【2019】中國丨五四運動

題目拆解




參考答案(中文版)

(a) 資料A中哪一引文的語氣更為反日?試參考資料A,解釋你的答案。(3分)

考生表現

表現良好。題目要求考生討論資料A哪一 引文的語氣更為反日。不少考生能夠指出引文一在語氣上更為反日,部分考生更能作出不俗的比較以解釋其答案。


評分參考

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]

引言:

例:

- 「痛哉!痛哉!」

- 「……制日本之死命……」


* 考生一般會認為引文一的語氣更為反日。然而,考生若選取引文二而又言之成理者,應酌量給分。


參考答案

引文一較為反日。


針對日本對中國的侵襲,引文一較為反日。參考資料A,作者形容日本是「野心勃勃」,形容其狂妄非分之心,對中國甚具侵略性。更甚指「青島亡,則山東亡」,而「山東亡,則中國隨之而亡也」,強調日本侵佔青島一事不容低估,措辭強硬。

相反,引文二對日本侵襲一事輕描淡寫。參考資料A,作者稱「國家興亡,匹夫有責」,泛指國家的興盛衰亡,每個平民百姓都必須擔負責任。其僅側面陳述中國狀況,未有就日本行為作出指責。可見,先施公司公告乃出於愛國心,故不如引文一般反日。

針對罷買日貨一事,引文一較為反日。參考資料A,引文一鼓勵國民罷買日貨。其分析指中國是日本一大出口市場,「拒絕購用」日貨的話將使日人「立見貧困」,且「國庫立見空虛」,表示抵制日商對其後患無窮。可見,罷買日貨「足制日本之死命」,置之死地,用字倔強。

相反,引文二支持罷買日貨。參考資料A,先施公司「概將日貨完全收束不賣,甯願犧牲血本」,不惜犧牲收益表態反抗日本。然而,公告卻未有就日本行為作任何批評,僅稱「以示與眾共棄之心」,與市民站在同一陣線。可見,先施言詞較為寬容,不如上海浦東中學勸用貨會般嚴詞厲色。


(b) 從資料B推斷香港華商當時對五四事件所作反應的兩項特徵。試以資料B的相關線索,支持你的答案。(4分)

考生表現

表現平平。題目要求考生從資料B推斷香港華商當時對五四事件所作反應的兩項特徵。只有表現最佳的考生能夠從資料推斷出有效的特徵。表現稍遜的答卷嘗試回應關鍵詞「特徵」,惟未能將該等特徵聯繫到香港華商對五四事件的反應,或者所作解釋頗為含混。


評分參考

* 每項有效特徵的相關線索得2分。

特徵:

例:

- 與中國大陸的反日活動維持一致(「一場反日的杯葛正全……展開」)

- 顧慮香港政府的態度(「……不智……使英國當局陷於頗為尷尬的處境。」)


參考答案

第一,香港華商對五四運動的反應是自發的。參考資料B,新聞報導引述一位華商稱「抵制日本貨品的買賣」屬個人決定,「絕非有組織性的運動」。這表示香港華商支持國貨、罷買日貨等行為出於愛國心,而非有預謀、有意識態度的行為。可見,其反應特徵是自願的。


參考資料B,華商補充指香港是「英國的直轄殖民地」,政治上屬於英國國土。港人舉辦「任何可被視為有組織的杯葛行動均屬不智」,理應作出有限度抵制。因此,他們以個人身份對五四運動作出反應,發自內心是自願的。

第二,香港華商對五四運動的反應是支持的。參考資料B,新聞就「日本蒸氣輪殘骸的拍賣」作出報導,文章指此等指賣會「通常有大群華人參與」,深受港人歡迎。然而,1919年5月21的拍賣「因無任何買家在場而需要取消」,一反常態,報導稱與「反日的杯葛」有關。可見,香港華商身體力行拒絕購買日貨,故其對五四運動的反應是支持的。

參考資料B,記者稱收獲線報指「大多數由華商簽訂的合同均包含一項條款」,因時勢而令商人刻意修訂合同。那就是「註明不會使用任何形式的日本物料」,拒絕與日本合流。這反映香港華商響應中國五四運動,罷買日貨與之通商,故其反應是支持的。

(c) 「對20世紀發生於中國的重大事件,內地中國人和香港華人抱持相似的看法。」你是否同意此說?試參考資料A及B,並就你所知,解釋你的答案。(8分)

考生表現

表現令人滿意。題目要求考生討論內地中國人和香港人對20世紀發生於中國的重大事件是否抱持相似的看法。不少考生能夠指相關的重大事件,惟未必能夠清楚比較對該等事件的看法。只有表現最佳的考生能夠指出該等重大事件,並運用資料和個人所知清楚顯示內地中國人和香港華人是否對它們抱持相似的看法。

評分參考

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,能有效使用資料個人所知作答。 [最多8分]

可以討論的事件:

例:

- 五四運動

- 1937-1945年的中日戰爭

- 中華人民共和國的建立

- 文化大革命

參考答案

題目所言確能成立。

針對辛亥革命,內地中國人和香港人持相似的看法。


中國人認為辛亥革命是現代化運動。就我所知,孫中山認為革命是救國的唯一出路。例如他成立同盟會(1905),以「驅除韃虜,恢復中華,建立民國,平分地權」為口號,組織起義(例如1911年黃花崗之役)。可見,中國人認為辛亥革命是近代民主運動。

香港人同樣認為辛亥革命是救國活動。就我所知,香港華人熱烈支持革命事業。例如華商及精英社團支持孫中山,由辛亥革命至1912年7月向廣州政府提供200-300萬元援助。他們有錢出錢有力出力,相信革命能令中國達致現代化,與內地民眾看法相似。

針對五四運動,內地中國人和香港人持相似的看法。

中國人抵抗日本侵犯國家利益。參考資料A,上海浦東中學勸用貨會批評日本蠶食中國。例如指日「野心勃勃」,狂妄非分之心「欲吞我青島」,蠢蠢欲動入侵山東。而「青島亡,則山東亡。山東亡,則中國之隨之而亡也」,國破家亡妻離子散。可見,中國人抗議日本軍事行動,認為其損害主權。


香港人支持國內政治運動。參考資料B,香港人對日本感到不滿。例如報導稱1919年5月一場「日本蒸氣輪殘骸的拍賣因無任何買家在場而需要取消」,由於「這樣的拍賣通常有大群華人參與,而且競價活躍」,該情況有反常態,記者分析是「反日的杯葛」行動。可見,香港人討厭日本侵華,發起經濟抗議,跟內地民眾看法相近。


中國人提議抗日以保國家尊嚴。參考資料A,針對日本種種行動,先施公司停購日貨。例如「經電止東洋停辦」和「將日貨完收束不賣」,阻止日貨流通中國,杜其外對貿易。又,上海浦東中學勸用貨會請「國民協力一心拒絕購用」,罷買日貨支持本地商業。可見,中國人主張經濟抗日以保國家利益。

香港人響應國內罷買日貨。參考資料B,香港人支持制裁日本。例如「香港的華人已決定抵制日本貨品的買賣」,向日商抗議。另聯合簽訂「一項條款」,「註明不會使用任何形式的日本物料」,拒絕與日本為伍,捍衛國家利益。可見,香港人支持停買日貨,響應國內活動,實與內地看法一樣。

針對抗日戰爭,內地中國人和香港人持相似的看法。


中國人認為抗日戰爭是一場侵略。就我所知,日本於1930年代入侵中國(1931年九一八事變、1932年一二八事變、1937年七七事變)。面對東亞欺凌,內地民眾主張「停止內戰,一致對外」。例如張學良策劃西安事變(1936),迫使蔣介石結束剿共,與毛澤東合作抗日。


香港人同樣認為抗日戰爭是侵佔。就我所知,太平洋戰爭(1941)發生之前,港人積極支持國軍。例如響應宋慶玲一碗飯運動(1941),上街購買飯券吃「愛國飯」、「救國飯」。又,不少青年力壯加入東江縱隊港九大隊,往前線抵禦外敵。可見,港人究其辦法援助國軍抵日,跟內地民眾看法一樣。

針對文化大革命,內地中國人和香港持相似的看法。

中國人認為文化大革命是場反帝國主義運動。就我所知,國人支持毛澤東思想。例如組織紅衛兵、背誦《毛語錄》、參與上山下鄉活動(1968)、批判外國思想,打倒走資派(1968年劉少奇倒台)。可見,內地民眾認為文革能「破四舊,立四新」,打倒封建守舊思想,為中國帶來新氣象。

香港人同樣認為文革是反殖民運動。就我所知,香港左派人士支持國內文化大革命。例如組織六七暴動(1967),打著「愛國無罪,抗暴有理」的旗幟,號召工人、愛國份子擁護毛澤東思想。可見,香港人不惜代價組織反抗,願與中國接軌,實和內地民眾看法一致。

針對六四事件,內地中國人和香港人持相似的看法。


中國人認為六四事件是民主實踐。就我所知,國內知識份子要求中國開放改革。例如柴玲、王丹、吾爾開希組織北京師範大學學生自治會和北京市臨時學聯(1989),召號學生前往天安門廣場,向政府爭取自由民主。可見,內地民眾相信八九學運是一場人權運動。


香港人同樣認為六四事件是自由追求。就我所知,香港民眾同意內地學生主張。例如司徒華成立香港市民支援愛國民主運動聯合會(1989),以「釋放民運人士;平反八九民運;追究屠城責任;結束一黨專政;建設民主中國」為口號,聲援學生抗共。可見,150萬名香港市民上街遊行,聲討中共獨裁專制,與內地民眾看法一樣。


總括而言,20世紀中國歷經多件重大事件,包括辛亥革命、五四運動、抗日戰爭、文化大革命和六四事件。而香港人與內地人一直同行,彼此持相同看法。因此,題目所言成立。

參考答案(英文版)

(a) Which extract in Source A was more anti-Japanese in tone? Explain your answer with reference to Source A. (3 marks)

Candidates’ Performance

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.


Marking Scheme

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]


Extract 1

e.g.

- ‘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.



Suggested answer

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)

Candidates’ Performance

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.

Marking Scheme

* Two marks for each valid characteristic plus a relevant clue.

Characteristics:

e.g.

- 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’)



Suggested answer

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)



Candidates’ Performance

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.


Marking Scheme

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:

e.g.

- May Fourth Movement

- Sino-Japanese War (1937-45)

- Founding of the PRC

- Cultural Revolution


Suggested answer

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.