市。可見，香港經濟的模式在1967-97年間發生了蛻變。
儘管香港在多方面都出現了蛻變，但也不能忽視延續的部分。
政治方面，行政主導的模式未有出現蛻變。1967年前，政府施政以港督為主導，由以港督為首的布政司署制訂及提出各項政策及法案，行政、立法兩局負責輔助港督施政，而兩局議員均由港督任命，變相兩局的職責是通過政府的決策。而且，《英皇制誥》、《皇室訓令》及《殖民地規例》均賦予了總督擁有在香港的最高決策權，港督在香港政治上是權力的核心。至1967-97年間，行政主導的模式未有改變，上述法令仍舊，港督在香港仍然擁有最大的權力。此外，即使港英政府在1980年代開始於立法局引入了選舉，並於1993年將立法局主席一職改由議員互選產生，而非港督出任，但立法局議員同樣地由港督委任，甚至乎港督亦能罷免議員。更重要的是，行政局仍然未有選舉，議員全由港督任命。因此，行政、立法兩局同樣地是輔助港督施政，以港督為權力核心。相比之下，就行政主導的模式而言，香港在1967年前後均是利用行政局和立法局去輔助港督施政，兩局只具協助及諮詢性質，實際上權力有限，相反港督手握大權，是統治的權力核心，此特徵一直維持至1997年也未有改變。可見，行政主導的模式未有得到蛻變。
總括而言，香港在1967-97年於政治、經濟、社會多方面出現了截然不同的轉變，令香港在1967年前和1997年時基本上已經是判若兩地。儘管行政主導的模式一直延續著，但基於整體的各方面發展去衡量，香港在1967-97年間已經明顯經歷了大程度上的蛻變。
To what extent did Hong Kong undergo transformation in terms of socio-economic and political development in the period 1967-97?
Transformation refers to fundamental changes, implying there is a drastic change in the form or nature of a thing, and that the new situation is completely different from the old. In the period of 1967-1997, Hong Kong experienced significant transformation in terms of the representative system, senior civil servants, social welfare, economic structure. Hong Kong in 1997 was utterly different from that in 1967. Therefore, to large extent Hong Kong underwent transformation in the period 1967-97.
Politically, the development of the representative system代議政制 in Hong Kong underwent huge transformation in 1967-97. Before 1967, government agencies in Hong Kong commands little democratic element, only the Urban Council allows limited democratic element. All members in the Legislative Council and the Executive Council were appointed by the Governor, with no election being held. Also, development of political parties was immature, and party politics was non-existent. However, in the period of 1967-1997, the government gradually introduced the right to vote. On the district level, the first District Council election區議會選舉 was held in 1982, allowing Hong Kong permanent citizens who aged 21 or above and had resided in HK for more than 7 years to vote. The number of registered electorate rose to 0.9 million. On the central level, following the signature of the Sino-British Joint Declaration中英聯合聲明 in 1984, the British colonial government aspired to do its very best in democratizing Hong Kong. The first indirect election of the LegCo立法局 was therefore introduced in 1985. Subsequently, all 60 seats of the LegCo were directly elected in 1995, which reflected a dramatic rise in electoral participation. Due to the introduction of the right to vote, politicians started to from various political parties, as in the United Democrats of Hong Kong香港民主同盟(1990), the DAB民建聯(1992), the Liberal Party自由黨(1993), and the Democratic Party民主黨(1994), and actively took part in election. Party politics flourished in Hong Kong. In comparison, in terms of the representative system, before 1967, little democratic element was observed in Hong Kong. But during the period of 1967-97, following major governmental reform of the representative system, elections were extended to the District Council and the Legco. Electorate number rose significantly, which allowed all adult population enjoying the franchise and encouraged the formation of political parties. Therefore, Hong Kong underwent huge transformation in terms of its representative system.
Politically, in terms of the localization of senior officials, Hong Kong underwent transformation in the period of 1967-97. Before 1967, although there were Chinese being appointed as Administrative Officer by the colonial government, such as Paul Tsui Ka-cheung徐家祥 who was the first Chinese Administrative Officer in 1948, the government did not carry out the localization of senior officials. In order to maintain the colonial rule of the British government in Hong Kong, Governor and all positions of secretariat and directorate were dominated by foreigners. The local Chinese could not get into core positions with decision-making power. Yet, the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984 confirmed that Hong Kong would return to China in 1997, and the principle of ‘Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong’ 港人治港 was established. So, in order to equip and train the leaders who could help Hong Kong smoothly hand over to the rule of China, the British Hong Kong government started to appoint Chinese for Secretariat positions gradually. For directorate positions, the government started to appoint Chinese in the late 1980s, such as Li Kwan-ha李君夏 who became the first Chinese Commissioner of Police in 1989. As for Secretariat positions, the government appointed Anson Chan Fang On Sang陳方安生 and Donald Tsang Yam Kuen曾蔭權 as the first Chinese Chief Secretary in 1993 and the first Chinese Financial Secretary in 1995 respectively. The Chinese were able to get into the high-ranking Secretariat positions. After the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, Tung Chee-hwa董建華 became the first Chinese Hong Kong government, and Secretariat positions were all held by Chinese. By comparison, regarding the change of senior officials, local Chinese could not get into senior positions of civil servants before the signing of the Sino-British Joint Declaration in 1984. Yet, the signing of the Declaration facilitated the need for the British Hong Kong government to appoint Chinese to be senior officials gradually so as to train the Chinese ruling force. The ruling class of Hong Kong was predominately occupied by Chinese beyond 1997. This showed that the senior civil servants underwent transformation in Hong Kong in 1967-97.
Socially speaking, the welfare policies of Hong Kong underwent obvious transformation in the period of 1967-97. Before 1967, although the government had already reformed the Social Welfare office社會局 into the Social Welfare Department社會福利署 in 1958, and implemented the “Government Low Cost Housing Programme”廉租屋計劃 in 1961, which effectively provided social welfare to people in need, the government was relatively passive in introducing social welfare policies: The scope of the policies is small, with plenty of limitation, for instance there was an income threshold under the “Government Low Cost Housing Programme”, many grassroot citizens were still excluded. Yet, the 1967 Riot (1967) reflected a strong resentment towards their living condition prevailed among citizens. In the hope of pacifying the population and rooting out public discontent, many social polices were introduced after 1967. In terms of alleviating the predicament of the poor, the Public Assistance Scheme公共援助計劃 was put forward in 1973, distributing financial subsidies to the poor. By 1993, the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme綜合援助保障計劃 was implemented in 1993, where a more comprehensive form of protection was extended to the communities in need. In terms of housing, the Ten-Year Housing Programme十年建屋計劃 was initiated in 1972, providing well-equipped public housing to 1.8 million Hong Kong citizens. In terms of Education, the 6 years of education was made compulsory to all citizens in 1971. By 1978, the year of minimum education rose to 9. By comparison, regarding social welfare policies, the government was passive in providing social welfare before 1967, and a well-established social security net barely existed. But the 1967 Riot completely reversed this situation. After 1967, the government provided social welfare on a massive scale, covering different aspects and beneficiaries. By 1997, all Hong Kong people are in access to social welfare in different aspects. This showed that Hong Kong underwent transformation in social welfare policies.
Economically speaking, Hong Kong’s economic structure underwent transformation in the period of 1967-1997. Before 1967, Hong Kong was in a homogenous economic structure單一經濟模式. Following the UN’s embargo禁運 on China due to its participation in the Korean War in 1952, the re-export value of Hong Kong plummeted. Hong Kong since restructure itself in focusing industrial development, and was morphed into an industrial city. For example, in the 1950s, the plastic, textile and clothing industry was vibrantly developed, whereas electronics, watches and toys industries blossomed in the 1960s. In comparison, other sectors was relatively underdeveloped. However, in 1967-97, Hong Kong’s economic development gradually got rid of its homogeneity. Growth was observed in the re-export, industrial, financial, retail and tourist sectors. For instance, in terms of it re-export trade, the re-export value轉口貿易額 of Hong Kong increased from 3.8 billion dollars in 1970, to 30.7 billion dollars in 1980. By 2000, the figure rose to a historic high of 1.4 trillion dollars. On top of that, the contribution of the financial sector金融業 to the local GDP (in percentage) surpassed that of the manufacturing industry in 1980. By 1990, the financial sector contributed more than 1/3 of the local GDP, and Hong Kong became the third largest financial hub in the world. Though second industries declined in Hong Kong, but the manufacturing industry’s contribution continued to take up certain amount of percentage of Hong Kong’s GDP. In comparison, in terms of economic structure, Hong Kong’s economy underwent transformation in 1967-97. From concentrating in industrial development before 1967, to diversification of different sectors in 1997, where industrial, financial, re-export, service industries have all become important pillars of Hong Kong’s economy, Hong Kong became a metropolitan city with a diverse economy. This showed that the economic structure of Hong Kong underwent transformation in 1967-97.
Though Hong Kong underwent transformation in many aspects, we should not overlook the aspect where continuity was observed.
In political aspect, the executive-led ruling model did not undergo transformation. Before 1967, the Governor was the head of the government. The Government Secretariat布政司署 headed by the Governor-General drafted and put forward various policies and bills. The two branches of the executive and the legislature are responsible for supporting the Governor's administration. Members of both Councils are appointed by the Governor. The duties of the two Councils are through the government's decision-making. Moreover, the Letters Patent英皇制誥, Royal Instructions皇室訓令 and the Colonial Regulations殖民地規例 granted the Governor the highest decision making power so the Governor was the core of the power in Hong Kong’s politics. This characteristic remained unchanged in the period of 1967-97, as the above orders were still effective, making the Governor continued holding the biggest power. Furthermore, there was an introduction of election in the Legislative Council since the 1980s, with the Chairperson of the Legislative Council立法局主席 being elected by the members of the Council rather than the Governor doing so. However, the members of the Council were nominated by the Governor and he also had the power to veto any members. More importantly, there was no election in the Executive Council and all the members were nominated by the Governor. Hence, the Executive and Legislative Councils were both still assisting the Governor when he was the core of the power. In comparison, regarding the executive-led ruling model, before 1967, both the Executive Council and the Legislative Council assisted the Governor in ruling Hong Kong. They were complementary and consultative in nature, with little administrative power. The Governor, in contrast, was the one in power, and seen as the core of the authority. Such characteristics remained unchanged until 1997. Therefore, the executive-led ruling model did not undergo transformation.
In conclusion, transformation was observed in political, economic and social aspects in the period of 1967-97. As such, Hong Kong was completely different in 1997 when compared to the pre-1967 Hong Kong. While the executive-led ruling model continued, Hong Kong to large extent experienced transformation in its overall development on multiple aspects.
Comments