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及比較。 [最多3分]
L1 答案含混，未能有效運用資料和個人所知作答。 [最多2分]
L2 欠缺均衡，僅能有效使用資料或個人所知作答。 [最多4分]
L3 答案合理且均衡，能有效使用資料及個人所知作答。 [最多8分]
(a) Which extract in Source A was more anti-Japanese in tone? Explain your answer with reference to Source A. (3 marks)
Performance was good. This question required candidates to examine which extract in Source A was more anti-Japanese in tone. Many candidates were able to identify Extract 1 as more anti-Japanese in tone, sometimes justified with good comparison.
L1 Vague explanation and ineffective use of the Source. [max. 1]
L2 Clear answer with effective explanation and comparison with reference to the Source. [max. 3]
- ‘It hurts! It hurts!’
- ‘…putting Japan to death’
* Candidates in general will choose Extract 1 to be more anti-Japanese in tone. However, marks will be awarded to answers that choose Extract 2 and are presented logically.
Extract 1 in Source A was more anti-Japanese in tone.
In terms of the Japanese aggression against China, extract 1 was more anti-Japanese.
From Source A, the author of extract 1 believed that Japan had been “getting more ambitious recently”, showing the aggression of Japan which seriously threatened China. What’s more, the author claimed that “if Qingdao falls, Shandong will fall too. And if Shandong falls, China will subsequently fall as well”, reflecting the impact of Japanese ambition on Qingdao should never be underestimated. This showed a critical tone.
However, extract 2 understated the Japanese ambition over China. From Source A, the author of extract 2 stated that “Every man is accountable to his nation’s rise or fall”, meaning everyone should be responsible for the rise and fall of his/her country. It was a statement which only described the situation in China instead of criticizing the radical action of Japan. Hence, patriotism rather of anti-Japanism was shown in extract 2. It was less anti-Japanese than the extract 1.
In terms of boycotting Japanese goods, extract 1 was more anti-Japanese.
From Source A, the author of Source 1 encouraged the public to boycott Japanese goods as Japan would “immediately fall into poverty” and the Japanese treasury would “immediately be empty and void of money” when China was one of the largest importer of the Japanese goods. This showed extract 1 believed boycotting Japanese goods could bring immense negative impacts to Japan that “putting Japan to death”. It was an indignant tone.
Extract 2 supported boycotting Japanese goods as well. From Source A, the Sincere Company of extract 2 announced that “all Japanese goods will be taken off the shelf and not be sold any more, despite the huge loss incurred”, showing it confronted Japan even though it had to sacrifice its economic profits. However, extract 2 did not include any criticism against Japan. It only claimed to show its “determination to abandon business with the Japanese”, expressing its will to stand united on the same side with the public. Unlike the critical tone of extract 1, its tone was more tolerant. Therefore, extract 1 was more anti-Japanese.
(b) Infer from Source B two characteristics of the Hong Kong Chinese merchants regarding their reaction towards the May Fourth Incident at the time. Support your answer with relevant clues from Source B. (4 marks)
Performance was fair. This question required candidates to infer from Source B two characteristics of the Hong Kong Chinese merchants’ reaction towards the May Fourth Incident at the time. Only the best candidates were able to infer valid characteristics from the Source. Weak answers reflected efforts to focus on the keyword ‘characteristics’, but such characteristics were either irrelevant to the Hong Kong merchants’ reactions towards the Incident or were vaguely explained.
* Two marks for each valid characteristic plus a relevant clue.
- Aligning themselves with the anti-Japanese activities in mainland China (‘an anti-Japanese boycott is in full swing’)
- Concerning the attitude of the Hong Kong government (‘…unwise…put the British authorities in a rather awkward position’)
First, the Hong Kong Chinese merchants were voluntary towards the May Fourth Incident.
From Source B, a Chinese businessman stated that the decision of excluding “the sale or purchase of Japanese goods” was own decision of the merchant which “was nothing in the nature of an/organized campaign”. This showed the Hong Kong Chinese merchants supported domestic goods while boycotting Japanese goods under patriotism. There were neither plans nor organizations. Hence, the characteristic was voluntary.
From Source B, the Chinese businessman also stated that “it would be unwise to take any action such as could be classed as an organized boycott” as they were “living in a British Crown Colony”, meaning Hong Kong belonged to Britain politically. Thus, restriction had to be made. Therefore, they responded to the movement on behalf of individuals reflected that they volunteered to boycott Japanese goods. Hence, the characteristic was voluntary.
Second, the Hong Kong Chinese merchants were supportive towards the May Fourth Incident.
From Source B, the news reported that the “auction sale of the wreck of a Japanese steamship”, which “a large attendance of Chinese” used to participated actively, had to be “abandoned” owing to “there not being a single bidder present”. This showed the situation was abnormal. Besides, the news stated that the abnormal situation was related to “anti-Japanese boycott”. This reflected the Hong Kong Chinese merchants did make actual practice to boycott Japanese goods. Hence, they were supportive.
From Source B, the reporter was told that “the majority of recent contracts signed by Chinese contained a clause”, reflecting the current situation urged the merchants to revise contract deliberately. The clause which “no Japanese material of any description was to be used” reflected Chinese merchants refused to cooperate with Japan. This showed the Hong Kong Chinese merchants responded to the May Fourth Movement to cut all their business cooperation with Japan. Hence, they were supportive.
(c) ‘Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared similar views on major events that happened in Chinese in the 20thcentury.’ Do you agree? Explain your answer with reference to Sources A and B and using your own knowledge. (8 marks)
Performance was satisfactory. This question required candidates to discuss whether Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared similar views on major events that happened in China in the 20th century. Many candidates managed to identify major events, but did not always succeed in making clear comparison of views. Only the best candidates identified the major events and showed clearly whether Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared views on them with reference to the Sources and their own knowledge.
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]
Possible events to discuss:
- May Fourth Movement
- Sino-Japanese War (1937-45)
- Founding of the PRC
- Cultural Revolution
The statement is valid.
In terms of 1911 Revolution, Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared similar views.
Chinese in mainland China thought 1911 Revolution was a modern movement. In my own knowledge, Sun Yat Sen believed revolution was the only way to save the nation. For instance, he established Tongmenghui (1905), aiming “to expel the northern barbarians and to revive Zhonghua, to establish a republic, and to distribute land equally among the people” through organizing uprisings (e.g. Yellow Flower Mound Uprising in 1911). This showed Chinese in mainland China believed 1911 Revolution was a modern democratic movement.
Chinese in Hong Kong also believed 1911 Revolution was a movement to save the country. From what I knew, Chinese in Hong Kong actively supported the revolution. For example, Chinese merchants and the elite society assisted Sun by providing two to three millions dollars to the Guangzhou government during 1911 Revolution to July 1912. They did whatever they could to support the revolution as they believed revolution could modernize China, which was as same as Chinese in mainland China.
In terms of the May Fourth Movement, Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared similar views.
Chinese in mainland China criticized Japan for harming the national interests of China. From Source A, ‘Pleading to Use Chinese Products Society’ of Shanghai Pudong Middle School condemned Japan for encroaching China. For example, it stated that Japan “has been getting more ambitious” that it attempted to “annex our Qingdao”, being aggressive against Qingdao. However, “if Qingdao falls, Shandong will fall too. And if Shandong falls, China will subsequently fall as well”, meaning China would collapse as a result. This reflected Chinese in mainland China were discontented towards the military action of Japan as it harmed the Chinese sovereignty.
Chinese in Hong Kong supported domestic political movement. From Source B, Chinese in Hong Kong was discontented towards Japan. For instance, there was news reported that “the auction sale of the wreck of a Japanese steamship had to be abandoned” in May 1919, “owing to there not being a single bidder present”. However, “in the ordinary way, at such sales there is a large attendance of Chinese and bidding is usually active”, such scene was abnormal that the reporter analyzed it was an “anti-Japanese boycott” movement. This reflected Chinese in Hong Kong initiated protests economically to express their discontent towards the Japanese invasion against China. It was the similar to the view of Chinese in mainland China.
Chinese in mainland China upheld anti-Japanism in order to preserve national dignity. From Source A, in response to the act of Japan, the Sincere Company stopped selling Japanese goods. For example, it telegraphed “Japanese business counterparts about stopping business with them” and “all Japanese goods will be taken off the shelf and not be sold any more”. These stopped the Japanese goods from entering China so as to destroy the foreign trade of Japan. Besides, ‘Pleading to Use Chinese Products Society’ of Shanghai Pudong Middle School asked the people to “work together with a unified heart to refuse to buy and use Japanese goods”, refusing to buy the Japanese goods and supporting local goods. This showed Chinese in mainland China confronted Japan economically to preserve national dignity.
Chinese in Hong Kong boycotted Japanese goods as well. From Source B, Chinese in Hong Kong supported sanctioning Japan. For instance, “Hongkong Chinese had decided to exclude the sale or purchase of Japanese goods”, expressing their discontent towards the Japanese merchants. Also, they agreed on “a clause” which “no Japanese material of any description was to be used”, refusing to cooperate with Japan so as to defend national interests. This reflected Chinese in Hong Kong supported the boycott of Japanese goods, which was the same as the view of Chinese in mainland China.
In terms of the Second Sino-Japanese War, Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared similar views.
Chinese in mainland China thought the Second Sino-Japanese War was an invasion. In my own knowledge, Japan invaded Chinese since the 1930s (September 18 Incident in 1931, January 28 Incident in 1932, July 7 Incident in 1937). Facing the invasion of Japan, Chinese in mainland China advocated the thought of “to stop the internal war and unite to confront the external enemy”. For instance, Zhang Xueliang initiated the Xi’an Incident (1936), forcing Jiang Jieshi to end the encirclement campaigns and cooperated with Mao Zedong to confront Japan.
Chinese in Hong Kong also believed the Second Sino-Japanese War was an invasion. From what I knew, before the Pacific War (1941), Chinese in Hong Kong supported the Republic of China Armed Forces actively. For example, people bought meal ticket to have “patriotic meal” and “meal of saving the country”, responding to A Bowl of Rice Movement initiated by Song Ching-ling. Also, many youngsters joined the Hong Kong Battalion of the Dongjiang Column to confront the enemy. This showed Chinese in Hong Kong tried their very best to assist the national army to resist Japan. Hence, they shared the same view with Chinese in mainland China.
In terms of Cultural Revolution, Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared similar views.
Chinese in mainland China thought the Cultural Revolution was an anti-imperialism movement. From what I knew, Chinese in mainland China supported the Mao’s thoughts. For example, they formed the Red Army, recited “Quotations from Chairman Mao Zedong”, joined the “Up to the Mountains and Down to the Countryside Movement” (1968), criticised foreign ideologies and fought against capitalist roaders (Liu Shaoqi fell from power in 1968). These reflected Chinese in mainland China believed the Cultural Revolution could “destroy the Four Olds and build the Four News”, sweeping away conservative thoughts and bringing new hopes to China.
Chinese in Hong Kong thought the Cultural Revolution was an anti-colonial movement as well. From what I knew, left-wing politics in Hong Kong supported the Cultural Revolution. For example, they organized the 1967 Riots (1967), calling workers and patriots to support the Mao’s thoughts by saying “Loving our motherland is not breaking the law! Resisting violence is justified!”. This reflected Chinese in Hong Kong organized protests at all costs in the hope of supporting the Cultural Revolution in China. Hence, they shared the same view with Chinese in mainland China.
In terms of the June Fourth Incident, Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared similar views.
Chinese in mainland China believed the June Fourth Incident was a practice of democracy. In my own knowledge, intelligence in mainland China requested for reforming China. For instance, Chai Ling, Wang Dan and Wu’erksixi formed Beijing Normal University Student Association and Beijing Students’ Autonomous Federation (1989), calling students to demonstrate at Tiananmen Square to strive for liberty and democracy. This showed Chinese in mainland China believed the 89 Democracy Movement was a human rights movement.
Chinese in Hong Kong also thought the June Fourth Incident was a movement chasing for freedom. From what I knew, Hong Kong people agreed with the advocation of students in mainland China. For instance, Szeto Wah formed the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (1989), supporting students to confront against the communist party by taking “release the dissidents; rehabilitate the 1989 pro-democracy movement; demand accountability of the June 4thmassacre; end one-party dictatorship; build a democratic China” as goals. This showed 1.5 million Hong Kong people demonstrated to criticize the dictatorship of CPC. Therefore, they shared the same view with Chinese in mainland China.
To conclude, there were many important events happened in China in the 20 century, including the 1911 Revolution, May Fourth Movement, Second Sino-Japanese War, Cultural Revolution and June Fourth Incident. Chinese in mainland China and Hong Kong shared similar views towards these events. Therefore, the statement is valid.