【2018】中國丨革命黨人



題目拆解



參考答案(中文版)


(a) 根據資料C,改革會為清朝帶來什麼影響?試參考資料C,解釋你的答案。(3分)



考生表現

表現尚可。題目要求考生參考資料C指出改革為清朝所帶來的影響。部分考生能夠按題目要求作答,然而不少答卷出現以下一種或以上的毛病:胡亂抄錄資料C而沒有作出解釋;指出中國政府當時所面對的問題,而沒有把焦點放在改革所帶來的影響;能夠指出改革所帶來的正面影響,惟沒有作出解釋;誤以為資料討論是改革所帶來的壞影響(例如導致清朝的覆亡)。

評分準則

L1 答案含混,未能有效運用資料作答。 [最多1分]

L2 答案清晰,能參考資料作有效解釋。 [最多3分]

影響:

例:

- 中國能夠更加團結。

線索:

例:

- 「鐵路和電報正迅速將這帝國貌合神離的各部分轉化成一團結的整體。」

參考答案

改革加強清朝凝聚力。參考資料C,中國政府面對「各地之間欠缺溝通」問題,地方中央之間不相往來。於此情況底下,改革能夠「對治此疾」是顆「良藥」。這反映改革統合鄉紳勢力與中央政權,有利政府管治民間,團結民眾。

改革令清朝團結。參考資料C,中國人「缺乏團結精神」,甚至「地方利益凌駕於國家利益」,拒命於中央具叛變之心。面對這個狀況,改革能夠「將這帝國貌合神離的各部分整合成一團結的整體」,加強溝通,凝聚民眾支持政府。

(b) 資料D的作者為什麼認為革命黨人值得敬重?試引用資料D的兩項線索,解釋你的答案。(2+2分)



考生表現

表現令人滿意。題目要求考生解釋為何資料D的作者認為革命黨人值得敬重。不少考生能夠從資料引用相關線索,並作出恰當的解釋。表現稍遜的考生僅朝亂抄錄資料,欠缺解釋,或所作解釋與所引線索無關。

評分準則

* 每個有效線索和有效解釋得2分

例:

- 「為自己國家長久利益而努力。」

- 「清政府一直在想盡辦法緝捕他們,要置他們於死地。」

參考答案

由於革命黨人為眾人謀幸福,所以作者認為其值得敬重。參考資料D,作者稱讚革命黨人無私奉獻,一心一意「為同胞迷幸福」,並沒有任何「別的意圖」,只望中國盡早落實現代化。而且經過多次失敗仍「甘願為自國家長久的利益而努力」,明白自由得來不易,不怕辛苦努力不懈,故其值得尊重。

基於革命黨人具高尚修為,因此作者認為其值得敬重。參考資料D,作者記述革命黨人「很多低調地低過平凡的生活」,不怕「事蹟鮮為人知」,公眾對自己或所作之事感到陌生。更甚「被視為危害國家的派別」,被抹黑也在所不計。面對「緝捕」、政權「要置他們於死地」亦毫不恐懼,其不怕犧牲的精神值得尊重。

(c) 假設你是活於1911年的中國學者。你會想當一個改革者,還是革命黨人?試參考資料C及D,並就你所知,解釋你為何選擇其中一方,而不選擇另一方。(8分)



考生表現

表現尚可。題目要求考生假設自己是活於1911年的中國學者,然後根據兩項資料及個人所知解釋為何想當一個改革者或者革命黨人。只有表現最出色的考生能按題目要求作出合理的討論。很多答卷出現以下一種或以上的毛病:混淆晚清歷史背景下的「改革者」和「革命者」;個人所知部分較薄弱;按個人感受而非史實作答;選擇當革命者時,側重改革的局限而非革命的好處;討論了辛亥革命成功後的史實。

評分準則

L1 答案含混,未能有效運用資料及個人所知。 [最多2分]

L2 欠缺均衡,僅能有效運用資料個人所知。 [最多4分]

L3 答栽合理且均衡,能有效運用資料個人所知。 [最多8分]



改革者:

例:

- 清政府的一連串改革「將這個貌合神離的各部分轉化成一團結的整體」,因此能夠克服地方主義的問題。(資料C)

- 搞革命的風險太高,清政府會「想盡辦法緝捕他們,要置他們於死地。」(資料D)

- 各項改革相當徹底,中國正逐步成為開放的社會,教育水平亦有所提高。(個人所知)

革命黨人:

例:

- 革命黨人情操高尚、開明、有教養,願意為國家的長久利益犧牲小我。(資料D)

- 清政府是外來政權,除革命一途外,無法消滅之。(個人所知)

- 清政府在推行政治改革上毫無誠意。(個人所知)

參考答案

作為一個1911年的學者,我會選擇做個革命黨人。

先解釋我何以不支持改革。

第一,改革成效不大。參考資料C,著作分析1910年的改革「並非改朝換代」,也「非政體革命」為目標,表示清政府在實施一個形式上、表面的改革,未有針對中國根本問題努力。身為1911年知識份子,學習過美國獨立戰爭、法國大革命等歷史,明瞭君主制是獨裁專制,當政權冥頑不靈不思進取,故我選擇成為革命黨人。

第二,改革者毫無誠意。就我所知,清朝推行晚清改革(1911)只為收賣人心延長國祚,非從富國強兵考慮。例如1908年頒布的《欽定憲法大綱》稱要9年時間預備立憲,更甚1911年的內閣被稱為「皇族內閣」(13個成員有7人有皇室背景)。改革無法令中國蛻變,身為1911年知識份子的我滿為失望,只好投靠革命黨。

第三,中國改革未曾成功。作為1911年的知識份子,理應對中國歷史有所認識。就我所知,自鴉片戰爭(1842)以來,清政府嘗試過兩場改革(洋務運動和百日維新)。但甲午戰爭和戊戌政變正標誌著其失敗收場,這反映改革一事並不可行,活在水深火熱的國民不能再試,故我選擇成為革命黨人。

現說明我選擇革命黨原因。

第一,革命黨人努力付出。參考資料D,傳教士稱革命黨人懷著滿腔熱誠「為同胞謀幸福」,事事為眾人籌謀。他們更「甘願為自國家長久的利益而努力」,不怕困難,致力建設一個富強中國。身為1911年知識份子,存有報效國家的想法,希望中國能實現現代化,故我選擇成為革命黨人。

第二,革命黨人有高尚情操。參考資料D,著作形容革命黨人「很多低調地過著平凡的生活」,清心寡慾,專注於革命工作。就算「他們的事蹟鮮為人知」,寂寂無名,仍然堅持不放棄。身為1911年知識份子,從書本裡學過功成不必在我的道理,樂於為國家默默付出,故我選擇成為革命黨人。

第三,革命事蹟感動著我。就我所知,革命黨人為求建立民主中國不怕犧牲。他們拋頭顱灑熱血,奮不顧身組織起義(例如1911年黃花崗起義),即使生命受到威脅也無畏無懼(例如資料D指「清政府一直在想盡辦法緝捕他們,要置他們於死地」)。身為1911年知識份子,就算無軍事知識也會士人風骨,故我選擇成為革命黨人。

第四,革命主張吸引著我。就我所知,孫中山於1905年成立同盟會,提出三民主義(民權、民族、民生),認為當下要「驅除韃虜,恢復中華,創立民國,平均地權」。身為1911年的知識份子,對自由、平等、民主等價值有所追求,故我選擇成為革命黨人。

總括而言,上述分析為何我不欲支持改革派,及渴望成為革命黨人之理據。

參考答案(英文版)


(a) According to Source C, what impact would reform bring to the Qing Dynasty? Explain your answer with reference to Source C. (3 marks)



Candidates’ Performance

Performance was fair. This question required candidates to identify, with reference to Source C, what impact reform would have on the Qing Dynasty. While some candidates were able to give logical answers, as required by the question, many displayed one or more of the following flaws: copying indiscriminately from the Source without due explanation; identifying problems faced by the Chinese government at that time without focusing on the impact brought by reform; succeeding in identifying the positive impact brought by reform but without due explanation; wrongly interpreting the Source as one that discussed negative impacts of reform (such as the demise of the Qing Dynasty).

Marking Scheme

L1 Vague explanation and ineffective use of the Source. [max. 1]

L2 Clear answer with effective explanation with reference to the Source. [max. 3]



Impact:

e.g.

- China would achieve greater solidarity.

Clue:

e.g.

- ‘Railway and telegraph are rapidly welding the disjointed members of the Empire into a solid unity’

Suggested Answer

Reform would strengthen the solidarity of the Qing Dynasty.

According to source C, it was mentioned that China “lack of communication between places”, causing a lack of communication and co-operation between the local and central government. With reform “railway and telegraph are rapidly welding the disjointed members of the Empire into a solid unity” implemented, the central government could tighten control on people, and hence increase the solidarity of the dynasty, in which people become united.


(b) Why did the author of Source D think that revolutionaries were admirable? Cite two clues from Source D to explain your answer. (2+2 marks)



Candidates’ Performance

Performance was satisfactory. This question required candidates to explain why the author of Source D thought that revolutionaries were admirable. Many candidates cited relevant clues from the Source, with relevant explanations. The weak candidates copied indiscriminately from the Source without explanation, or gave explanations that were not relevant to the clue cited.

Marking Scheme

* Two marks for each valid clue with effective explanation



e.g.

- ‘prepared to work for the permanent good of their country.’

- ‘The Qing Government has been hunting them to do them to death.’

Suggested Answer

First, revolutionaries dedicated themselves to strive for benefits for the people.

From Source D, revolutionaries were “prepared to work for the permanent good of their country” with “no other motive than that of benefiting their fellow-nationals”. This shows that revolutionaries aim only to improve the country for the better but without any self-intention. Their sincerity to modernize china and strive for benefits for the people made them worth respect and admiration

Second, revolutionaries asked for no returns despite living a poor life.

From Source D, revolutionaries had been “thousands of smaller men” that “about them little has been known” and “led very low-profile lives” although all of them were “sent abroad to light the fuse”. They were even “despised as a dangerous faction in the country” and “The Qing Government has been hunting them to do them to death.” Yet, these revolutionaries were not afraid and were willing to sacrifice themselves. This reflected revolutionaries continued to strive for people’s benefits without asking for either returns or fame. They made efforts to improve people’s lives intently. Therefore, they were admirable.


(c) Suppose you were a Chinese scholar in 1911. Would you prefer to be a reformer or a revolutionary? Explain why you prefer one but do not prefer the other, with reference to Sources C and D and using your own knowledge. (8 marks)



Candidates’ Performance

Performance was fair. This question invited candidates to imagine that they were Chinese scholars in 1911 and explain, with reference to the two Sources and their own knowledge, whether they would prefer to be a reformer or a revolutionary. Only the best candidates gave a logical discussion, as required by the question. Many answers displayed one or more of the following flaws: confusing ‘reformer’ with ‘revolutionary’ in the context of Late Qing history; being weak in using their own knowledge; basing their answers on personal feelings instead of historical evidence; discussing the limitations of reform rather than the merits of revolution when choosing to be a revolutionary; discussing events that took place after the success of the 1911 Revolution.

Marking Scheme

L1 Vague answer, ineffective in using both Sources and own knowledge. [max. 2]

L2 Lack in balance, effective in using Sources or own knowledge only. [max. 4]

L3 Sound and balanced answer, effective in using both Sources and own knowledge. [max. 8]



Reformer:

e.g.

- The Qing Government’s ongoing reforms were ‘welding the disjointed members of the Empire into a solid unity’ and thus overcoming the problem of regionalism. (Source C)

- Being a revolutionary was too risky as the Qing Government was ‘hunting them to do them to death.’ (Source D)

- The reforms were so fundamental that an open and literate society was coming into being. (own knowledge)

Revolutionary:

e.g.

- Revolutionaries were noble persons. They were enlightened and educated, and willing to sacrifice themselves for the permanent good of China. (Source D)

- The Qing Government was an alien regime, and might not be got rid of except by revolution. (own knowledge)

- The Qing Government was insincere in introducing political reforms. (own knowledge)

Suggested Answer

I would prefer to be a revolutionary.

Reasons for preferring to be a revolutionary would be discussed first.

Firstly, revolutionaries strived for benefits of the people.

From Source D, revolutionaries were “men who, with no other motive than that of benefiting their fellow-nationals” and “prepared to work for the permanent good of their country”, reflecting revolutionaries dedicated themselves for making their country a better country. As a scholar, I hoped to strengthen my country as well as providing a better life for the people by modernizing China. I was definitely willing to dedicate myself for the nation. Therefore, I would prefer to be a revolutionary.

Secondly, revolutionaries have noble sentiments.

According to source D, it was mentioned that revolutionaries “live a low-profile life” and “About them little has been known”. This shows that they didn’t chase for fame or appreciations. As a scholar in 1911, I believe and would like to uphold the principle in book - sacrificing for the country and put away self-interest. Hence i would choose to be a revolutionary.

Thirdly, I was touched by the revolutionaries pass achievements .

According to my own knowledge, revolutionaries spared no effort in developing a democratic system in China, they would sacrifice themselves in order to strengthen the nation. For instance, the Yellow Flower Mound Uprising proved that revolutionaries had no fear even their lives were threatened. ( Also, from Source D “The Qing Government has been hunting them to do them to death.”) Therefore, as a scholar in 1911, I would prefer to be a revolutionary as I was touched by their spirit and determination.

Fourthly, the values which revolutionaries advocated fascinated me.

According to my own knowledge, Tongmenghui was formed in 1905 by Sun Yat-sen, and promoted “Three People’s Principles” ( Principles of Nationalism, Principles of Democracy, Principles of People's Livelihood). As a scholar, I longed for values such as freedom, equality and democracy. Hence, I would choose to be a revolutionary.

Reasons for not preferring to be a reformer would then be discussed.

Firstly, reforms in China had never succeeded.

In my own knowledge, both the Self-Strengthening Movement (1861-1895) and Hundred Days’ Reform (1898) failed in reforming China into a strong country. For example, China remained in the autocratic rule of the Qing government and democratic ideas still had not been introduced to the general public. What’s more, most Chinese people continued to live in poverty after the reforms. As a scholar, I learnt from historical facts that reform was ineffective in transforming China into a better place. Hence, I would not prefer to be a reformer.

Secondly, the Late Qing government was insincere in carrying out the reform.

From what I knew, the Late Qing Reform initiated by the Qing government in 1901 was proved to be insincere. For instance, the cabinet which responsible for creating a constitutional monarchy, consisted of thirteen members, of which nine were Manchus (seven of whom were from the imperial clan) while only four were Han Chinese. The establishment of this “Royal Cabinet” reflected the Qing government only aimed to prolong the Manchu rule instead of strengthening China. As a scholar, I understand that the insincere attitude of the Qing government in carrying out the reform would bring no effectiveness in strengthening the nation, and at the same time I have no more hope on the Qing Dynasty. Thus, I would not prefer to be a reformer.

Thirdly, reform is ineffective in modernising china.

From Source C, the object of reform was “not a changed dynasty, nor a revolution in the form of government”, showing reform only aimed to make changes on the surface. Its depth was not enough to transform the entire China into a strong nation. As a scholar, I understood the fundamental problem----autocracy, which would remain in China even after reform, meaning reform could not truly make a better China. Therefore, I would not prefer to be a reformer.

To conclude, I would prefer to be a revolutionary.