MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SINGAPOREin collaboration with

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE LOCAL EXAMINATIONS SYNDICATEGeneral Certificate of Education Ordinary Level

HISTORY 2173/01

Paper 1 History of Southeast Asia, c. 1870-1967For Examination from 2008

SPECIMEN PAPER1 hour 30 minutes

Additional Materials: Answer Papers

READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST

Write your Centre number, index number and name on all the work you hand in.Write in dark blue or black pen.You may use a soft pencil for any rough working.Do not use staples, paper clips, highlighters, glue or correction fluid.

Section AAnswer all parts of Question 1.Section BAnswer one question.Write all answers in the answer papers provided.

At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together.The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question or part question.

This document consists of 5 printed pages and 1 blank page.UNIVERSITY of CAMBRIDGE

Singapore Examinations and Assessment Boardtlw International Examinations

' UCLES & MOE 2006 [Turn over

2

Section A (Source-Based Case Study)

Question 1 is compulsory for all candidates.

Study the Background Information and the sources carefully, and then answer all the questions.

You may use any of the sources to help you answer the questions, in addition to those sources youare told to use. In answering the questions you should use your knowledge of the topic to help youinterpret and evaluate the sources.

1 (a) Study Source A.

This speech was made before the July 1964 riots, therefore it is useless as evidenceabout the riots.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [6]

(b) Study Sources B and C.

How similar are these two sources as evidence about the riots? Explain your answer. [7]

(c) Study Source D.

How reliable is this source as evidence about the causes of the riots? Explain youranswer. [6]

(d) Study Source E.

Why do you think Tunku Abdul Rahman made this speech? Explain your answer. [6]

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

What Caused the Singapore Riots of 1964?

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Read this carefully. It may help you answer some of the questions.

On 21 July 1964, racial riots broke out in Singapore after disturbances during a Muslim processionin Geylang to celebrate Prophet Muhammad's birthday. Serious violence continued for more than aweek as disturbances spread to other parts of the island. In all, 23 people were killed and morethan 400 injured. More rioting occurred in early September, in which a further 12 people werekilled. What had caused these riots? Read the following sources to find out.

Source A: From a speech made by UMNO Secretary-General Syed Ja'afar Albar on 12 July1964 at the UMNO Singapore convention.

Although Singapore has achieved independence through Malaysia, the fate of the Malays today iseven worse than it was during the Japanese occupation. This is the reason UMNO feels itnecessary to hold this convention. I am very happy that today we Malays and Muslims inSingapore have shown unity, and are prepared to live and die together for our race and for futuregenerations. If there is unity, no force in the world can crush us down, or humiliate us, or ignore us.Not one Lee Kuan Yew, a thousand Lee Kuan Yews.

Source B: From an account of the July 1964 riots by a Singaporean historian, published in1998.

Controversy surrounds the question of who set off the fighting. Tun Razak (Malaysian DeputyPrime Minister), claimed that the violence was unplanned, caused by a mischief-maker (byimplication Chinese) throwing a bottle into the procession celebrating the Prophet's birthday. Thisexplanation was supposedly based on the account concerning Syed Alwi bin Syed Mohamed, whowas allegedly hit by a bottle while following the procession. Syed Alwi had confronted and scoldeda male Chinese youth for throwing some joss papers from the first-floor window of a coffeeshop.The youth responded by throwing a bottle at him, wounding Syed Alwi on the side of the head.Angered by the provocation, some Malays ran into the coffeeshop and assaulted the Chinesethere.

However, there were several versions of what happened, and the police noted that the exactlocation and time of the supposed incident were not confirmed by any independent witnesses.

Source C: From a radio broadcast by Lee Kuan Yew on the evening of 21 July 1964.

Sometime after 5 pm, the procession of some 25000 Muslims passed by the Kallang Gas Works ina predominantly Chinese area. A member of the Federal Reserve Unit (police sent down frompeninsular Malaysia) asked a group who were straggling away from the procession to rejoin it.Instead of being obeyed, he was set upon by this group. Thereafter a series of disturbancesoccurred as more groups became unruly and attacked passers-by and innocent bystanders. Thedisturbances have spread rapidly throughout the Geylang area. Who or what started this situationis irrelevant at this moment. All the indications show that there has been organisation and planningbehind this outbreak to turn it into an ugly communal clash.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/spos [Turn over

Source D: From 'A Brief History of the PAP', written by Minister of Culture S Rajaratnam for thePAP 10th anniversary celebrations in 1964.

Soon after the elections [of April 1964] a hatred campaign against the PAP was mounted throughnewspapers and speeches. They accused the PAP of being anti-Malay, criticised PAP Malayleaders and agitated for the arrest of Mr Lee Kuan Yew. This persistent fanning of communalfeelings soon sparked off serious riots in July. Indonesian agents exploited the situation andsparked off a second riot in September.

Source E: From a speech made in Singapore on 21 September 1964 by Tunku AbdulRahman.

The July and September riots might have been due to the fact that the Malays in Singapore hadfelt neglected and had thought that under Malaysia they were entitled to better treatment which hadnot come about. On top of all this, they were being driven from their homes which they had ownedto make way for new flats and so on. When I came to Singapore the last time I promised I wouldlook into the position of the Malays and the less fortunate people. The central government will dowhatever it can to ease their suffering.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

5

Section B (Structured-Essay Questions)

Answer any one question.

You must select examples from at least two of the following countriesto support your answers: Indonesia, Malaya, Vietnam.

2 This question is on Colonial Rule and Impact, 1870-1900.

(a) How different were the ways in which European powers governed their Southeast Asiancolonies in the period 1870-1900? Explain your answer. [12]

(b) 'In the period 1870-1900, the main reason why European powers wanted colonies inSoutheast Asia was to control trade.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [13]

3 This question is on the Rise of Nationalism, 1900-1945.

(a) How different were the aims of Southeast Asian nationalist movements in the periodbetween 1900 and 1941? Explain your answer. [12]

(b) The main reason why the Southeast Asian nationalist movements achieved little beforeWorld War II was that they lacked mass support.' How far do you agree? Explain youranswer. [13]

4 This question is on the Struggle for Independence in Post-War Southeast Asia,1945-1967.

(a) How different were the responses of Southeast Asian nationalists to colonial powers'attempts to reassert their control after World War II? Explain your answer. [12]

(b) The main reason why Southeast Asian states achieved independence was thecontribution made by outstanding nationalist leaders.' How far do you agree? Explain youranswer. [13]

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

6

BLANK PAGE

Copyright Acknowledgements:

Source A: From A. Lau, A Moment of Anguish, p.190-1, Times Academic Press 1998, ISBN 981 210 134 9Source B: From A. Lau, p147-8Source C: From Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story, p557-8, Times Editions Pte Limited 1998, ISBN 981 204 983 5Source D: Quoted in T J Bellows, The People's Action Party of Singapore, Yale University Southeast Asia Studies 1970, p56Source E: Quoted in J Drysdale, Singapore, Struggle for Success, p366, Times Books International, reprinted 1996, ISBN 981 204 782 4

Permission to reproduce items where third-party owned material protected by copyright is included has been sought and cleared where possible. Everyreasonable effort has been made by the publisher (UCLES) to trace copyright holders, but if any items requiring clearance have unwittingly been included,the publisher will be pleased to make amends at the earliest possible opportunity.

University of Cambridge International Examinations is part of the Cambridge Assessment Group. Cambridge Assessment is the brand name of University ofCambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is itself a department of the University of Cambridge.

2173/01/SP08

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SINGAPOREin collaboration with

UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE LOCAL EXAMINATIONS SYNDICATEGeneral Certificate of Education Ordinary Level

HISTORY 2173/01

Paper 1 History of Southeast Asia, c. 1870-1967For Examination from 2008

SPECIMEN MARK SCHEME

MAXIMUM MARK: 50

This document consists of 16 printed pages.. . UNIVERSITY of CAMBRIDGE

Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board S&Rs. -, • i ^ •IfxjP' International Examinations

© UCLES & MOE 2006 [Turn over

Section A: Source-Based Case Study

(a) Study Source A. This speech was made before the July 1964 riots, therefore it isuseless as evidence about the riots.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer.[6]

L1 Answer based on provenance/uncritical acceptance only [1]e.g. I agree, it cannot be useful because the speech cannot tell you anything aboutsomething that happened nearly two weeks later.

L2 Disagree: still useful for what it says [2]But just repeats what is in the source without indicating why/how this is useful aboutthe riots.e.g. It's useful because it tells us that the Malays felt they were being treated worsethan during the Japanese occupation.

Allow in this level answers that are based on the source not being useful becausewhat it says has nothing to do with the riots (but such answers must use what it saysto illustrate this point).e.g. No, how can it be useful about the riots when it does not say anything aboutthem? It's just about Malays showing unity because UMNO thinks they are beingtreated badly in Singapore.

L3 Useful/not useful for what it tells us about the riots [3-4]Award 3 marks for useful or not useful, 4 marks for both.e.g. No. I totally disagree. This speech shows that UMNO was busily stirring up badfeelings amongst the Malays that were bound eventually to lead to violence.

Allow in this level answers that agree with the assertion on the grounds that there arespecific things about the riots that this source cannot tell you (but these things, e.g.details of the 21 July procession, must be identified).e.g. Well, it's true in a way that it is useless as evidence about the events of the riots.It cannot tell you anything about the procession on the Prophet Muhammad'sbirthday, or the bottle-throwing incidents that sparked the trouble, because all thatwas in the future when this speech was made.

L4 Evaluation of source content based on cross-reference to other sources, or tospecific contextual knowledge about the riots [5]e.g. / disagree because it is obviously reliable evidence about what caused the riots.It shows UMNO at this rally just before the riots at which they used strong andemotional language and were obviously trying to stir up the Malays in Singaporeagainst Lee Kuan Yew. This definitely was an important cause of the riots as you cansee in Source D where S Rajaratnam shows how stirring up communal feelings waswhat sparked off the riots.

L5 Useful for what it reveals about the UMNO/PAP relationship [6]e.g. No, this is a very useful source because of how much it reveals about UMNO'sfear of the PAP. Syed Ja'afar Albar might not have deliberately tried to causeviolence to break out, but the fact that he attacked Lee in this way shows how theissue of communal relations was totally unresolved within Malaysia, and how muchtrouble it could cause. The riots were an outcome of the struggle between UMNO andPAP, the former committed to a society in which Malays would enjoy special rightsand privileges, and the latter believing in a democratic, non-communal, 'Malaysian'Malaysia.

i UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

(b) Study Sources B and C. How similar are these two sources as evidence about theriots? Explain your answer. [7]

L1 Similarity or difference of provenance/source type [1]e.g. They are not similar because one is from a radio broadcast but the other is froma book.

L2 Similarity of topic [2]e.g. They are both about reasons why the riots took place.

L3 Similarity or difference of content [3-4]Award 3 marks for unsupported examples, 4 marks for explicit support from sources,e.g. Both sources are similar, because they both say that the trouble started becauseof disorder during the Muslim procession. (3 marks)

e.g. They are different because Source B says that the riots were caused by amischief-maker throwi'ng a bottle into the crowd, but Source C says the cause of theriots was when a policeman tried to get a group of marchers to rejoin the main march,and they attacked him. (4 marks)

l_4 Similarity and difference of content [4-5]Only award 5 marks if both examples are explicitly supported,e.g. Both L3 examples.

L5 Viewpoint/Perspective/Tone [6-7]Award 6 marks for identifying and 7 marks for illustrating from both sources.

e.g. They are similar, because both are sceptical over whether the riots werespontaneous.[6 marks]

e.g. They are similar because neither believes that the riots happened spontaneously.In Source C this is explicit since Lee says that there was organisation and planningbehind the riots. In Source B you can tell what he really thinks because the wholepoint is to undermine Tun Razak's account which he keeps saying 'supposedly' or'allegedly', to show it's doubtful that the riots were spontaneous. [7 marks]

i UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/spos - - [Turnover

(c) Study Source D. How reliable is this source as evidence about the causes of theriots? Explain your answer. [6]

L1 Provenance only [1]e.g. Yes, I can believe it. It is from a history of the PAP.

l_2 Uncritical acceptance of content [2]e.g. Yes, it is reliable. It says that there was a hatred campaign going on against thePAP which sparked off serious riots, and this is exactly what happened when all theriots broke out in 1964.

L3 Unsupported assertions of bias [3]e.g. I do not think this is likely to be reliable evidence about the causes as it is writtenby a PAP Minister. It is bound to be a biased account that just gives the PAP'sviewpoint on events.

L4 Reliability affected by date of the source [4]e.g. I'm not sure about how reliable this would be. It must have been produced justafter the riots when views about what had happened were still rather confused andthe whole thing was still very controversial. It's unlikely that an objective account waspossible at that time.

L5 Cross-reference to other sources/specific contextual knowledge [5]e.g. Yes I can believe what this source says when it claims that there was a campaignagainst the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew because if I look at Source A I can see thatUMNO is trying to stir up Malays in Singapore against Lee Kuan Yew.

L6 Evaluation of source content using provenance/purpose/audience etc. [6]e.g. I'm not so sure that I can accept this source as a complete explanation of whatcaused the riots. It tries to put all the blame on the UMNO anti-PAP campaign, but itignores the fact that many Malays felt they had genuine grievances, such as theresettlement issue. Obviously, in a history produced for the PAP's annualcelebrations, he is bound to give an account of the riots which will put his party in agood light.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

(d) Study Source E. Why do you think Tunku Abdul Rahman made this speech?Explain your answer. [6]

L1 Repeats detail of speech, but gives no other explicit reason [1]e.g. He made the speech because he wanted to say that the Malays in Singapore hadfelt neglected.

L2 Context of the riots [2]e.g. He made the speech because this was the time just after the September riots.

L3 Message [3]i.e. What the source means/what you can infer from what it says - not simply what itsays (this is L1).e.g. / think he made the speech because he wanted to get the message across thatthe Malays were not really to blame for the riots.

L4 Purpose of message in relation to riots (e.g. calming the situation) [4]i.e. answers suggesting that the Tunku was trying to gain political advantage from thesituation.

e.g. / think he made this speech because he knew it would get even more support forUMNO. Malays would still be very worried in the aftermath of the riots and he wasreassuring them that he was on their side.

l_5 Purpose of message in relation to the riots [5]i.e. the impact that the message would have on communal relations.

e.g. / think he wanted to let the Malays know that he did not think they were to blamefor what had happened in the riots. By showing them that he understood theirgrievances, he wanted to make sure that the situation calmed down so that therewere no more riots.

L6 To respond to the PAP's account of what caused the riots [6]This can be based on explicit comparison with Source D, but can also be done on animplicit use of material from Source D and elsewhere.

e.g. The causes of the riots were still very controversial in September 1964 and theTunku would have made this speech to get his version of what had happened on therecord. He wants to stress the background causes as he sees them so he stressesthe problems Malays faced in Singapore, and tries to refute the PAP's version ofevents which blamed UMNO for stirring up communal feelings.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08 [Turn over

Section B: Structured-Essay Questions

Note: It is a requirement of the syllabus that answers must be supported by examples drawn fromat least two countries: Indonesia, Malaya, Vietnam. No answer can achieve more than L3 in anyquestion without satisfying this requirement.

2 (a) How different were the ways in which European powers governed their SoutheastAsian colonies in the period 1870-1900? Explain your answer. [12]

L1 Writes about colonial government, but no comparison [1-2]Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

e.g. European powers wanted colonies in Southeast Asia because they were rich inraw materials. Often when they had taken control of a country they would use localrulers to help them govern. [1 mark]

L2 Identifies difference(s) AND/OR similarity(s) [3-4]Award 3 marks for one, 4 marks for both.e.g. They were actually very similar because all real power was in the hands of theEuropeans and they ran the government the way they wished.

L3 Explains difference(s) AND/OR similarity(s), but without examples from at leasttwo countries [4-5]Award 4 marks for explaining one difference/similarity and an additional mark for anysupporting detail, up to a maximum of 5 marks.

e.g. The systems in each of the countries were quite similar because it was thecolonial power that had all the control. For example, in Malaya, the British used theResidential System by which the Sultans had to accept a British Resident who was incharge of law and order, taxation and economic development.

L4 Explains difference(s) OR similarity(s), with examples from at least twocountries [6-7]Award 6 marks for an explained comparison, and an additional mark for any ;

supporting detail or further comparisons, to a maximum of 7 marks.

e.g. The ways in which the Europeans governed their colonies in Southeast Asiawere basically similar. They would appoint an official to be responsible for thegovernment of the colony and he would be under the orders of his government backin Europe. In Indonesia, the Dutch used a Governor-General, who was responsible toa Minister of Colonies back in Holland. In Malaya, it was not very different. Severalstates had a British Resident. The Resident was supposed to just be a help to theSultan - a kind of indirect rule - but in practice they ruled the states directly andreported to the Governor of the Straits Settlements. Whichever way you look at it, theEuropeans had control.ORe.g. In theory, there were some differences in the ways the Europeans ruled theircolonies. The difference is between direct and indirect rule. In the first, the Europeanstate ruled through an official appointed to run the colony on a day-to-day basis, andtraditional kingship was removed. This was the situation in Indonesia, where theDutch used a Governor-General who was responsible to a Minister of Colonies backin Holland. In Malaya, however, the British tried a system of indirect rule, whichretained traditional rulers as a fagade for colonial control. Several states had a BritishResident. The Resident was supposed to just be a help to the Sultan, who would stillbe the ruler of the state and would retain many important functions. The Residentwould be in charge of several important functions like law and order and taxation, buthe would not actually be the ruler. The British went for this system because theywere actually quite reluctant at first to get more involved in Malaya than wasnecessary and hoped that indirect rule would keep administrative costs down.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

L5 Both elements of L4 [8-10 ]Award 8 marks for answers which give an explained similarity and an explaineddifference, and additional marks for any supporting detail or further comparisons, to amaximum of 10 marks.

L6 L5, plus explains 'how far' they were different [11-12]Not just L5, but an explicit consideration of the extent to which they differed.e.g. [As L5 plus] Nonetheless, although it is true that there were differences in detailin the ways that Southeast Asian colonies were run, these were often more apparentthan real. Even in Indonesia, direct rule had many aspects of indirect rule in reality,as the Dutch had to rely on the co-operation of local rulers and chiefs. And in Malaya,over time the British system of indirect rule became more and more direct. TheResidents in Malaya found that they had little alternative but to interfere more in theirstate's affairs than originally envisaged. By the 1880s, the Residents' power hadincreased so much that they were rulers of their states in all but name. To bringabout greater uniformity in how the states were governed, the Federated MalayStates were set up in 1896. This put all the Residents under the control of theResident-General, who was himself under the High Commissioner. This was a muchmore direct system of control over the Malay states, even though the pretence ofmaintaining the Sultans' powers was maintained. So, within the period 1870-1900,the systems in Indonesia and Malay actually became more similar.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/spos ~ ~ [Turnover

(b) 'In the period 1870-1900, the main reason why European powers wanted colonies inSoutheast Asia was to control trade.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer.[13]

L1 Writes about colonisation but without focus on the question [1-2]Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

L2 Describes the given reason, and/or identifies/describes other reason(s) [3-4]Award 3 marks for describing the given reason and/or identifying other reasons. Award4 marks for both reasons.

e.g. Yes, it is true that the main reason was trade. All the European powers wantedraw materials from Southeast Asia and colonising the area was the easiest way to getthe raw materials (3 marks).

L3 Explains reason(s), but without examples from at least two countries [5-6]Award 5 marks for explaining one reason and an additional mark for any supportingdetail, or reason, up to a maximum of 6 marks.

e.g. Trade was easily the main reason for European colonisation in Southeast Asia.The aim of the Dutch was to exploit the Indonesian economy for their own benefit, andto do this they had to colonise Indonesia so as to have political control. The LiberalPolicy which the Dutch introduced in Indonesia in 1870 was clearly to encourage moretrade by encouraging private business to get involved in the Indonesian economy. Thisresulted in a significant increase in the amount of export crops produced and in theprofits earned by the Dutch. They would not have bothered doing this if trade wasn'ttheir main concern.

L4 Explains the given OR other reason(s), with examples from at least two countries[7-8]

Award 7 marks for an explained reason, and an additional mark for supporting detail, orfurther comparisons, to a maximum of 8 marks.

e.g. Trade was easily the main reason for European colonisation in Southeast Asia.Without colonisation the Europeans would have lacked the political control whichenabled them to dominate and dictate the nature of the colonial economy. The aim ofthe Liberal Policy which the Dutch introduced in Indonesia in 1870 was clearly toencourage more trade by encouraging private business to get involved in theIndonesian economy. This resulted in a significant increase in the amount of exportcrops produced. They would not have bothered doing this if trade was not their mainconcern. It was much the same in Malaya. The British would not have got involvedthere at all if not for their trading interests. They wanted tin which Malaya had, and theStraits merchants were looking for opportunities to expand their trade and invest inMalaya, which would provide them with new markets.

L5 Both elements of L4 . [9-11]Award 9 marks for explaining the given and alternative reasons, and additional marksfor any supporting detail or comparisons, to a maximum of 11 marks.

e.g. [As L4 plus] But the motive for colonising an area was not always due to trade. Itcould be simply to prevent another Western power from getting hold of the country. Agood example was the worry that the British had over competition from rivals likeFrance and Germany. When the British heard that the Germans wanted to getcolonies in Malaya, they knew it was time to abandon their previous policy of non-intervention in the Malay states.

L6 Reaches a balanced conclusion based on the relative significance of the reasons[12-13]

e.g. [As L5 plus] However, I still think trade was the most important reason. This isbecause other reasons depended on a trading interest already existing. So, forexample, in Malaya it is true that the British wanted to keep the French and Germansout, but they only wanted to do this because they wanted the trade for themselves. Sothe trade comes first, and the other reason is linked to it.

< UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

(a) How different were the aims of Southeast Asian nationalist movements in theperiod between 1900 and 1941? Explain your answer. [12]

L1 Writes about nationalism but no comparison [1-2]Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

L2 Identifies difference(s) and/or similarity(s) [3-4]Award 3 marks for one, 4 marks for both.

e.g. The aims of the nationalists were not different. Most wanted to remove thecolonial power and to achieve independence. However there were some who thoughtthis could be done best through education and raising awareness, but there wereothers who preferred more direct methods such as organising strikes and politicalagitation.

L3 Explains difference^) AND/OR similarity(s), but without examples from at leasttwo countries [4-5]e.g. The aims of nationalists could be quite different, even within a single country.For example, if you look at Indonesia, many nationalists were influenced bycommunism. They thus wanted to overthrow the Dutch by force and set up acommunist regime. They concentrated on organising workers to cause strikes in thehope there would be a revolution. This actually broke out in 1926, but it was crushed.Other nationalists totally disagreed with this kind of approach. Budi Utomo, forexample, was not politically motivated. It believed in social progress througheducation. It wanted to improve the agriculture and commerce, and promoted therevival of Japanese culture.

L4 Explains difference(s) OR similarity(s), with examples from at least twocountries [6-7]Award 6 marks for an explained comparison, and additional marks for any supportingdetail or further comparisons, to a maximum of 7 marks.

e.g. Actually, many of the nationalists had quite similar aims. For example, if you lookat Indonesia, many nationalists were influenced by communism. They wanted tooverthrow the Dutch by force and concentrated on organising workers to causestrikes in the hope there would be a revolution. This actually broke out in 1926, but itwas crushed. This was similar to the situation in Vietnam where many of the leadingnationalists were communist-inspired like the writer Phan Boi Chau, or Ho Chi Minh,who formed the Communist Party of Indo-China. There were uprisings in 1930-1 butthese were crushed, just as in Indonesia. These nationalists all aimed to get rid oftheir colonial rulers and to introduce communist regimes.ORe.g. The aims of different nationalist groups were not the same. In Vietnam many ofthe leading nationalists were communist-inspired like the writer Phan Boi Chau, or HoChi Minh, who formed the Communist Party of Indo-China, There were uprisings in1930-1 but these were crushed. These nationalists aimed to stir up a revolution as away to get rid of their colonial rulers as did the PKI in Indonesia. However, othernationalists totally disagreed with this kind of approach. In Indonesia, Budi Utomo, forexample, was not politically motivated. It believed in social progress througheducation, and did not aim to overthrow the colonial government.

i UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08 ~ [Turnover

10

L5 Both elements of L4 [8-10]Award 8 marks for answers which give an explained similarity and an explaineddifference, and additional marks for any supporting detail or further comparisons, to amaximum of 10 marks.

L6 L5, plus explains 'how far' they were different [11-12]Not just L5, but an explicit consideration of the extent to which they differed,e.g. [As L5 plus] Although there were large differences in the aims of differentnationalist groups, they had things in common which made them all nationalists. Intheir own ways they all wanted to improve the lives of their people by raising theirawareness of the shortcomings of colonial rule. There was really only a differenceover means rather than ends. They differed over how to do this, whether a violentindependence struggle was the only way, or whether it could be done peacefully.

) UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

11

(b) 'The main reason why the Southeast Asian nationalist movements achieved littlebefore World War II was that they lacked popular support.' How far do you agree?Explain your answer. [13]

L1 Writes about nationalism but without focus on the question [1-2]Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

L2 Describes the given reason, AND/OR identifies/describes other reason(s) [3-4]Award 3 marks for describing the given reason AND/OR identifying/describing otherreason(s). Award 4 marks for both reasons.

e.g. I think this is very true. In most countries, the nationalists were not at all popularand people did not want to go along with their ideas.

L3 Explains reason(s) but without examples from at least two countries [5-6]Award 5 marks for explaining one reason and an additional mark for any supportingdetail, up to a maximum of 5 marks.

e.g. Lack of popular support was a major reason why nationalism did not get very farin Malaya before World War II. Most people identified with their own state and sultanand there was no real sense of Malaya as a country. In any case, no single politicalentity called Malaya existed: people lived in the FMS, the Straits Settlements, or theother Malay states. So there was no country of Malaya to be nationalistic about.UMNO was the first nationalist party for Malays and this was not founded until afterthe war.

L4 Explains the given OR other reason(s) [7-8]Award 7 marks for an explained reason, and additional marks for supporting detail, toa maximum of 8 marks.

e.g. It is true that lack of public support was a major limitation on the growth ofnationalist movements before World War II. In the early years, nationalists weremainly from the educated middle-class, so they were few in number and lacked masssupport. After World War II, the nationalist leaders were also from the educated eliteclass, yet they had popular support. In many areas of Southeast Asia, traditionalrulers and the old way of life continued without that much interference from theEuropeans. Even in Indonesia, where nationalism developed in some parts fairlyquickly, in areas like Borneo and the eastern islands, which did not experience muchEuropean influence, people had no nationalist awareness at all. To some extent thiswas true also of Malaya. Most people there identified with their own state and sultanand there was no real sense of Malaya as a country. So there was no country ofMalaya to be nationalistic about. UMNO was the first nationalist party for Malays andthis wasn't founded until after the war. It was the impact of modernisation — thedevelopment of education and the spread of new ideologies, as well as urbanisationand the destruction of traditional societies - that enabled nationalism to develop masssupport, and this mainly occurred after World War II. Thus, although after WorldWar II the nationalist leaders were also from the educated elite class, for reasonsgiven above they managed to win popular support.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08 ~ [Turn over

12

L5 Both elements of L4 [9-11]Award 9 marks for explaining the given and alternative reasons, and additional marksfor any supporting detail or comparisons, to a maximum of 11 marks.

e.g. [As L4 plus] Another main reason for the lack of nationalist success was that theydid not have the military strength of the Europeans. As soon as the Europeans feltthreatened by a nationalist group, they could suppress it. Look how quickly the Dutchsuppressed the Indonesian communists in 1926. So only the most determined andcommitted people became involved in organised nationalist movements.

L6 Reaches a balanced conclusion based on the relative significance of thereasons [12-13]e.g. [As L5 plus] However, I think the military power of the Europeans was the mostimportant reason. This is because not only does it explain why they could alwayscrush the nationalists when they wanted to, but it is also a reason why the nationalistslacked mass support. Who would want to get involved in a nationalist movementwhen it had so little chance of success? This explains why nationalist movements hadno mass support until after the war. The Japanese shattered the myth of Europeanpower in Southeast Asia. Once people believed the Europeans could be beaten, thenthey were more open to nationalist ideas.

i UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

13

(a) How different were the responses of Southeast Asian nationalists to colonialpowers' attempts to reassert their control after World War II? Explain your answer.

[12]

L1 Writes about the nationalism after World War II but no comparison [1-2]Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

L2 Identifies difference(s) and/or similarity(s) [3-4]Award 3 marks for one, 4 marks for both.e.g. They were similar because both in Vietnam and in Indonesia there werenationalists who fought against attempts by the Europeans to regain control.

L3 Explains difference(s) AND/OR similarity(s), but without examples from at leasttwo countries [4-5]e.g. They were similar because nationalists would not just sit back and let theEuropeans take over again. They resorted to violence to demand for independence.For example, when it became clear in Indonesia that Japanese control wascollapsing, Sukarno declared independence. When the Dutch refused to recognisethe new republic, the Indonesian revolution broke out, which saw violent resistance bythe Indonesians against the re-imposition of colonial rule.

L4 Explains difference(s) OR similarity(s), with examples from at least twocountries [6-7]Award 6 marks for an explained comparison, and additional marks for any supportingdetail or further comparisons, to a maximum of 7 marks.

e.g. They were similar because nationalists would not just sit back and let theEuropeans take over again. For example, when it became clear in Indonesia thatJapanese control was collapsing, Sukarno declared independence. When the Dutchrefused to recognise the new republic, then the Indonesian revolution broke out,which eventually led to full independence by 1949. It was a similar kind of situation inVietnam, where the Vietminh refused to accept that the French could come back.They set up their own republic and had to fight for freedom too. The French wouldnot accept independence for Vietnam and fighting continued until the defeat of theFrench at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, which led to the Geneva Agreements.ORe.g. No, the nationalists did not always react in the same way to colonial regimesbeing restored after World War II. Sometimes they refused to accept that theEuropeans could come back, and this led to violence, but elsewhere progresstowards independence was more peaceful because the nationalists were prepared towork with the Europeans. So in Vietnam, where the Vietminh refused to accept thatthe French could come back, there was a war. They set up their own republic andhad to fight for freedom. The French would not accept independence for Vietnam andfighting continued until the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, which ledto the Geneva Agreements, But in Malaya it was not like this at all. Although theMalays objected to British plans for a Malayan Union, which was seen as a Britishploy to re-assert its rule, they did not fight against it, but instead they campaignedpeacefully, and UMNO was formed, which provided the political leadership and afocus for Malay nationalism. This was to campaign constitutionally for independence.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08 ~ " [Turnover

14

L5 Both elements of L4 [8-10]Award 8 marks for answers which give an explained similarity and an explained

-difference, and additional marks for any supporting detail or further comparisons to amaximum of 10 marks.

L6 L5, plus explains 'how far' they were different [11-12]Not just L5, but an explicit consideration of the extent to which they differed.e.g. [As L5 plus] So although there were quite big differences in the reactions ofnationalists in, say, Indonesia and Malaya, this was really a difference over meansrather than ends. They shared the same goals - to get rid of the Europeans andachieve independence - but they differed over how to do it, whether violence was theonly way, or whether independence could be achieved peacefully.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08

15

(b) 'The main reason why Southeast Asian states achieved independence was thecontribution made by outstanding nationalist leaders.' How far do you agree?Explain your answer. [13]

L1 Writes about independence but without focus on the question [1-2]Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

L2 Describes the given reason, AND/OR identifies/describes other reason(s) [3-4]Award 3 marks for describing the given reason AND/OR identifying/describing otherreason(s). Award 4 marks for both reasons.

e.g. It is true that the main reason for gaining independence was that there wereoutstanding nationalist leaders. Sukarno, Ho Chi Minh and Tunku Abdul Rahman allprovided inspiring leadership in the struggle for independence.

L3 Explains reason(s), but without examples from at least two countries [4-5]Award 4 marks for explaining one reason and an additional mark for any supportingdetail, up to a maximum of 5 marks.

e.g. All independence struggles need effective leadership. Ho Chi Minh is a goodexample. In Vietnam, he founded the Viet Minh movement and led resistance to theJapanese. This gave him the clout to persuade Bao Dai to abdicate, and then set upthe Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945. It was his leadership that enabled theVietnamese people to take advantage of French weakness and fight for theirfreedom.

L4 Explains the given OR other reason(s), with examples from at least twocountries [7-8]Award 7 marks for an explained reason, and additional marks for supporting detail, toa maximum of 8 marks.

e.g. Any independence struggle needs effective leadership. Sukarno had been aprominent nationalist leader in Indonesia for many years before his big chance camealong at the end of the war. He had realised that working with the Japanese wouldallow him to plan for independence, and this kept him in a prominent leadershipposition, so that, when Japanese rule collapsed in 1945, he was the obvious personto declare independence. By seizing this chance, the nationalists had prevented theDutch from being able to re-assert their rule again because of local resistance. So itwas the leadership of Sukarno that made sure the Dutch would not be able to do thiswithout resistance. And in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh founded the Viet Minh movementand led resistance to the Japanese, which gave him the clout to persuade Bao Dai toabdicate, and set up the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945. It was hisleadership that enabled the Vietnamese people to take advantage of Frenchweakness and fight for their freedom. So leadership is the most important reason.

© UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08 - - [Turnover

16

L5 Both elements of L4 [9-11]Award 9 marks for explaining the given and alternative reasons, and additional marks

-for any supporting detail or comparisons, to a maximum of 11 marks.

e.g. [As L3 plus] However, you can also argue that leadership was not the mostimportant reason. Another reason was the Japanese occupation. Vietnam, Malayaand Indonesia were all invaded and taken over by the Japanese during World War II.This showed that the colonial regimes were weak, and that the Europeans could bebeaten. When the war finished, it was only natural that people did not want to beruled by Europeans any more, when they had been shown up as weak, and sopeople were more willing to stand up and resist and fight for freedom.

L6 Reaches a balanced conclusion based on the relative significance of thereasons [12-13]e.g. [As L5 plus] However, what I really think is that each of these factors played itspart in bringing about independence. It is hard to see that the nationalist leaderscould alone have achieved independence. Before World War II, there were plenty ofnationalists, but no independence. It was the war that was the catalyst. It changedattitudes and showed that the Europeans could be beaten. But this alone would nothave been enough if there had been no effective nationalist movements ready to takethe opportunity, and this is where the great leaders came in. They had been workingfor independence, and making preparations, and without them there would have beennobody ready to challenge the Europeans at their time of weakness.

) UCLES & MOE 2006 2173/01/SP08