* 一項相關線索並予以申述 [最多2分] 例︰ - 行立憲法 - 定君民之權
L1 嘗試作出比較，唯參考資料作出解釋時有所含混。 [最多2分] L2 能夠作出有效比較，並能參考資料作出有效解釋。 [最多4分] 相近︰ 例︰ - 康鄒二人均認為，革命可能導致破壞。 相異︰ 例︰ - 康有為強調，革命會導致國家分崩離析，而鄒容則認為，革命會讓中國獨立自由。
康有為認為中國革命將帶來破壞；而鄒容卻認為革命帶來破壞的同時，亦有助建設。 首先，不論康有為還是鄒容均認為中國革命將帶來破壞。 從資料A康有為指出「革命未大成也」，認為中國革命將未能成主流，因革命讓地方各省「互相攻擊」，導致「血流成河」，使「四萬萬之同胞死其半也」，康氏指中國革命將使國民生命受到威脅，為地方帶來破壞。 而資料B鄒容亦指出「今日所行之革命」是「有破壞」的，意即當時中國所行的革命將帶來禍亂，為社會帶來動盪和破壞，與康有為所持看法相同。 然而，鄒容認為中國革命在破壞的同時，亦有助中國建設，實與康有為的看法不同。 資料B指鄒容認為「今日所行之革命」是「為建設而破壞之革命也」，表示中國革命不單止於破壞，在破壞的同時亦有助於「建設」，有助國民「購自由平等獨立自主」，乃「文明的革命」，實與康有為革命前景只得破壞的看法不同。
L1 答案含混，未能有效使用資料和個人所知作答。 [最多2分] L2 欠缺均衡，能有效使用資料或個人所知作答。 [最多4分] L3 答案合理且均分，能有效使用資料和個人所知作答。 [最多8分] 革命︰暴力嗎？ 例︰ - 血流成河，死人如麻。（資料A） - 革命可能導致球壞。（資料B） - 孫中山的革命，以十一次起義方能推翻清朝。（個人所知） 革命︰是令中國強大的有效手段嗎？ 例︰ - 革命會產生新的問題和大量傷亡。（資料A） - 革命可以掃除專制政體和奴隸性質。（資料B） - 辛亥革命之後，中國出現了社會和文化轉變。（個人所知） - 然而，辛亥革命之後，中國有帝制復辟，外國侵略（如「二十一條」）依舊。（個人所知）
題目所言只在部分程度上成立，革命是暴力的，但不是令中國強大的有效手段。 革命是暴力的。 雖然，中國曾出現和平革命。就我所知，思想革命如「新文化運動」（1915-1921）旨在「反傳統、反儒教、反文言」等，並以辦報、辯論和書寫文章等方式推行，鮮有流血事件或暴力抗爭出現，毫不暴力。 但是，和平革命依然是暴力的。參考資料B，鄒容亦認為革命有「野蠻」和「文明」之分，並指「文明革命」可「為國民增幸福」，但推動文明革命亦必先破壞方可建設，而破壞即會為社會帶來動亂和不安，所以革命是暴力的。 同時，革命造成人命傷亡。參考資料A，康有為指革命將讓各省「各自統領」並「互相攻擊」，衝突將導致「血流成河」、「死人如麻」，將「四萬萬之同胞死其半也」，地方受到破壞，國民生命受到威脅，可見革命是暴力的。 以及，革命造成政局動盪。參考資料B，鄒容指革命如「庚子之義和團」事件就只「有破壞」，而「無建設」，不但無助於中國富強建設，但讓「為國民增禍亂」，生活於惶恐中，所以革命是暴力的。 更甚，革命對國民生活構成威脅。就我所知，孫中山所劃策的革命活動乃屬於「武裝起義」，如黃花岡起義（1911）傷亡高達86人，反映革命活動造成流行衝突，置國民生命於危機之中，革命是暴力的。 革命不是讓中國強大的有效手段。 雖然，革命存有富強中國的意圖。參考資料B，鄒容認為當時中國「不可不革命」，因為革命可以「掃除數千年種種之專制政體」，結束帝制專橫統治，下放權力予國民，好讓中國「脫去數千年種種之奴隸性質」，讓中國成為現代化國家。 政治方面，革命有利於中國落實現代化。就我所知，隨著1911年辛亥革命迫使清帝退位，1912年中華民國成立。長達二千多年的皇帝制度於中國結束，治理中國不再限於一姓一家，民權得以彰顯，中國貌似圖強起來。 然而，革命未能提升中國的國際地位。就我所知，辛亥革命（1911）爆發後，中國仍受到外國列強控制，不平等條約如《馬關條約》（1895）和《辛丑條約》（1901）仍然存在，關稅、鹽稅、治外法權等仍操之於列強手上，可見革命未能使中國強大。 政治方面，革命導致中國政局更為動盪。就我所知，辛亥革命雖結束長達二千多年的皇帝制度，但封建思想依然深整民心，如先後有袁世凱（1916）和張勳（1917）兩次帝制復辟運動，政治動盪民權備受忽視，所以革命未能使中國強大。 經濟方面，革命後中國經濟事發展依然落後。就我所知，辛亥革命未能改變中國的經濟情況，如超過80%人口從事農業工作，缺乏機械、科技、肥料的投入，近70%企業屬於外資企業，經濟發展停滯不前，因此革命未能使中國強大。 總括而言，雖然中國歷史上曾出現過和平革命，但究其本質，革命目標旨於破舊立新推翻原有制度，暴力遠多於和平。而且，儘管革命理念宏大，基於缺乏治理經驗，加上革命過程帶來種種破壞，難以於短時間內富強中國。因此，題目所言部分成立。
(a) According to Kang Youwei, what made the Western countries strong? Support your answer with one relevant clue from Source A. (2 marks)
Performance was satisfactory. The question required candidates to explain, with one relevant clue from Source A, what made the Western countries strong. Candidates were expected to first state the reason and then support the answer with one relevant clue from the source. Many candidates were able to complete the task. However, some failed to cite one relevant clue, and so lost marks.
* One relevant clue plus elaboration [Max. 2 marks]
- Having a constitution - Having the power of both the ruler and the people limited
Kang Youwei thinks that constitution made the country strong. According to source A, Kang commented that “The method of government that has enabled western countries to become strong and their people to achieve self-rule is, in the final analysis, to adopt constitutions” This let the rights of people be protected by the government, which enables the developments of the country and hence made the western countries strong.
(b) With reference to Sources A and B, compare the views of Kang Youwei and Zou Rong regarding the prospect of revolution in China. (4 marks)
Performance was fair. Candidates were required to compare the views of Kang Youwei and Zou Rong regarding the prospect of revolution in China, with reference to Sources A and B. The two key words in this question were compare and prospect. Weak answers produced separate accounts of Kang Youwei and Zou Rong without making any comparisons and/or discussed the views of Kang and Zou on revolution without focusing on the prospect of revolution.
L1 Attempts to draw comparisons, but vague in explanation with reference to the Sources. [max. 2] L2 Able to draw valid comparisons with effective explanation with reference to the Sources. [max. 4]
- Both Kang and Zou noted that revolution might lead to damage.
- Kang stressed that revolution would lead to national disintegration, whereas Zou thought that it would China independence and freedom.
Kang Youwei thinks that revolutions in China would bring destructions to the country. Zou Yong commented that revolutions in China not only would bring destructions, but also favors constructions in the country. First of all, two of them both think that revolutions in China create destructions. With reference to source A, Kang said that “Before revolution achieves its aims, different provinces and counties will definitely become independent, compete with and attack one another. Blood will be shed and flow like rivers and many people will die like flies. They will cause death to half of our four hundred million compatriots.” This revealed that Kang thinks revolutions in China will cause threat to Chinese’s lives, and hence cause destructions to the country. With reference to source B, Zou Yong pointed out that revolution today destroys the country. This means that revolutions in China at that time will bring chaos and destructions to the society, which shared the same view as Kang. However, Zou Yong thinks that revolution in China destroyed and favored constructions at the same time, hence different from what Kang thinks. With reference to source B, Zou Yong commented that “The revolution that we are now staging is one that destroys to construct.” Also, he also thinks that revolution in China at that time “bring a better life to the people by struggling for all people’s rights of freedom, equality, independence and autonomy”, which is a “civilized revolution”. This view is totally different from what Kang thinks about revolutions in China at that time.
(c) ‘Revolutions are violent, but they can be an effective means of strengthening China.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer with reference to Sources A and B and using your own knowledge. Limit your discussion up to the 1910s. (8 marks)
Performance was fair. Candidates were required to comment on the validity of the statement ‘revolutions are violent, but they can be an effective means of strengthening China.’ Candidates were expected to make use of historical facts up the 1910s to discuss whether revolution, as a violent means, could be an effective means of strengthening China. Whereas the best candidates were able to give a balanced discussion of this seeming paradox using the sources and their own knowledge, weak answers tended to be narratives giving facts about revolutions which ignored the key word ‘violent’. Some candidates gave prepared answers on topics such as the Late Qing Reform, which was not a revolution at all. This kind of answer scored no marks.
L1 Vague answer, ineffective in using both the Sources and own knowledge. [max. 2] L2 Lack in balance, effective in using either the Sources or own knowledge only. [max. 4] L3 Sound and balanced answer, effective in using both the Sources and own knowledge. [max. 8]
Revolution violent? e.g.
- Blood would be shed and flow like rivers and many people would die like flies. (Source A) - Revolutions might lead to destruction. (Source B) - Sun Yat-sen’s revolution took eleven uprisings to overthrow the Qing Dynasty. (own knowledge) Revolution: an effective means of strengthening China? e.g.
- Revolution would produce new problems and huge casualties. (Source A). - Revolution would eliminate absolutism and slavery and bring about progress. (Source B) - Social and cultural changes took place after the 1911 Revolution. (own knowledge) - However, after the 1911 Revolution, there were attempts of monarchical recovery and continual foreign aggression such as the Twenty-one Demands. (own knowledge)
I partly agree with the statement, that revolutions are violent, but they cannot be effective means of strengthening China. Revolutions are violent. Actually, there exists peaceful revolution in China. According to my own knowledge, the New Cultural Movement took place between 1915 and 1921 aims to “Anti-Tradition, Anti-Confucianism, Anti-Traditional Chinese”, and revolutionaries used means like setting up magazines, debating and writing to spread their revolutionary ideas. Less bloody and violent actions were carried out at that time. Hence, peaceful revolution did exist in China. Still, peaceful revolutions are violent. With reference to source B, Zou Rong pointed out that revolutions can be barbarous or civilized. While civilized revolutions brought a better life to the people, they destroy before construct. Having destructions means bringing chaos to the society. Therefore, revolutions are violent. Moreover, revolutions create casualties. With reference to source A, Kang mentioned that different provinces and counties will definitely become independent, compete with and attack one another in revolutions. Blood will be shed and flow like rivers and many people will die like flies in conflicts. At the same time, conflicts will cause death to half of our four hundred million compatriots, destructions of buildings and risky lives of people. This definitely shows that revolutions are violent. Furthermore, revolutions lead to political instability. In source B, Zou Rong commented that Boxers in 1900 only contains destructions but not any constructions. It not only created no good in constructing China, but also brought about an era of terror, making the Chinese living under fear. Hence, revolutions are violent. What is more, revolutions brought about threats to people’s lives. According to my own knowledge, the revolutionary movements planned by Sun Yatsen are “armed uprisings”. For example, the Guangzhou Uprising in 1911 created 86 casualties, which revealed that revolutionary movements would put people’s live under threat. Revolutions are violent. Revolutions cannot be effective means in strengthening China. Revolutions consist of a notion in strengthening China. With reference to source B, Zou Rong thinks that “Our China today cannot afford not to have revolution”, since it can redress the 260-year-long disgrace and humiliation of cruel torture, end the imperial rule in China, so that China can eliminate absolutism and slavery, which have lasted several thousand years. China can be a modernized country afterwards. Politically, revolution can help China modernize effectively. In my own knowledge, while the 1911 Revolution caused the collapse the Qing Dynasty, the Republic of China established in 1912. The imperial rule which had been used in China for more than 2000 years ended. China is no longer ruled by a group of people coming from the same family. People’s rights are aroused since then. China seems to be modernized. However, revolutions cannot raise the international status of China. According to my own knowledge, after the broke out of 1911 Revolution, China were still controlled by foreign countries. Unequal treaties such as Treaty of Shimonoseki and Boxer Protocol still exist. Other taxes and laws were still under the control of foreigners. This revealed that revolution cannot effectively strengthen China. Politically, revolution caused even more political instability. According to my own knowledge, even though the 1911 Revolution effectively put the imperial rulw down, the mindset of feudalism still exist among people. For instance, the restoration of imperial rule by Yuan Shikai and Zhang Xun showed the political instability of China at that time. Democracy and rights of people were ignored at that time. Hence, revolution cannot effectively strengthen China. Economically, the economic development after revolutions were still backward. According to my own knowledge, 1911 Revolution cannot improve the economy of China at that time. 80% of people were still doing the agricultural work, and there were in lack of machines, technology and fertilizers. Nearly 70% of the companies were owned by the foreigners. Economic developments in China were being neglected at that time. Hence, revolutions cannot strengthen China. All in all, although peaceful revolutions did exist in China, the nature and revolutionary aims were mostly about overthrowing the original governments, where violent is far more than peace. Adding that, despite how insightful the revolutionary idea was, the lack of ruling experience and destructions brought by revolutions made it hard to strength China in a short period of time. Hence, I partly agree with the statement.