MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SINGAPORE

in collaboration with
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE LOCAL EXAMINATIONS SYNDICATE
General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level
HISTORY

2173/01

Paper 1 History of Southeast Asia, c. 1870-1967

For Examination from 2008
SPECIMEN PAPER
1 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 A
Answer all parts of Question 1.
Section B
Answer 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 Board

tlw 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 you
are told to use. In answering the questions you should use your knowledge of the topic to help you
interpret and evaluate the sources.

(a) Study Source A.

This speech was made before the July 1964 riots, therefore it is useless as evidence
about 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 your
answer.
[6]
(d) Study Source E.
Why do you think Tunku Abdul Rahman made this speech? Explain your answer.

UCLES & MOE 2006

2173/01/SP08

[6]

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 procession
in Geylang to celebrate Prophet Muhammad's birthday. Serious violence continued for more than a
week as disturbances spread to other parts of the island. In all, 23 people were killed and more
than 400 injured. More rioting occurred in early September, in which a further 12 people were
killed. 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 July

1964 at the UMNO Singapore convention.

Although Singapore has achieved independence through Malaysia, the fate of the Malays today is
even worse than it was during the Japanese occupation. This is the reason UMNO feels it
necessary to hold this convention. I am very happy that today we Malays and Muslims in
Singapore have shown unity, and are prepared to live and die together for our race and for future
generations. 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 in

1998.

Controversy surrounds the question of who set off the fighting. Tun Razak (Malaysian Deputy
Prime Minister), claimed that the violence was unplanned, caused by a mischief-maker (by
implication Chinese) throwing a bottle into the procession celebrating the Prophet's birthday. This
explanation was supposedly based on the account concerning Syed Alwi bin Syed Mohamed, who
was allegedly hit by a bottle while following the procession. Syed Alwi had confronted and scolded
a 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 Chinese
there.
However, there were several versions of what happened, and the police noted that the exact
location 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 in
a predominantly Chinese area. A member of the Federal Reserve Unit (police sent down from
peninsular 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 disturbances
occurred as more groups became unruly and attacked passers-by and innocent bystanders. The
disturbances have spread rapidly throughout the Geylang area. Who or what started this situation
is irrelevant at this moment. All the indications show that there has been organisation and planning
behind 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 the
PAP 10th anniversary celebrations in 1964.

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

From a speech made in Singapore on 21 September 1964 by Tunku Abdul

Rahman.

The July and September riots might have been due to the fact that the Malays in Singapore had
felt neglected and had thought that under Malaysia they were entitled to better treatment which had
not come about. On top of all this, they were being driven from their homes which they had owned
to make way for new flats and so on. When I came to Singapore the last time I promised I would
look into the position of the Malays and the less fortunate people. The central government will do
whatever 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 countries
to 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 Asian
colonies in the period 1870-1900? Explain your answer.
[12]
(b) 'In the period 1870-1900, the main reason why European powers wanted colonies in
Southeast Asia was to control trade.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer.
[13]

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

(a) How different were the aims of Southeast Asian nationalist movements in the period
between 1900 and 1941? Explain your answer.
[12]
(b) The main reason why the Southeast Asian nationalist movements achieved little before
World War II was that they lacked mass support.' How far do you agree? Explain your
answer.
[13]

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 the
contribution made by outstanding nationalist leaders.' How far do you agree? Explain your
answer.
[13]

UCLES & MOE 2006

2173/01/SP08

6
BLANK PAGE

Copyright Acknowledgements:
Source A:
Source B:
Source C:
Source D:
Source E:

From A. Lau, A Moment of Anguish, p.190-1, Times Academic Press 1998, ISBN 981 210 134 9
From A. Lau, p147-8
From Lee Kuan Yew, The Singapore Story, p557-8, Times Editions Pte Limited 1998, ISBN 981 204 983 5
Quoted in T J Bellows, The People's Action Party of Singapore, Yale University Southeast Asia Studies 1970, p56
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. Every
reasonable 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 of
Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate (UCLES), which is itself a department of the University of Cambridge.

2173/01/SP08

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, SINGAPORE

in collaboration with
UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE LOCAL EXAMINATIONS SYNDICATE
General Certificate of Education Ordinary Level

HISTORY

2173/01

Paper 1 History of Southeast Asia, c. 1870-1967

For Examination from 2008
SPECIMEN MARK SCHEME

MAXIMUM MARK: 50

This document consists of 16 printed pages.

. .
Singapore Examinations and Assessment Board

UNIVERSITY of CAMBRIDGE
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 is
useless 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 about
something 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 about
the riots.
e.g. It's useful because it tells us that the Malays felt they were being treated worse
than during the Japanese occupation.
Allow in this level answers that are based on the source not being useful because
what it says has nothing to do with the riots (but such answers must use what it says
to illustrate this point).
e.g. No, how can it be useful about the riots when it does not say anything about
them? It's just about Malays showing unity because UMNO thinks they are being
treated 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 bad
feelings 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 are
specific 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's
birthday, or the bottle-throwing incidents that sparked the trouble, because all that
was in the future when this speech was made.
L4 Evaluation of source content based on cross-reference to other sources, or to
specific 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 and
emotional language and were obviously trying to stir up the Malays in Singapore
against Lee Kuan Yew. This definitely was an important cause of the riots as you can
see in Source D where S Rajaratnam shows how stirring up communal feelings was
what 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's
fear of the PAP. Syed Ja'afar Albar might not have deliberately tried to cause
violence to break out, but the fact that he attacked Lee in this way shows how the
issue of communal relations was totally unresolved within Malaysia, and how much
trouble it could cause. The riots were an outcome of the struggle between UMNO and
PAP, the former committed to a society in which Malays would enjoy special rights
and 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 the
riots? 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 from
a book.
L2 Similarity of topic
e.g. They are both about reasons why the riots took place.

[2]

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 because
of disorder during the Muslim procession. (3 marks)
e.g. They are different because Source B says that the riots were caused by a
mischief-maker throwi'ng a bottle into the crowd, but Source C says the cause of the
riots 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
Only award 5 marks if both examples are explicitly supported,
e.g. Both L3 examples.

[4-5]

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

[6-7]

e.g. They are similar, because both are sceptical over whether the riots were
spontaneous.[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 planning
behind the riots. In Source B you can tell what he really thinks because the whole
point 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 the
riots? Explain your answer.
[6]
L1 Provenance only
e.g. Yes, I can believe it. It is from a history of the PAP.

[1]

l_2 Uncritical acceptance of content

[2]
e.g. Yes, it is reliable. It says that there was a hatred campaign going on against the
PAP which sparked off serious riots, and this is exactly what happened when all the
riots 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 written
by a PAP Minister. It is bound to be a biased account that just gives the PAP's
viewpoint on events.
L4 Reliability affected by date of the source
e.g. I'm not sure about how reliable this would be. It must have been produced
after the riots when views about what had happened were still rather confused
the whole thing was still very controversial. It's unlikely that an objective account
possible at that time.

[4]
just
and
was

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 campaign
against the PAP and Lee Kuan Yew because if I look at Source A I can see that
UMNO 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 what
caused the riots. It tries to put all the blame on the UMNO anti-PAP campaign, but it
ignores the fact that many Malays felt they had genuine grievances, such as the
resettlement issue.
Obviously, in a history produced for the PAP's annual
celebrations, he is bound to give an account of the riots which will put his party in a
good 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 had
felt 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 it
says (this is L1).
e.g. / think he made the speech because he wanted to get the message across that
the 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 the
situation.
e.g. / think he made this speech because he knew it would get even more support for
UMNO. Malays would still be very worried in the aftermath of the riots and he was
reassuring them that he was on their side.
l_5 Purpose of message in relation to the riots
i.e. the impact that the message would have on communal relations.

[5]

e.g. / think he wanted to let the Malays know that he did not think they were to blame
for what had happened in the riots. By showing them that he understood their
grievances, he wanted to make sure that the situation calmed down so that there
were 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 an
implicit use of material from Source D and elsewhere.
e.g. The causes of the riots were still very controversial in September 1964 and the
Tunku would have made this speech to get his version of what had happened on the
record. He wants to stress the background causes as he sees them so he stresses
the problems Malays faced in Singapore, and tries to refute the PAP's version of
events 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 from
at least two countries: Indonesia, Malaya, Vietnam. No answer can achieve more than L3 in any
question without satisfying this requirement.
2

(a) How different were the ways in which European powers governed their Southeast
Asian colonies in the period 1870-1900? Explain your answer.
[12]
L1 Writes about colonial government, but no comparison
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

[1-2]

e.g. European powers wanted colonies in Southeast Asia because they were rich in
raw materials. Often when they had taken control of a country they would use local
rulers 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 the
Europeans and they ran the government the way they wished.
L3 Explains difference(s) AND/OR similarity(s), but without examples from at least
two countries
[4-5]
Award 4 marks for explaining one difference/similarity and an additional mark for any
supporting detail, up to a maximum of 5 marks.
e.g. The systems in each of the countries were quite similar because it was the
colonial power that had all the control. For example, in Malaya, the British used the
Residential System by which the Sultans had to accept a British Resident who was in
charge of law and order, taxation and economic development.
L4 Explains difference(s) OR similarity(s), with examples from at least two
countries
[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 Asia
were basically similar. They would appoint an official to be responsible for the
government of the colony and he would be under the orders of his government back
in Europe. In Indonesia, the Dutch used a Governor-General, who was responsible to
a Minister of Colonies back in Holland. In Malaya, it was not very different. Several
states had a British Resident. The Resident was supposed to just be a help to the
Sultan - a kind of indirect rule - but in practice they ruled the states directly and
reported to the Governor of the Straits Settlements. Whichever way you look at it, the
Europeans had control.
OR
e.g. In theory, there were some differences in the ways the Europeans ruled their
colonies. The difference is between direct and indirect rule. In the first, the European
state ruled through an official appointed to run the colony on a day-to-day basis, and
traditional kingship was removed. This was the situation in Indonesia, where the
Dutch used a Governor-General who was responsible to a Minister of Colonies back
in Holland. In Malaya, however, the British tried a system of indirect rule, which
retained traditional rulers as a fagade for colonial control. Several states had a British
Resident. The Resident was supposed to just be a help to the Sultan, who would still
be the ruler of the state and would retain many important functions. The Resident
would be in charge of several important functions like law and order and taxation, but
he would not actually be the ruler. The British went for this system because they
were actually quite reluctant at first to get more involved in Malaya than was
necessary 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 explained
difference, and additional marks for any supporting detail or further comparisons, to a
maximum 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 detail
in the ways that Southeast Asian colonies were run, these were often more apparent
than 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. The
Residents in Malaya found that they had little alternative but to interfere more in their
state's affairs than originally envisaged. By the 1880s, the Residents' power had
increased so much that they were rulers of their states in all but name. To bring
about greater uniformity in how the states were governed, the Federated Malay
States were set up in 1896. This put all the Residents under the control of the
Resident-General, who was himself under the High Commissioner. This was a much
more direct system of control over the Malay states, even though the pretence of
maintaining 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 in
Southeast Asia was to control trade.' How far do you agree? Explain your answer.[13]
L1 Writes about colonisation but without focus on the question
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

[1-2]

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. Award
4 marks for both reasons.
e.g. Yes, it is true that the main reason was trade. All the European powers wanted
raw materials from Southeast Asia and colonising the area was the easiest way to get
the 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 supporting
detail, 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, and
to do this they had to colonise Indonesia so as to have political control. The Liberal
Policy which the Dutch introduced in Indonesia in 1870 was clearly to encourage more
trade by encouraging private business to get involved in the Indonesian economy. This
resulted in a significant increase in the amount of export crops produced and in the
profits earned by the Dutch. They would not have bothered doing this if trade wasn't
their 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, or
further 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 which
enabled them to dominate and dictate the nature of the colonial economy. The aim of
the Liberal Policy which the Dutch introduced in Indonesia in 1870 was clearly to
encourage more trade by encouraging private business to get involved in the
Indonesian economy. This resulted in a significant increase in the amount of export
crops produced. They would not have bothered doing this if trade was not their main
concern. It was much the same in Malaya. The British would not have got involved
there at all if not for their trading interests. They wanted tin which Malaya had, and the
Straits merchants were looking for opportunities to expand their trade and invest in
Malaya, 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 marks
for 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. It
could be simply to prevent another Western power from getting hold of the country. A
good example was the worry that the British had over competition from rivals like
France and Germany. When the British heard that the Germans wanted to get
colonies in Malaya, they knew it was time to abandon their previous policy of nonintervention 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 is
because other reasons depended on a trading interest already existing. So, for
example, in Malaya it is true that the British wanted to keep the French and Germans
out, but they only wanted to do this because they wanted the trade for themselves. So
the 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 the
period between 1900 and 1941? Explain your answer.
[12]
L1 Writes about nationalism but no comparison
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

[1-2]

L2 Identifies difference(s) and/or similarity(s)

Award 3 marks for one, 4 marks for both.

[3-4]

e.g. The aims of the nationalists were not different. Most wanted to remove the
colonial power and to achieve independence. However there were some who thought
this could be done best through education and raising awareness, but there were
others who preferred more direct methods such as organising strikes and political
agitation.
L3 Explains difference^) AND/OR similarity(s), but without examples from at least
two 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 by
communism. They thus wanted to overthrow the Dutch by force and set up a
communist regime. They concentrated on organising workers to cause strikes in the
hope 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, for
example, was not politically motivated. It believed in social progress through
education. It wanted to improve the agriculture and commerce, and promoted the
revival of Japanese culture.
L4 Explains difference(s) OR similarity(s), with examples from at least two
countries
[6-7]
Award 6 marks for an explained comparison, and additional marks for any supporting
detail or further comparisons, to a maximum of 7 marks.
e.g. Actually, many of the nationalists had quite similar aims. For example, if you look
at Indonesia, many nationalists were influenced by communism. They wanted to
overthrow the Dutch by force and concentrated on organising workers to cause
strikes in the hope there would be a revolution. This actually broke out in 1926, but it
was crushed. This was similar to the situation in Vietnam where many of the leading
nationalists 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 but
these were crushed, just as in Indonesia. These nationalists all aimed to get rid of
their colonial rulers and to introduce communist regimes.
OR
e.g. The aims of different nationalist groups were not the same. In Vietnam many of
the leading nationalists 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 but these were crushed. These nationalists aimed to stir up a revolution as a
way to get rid of their colonial rulers as did the PKI in Indonesia. However, other
nationalists totally disagreed with this kind of approach. In Indonesia, Budi Utomo, for
example, was not politically motivated.
It believed in social progress through
education, 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 explained
difference, and additional marks for any supporting detail or further comparisons, to a
maximum 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 different
nationalist groups, they had things in common which made them all nationalists. In
their own ways they all wanted to improve the lives of their people by raising their
awareness of the shortcomings of colonial rule. There was really only a difference
over means rather than ends. They differed over how to do this, whether a violent
independence 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 little
before 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
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

[1-2]

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 other
reason(s). Award 4 marks for both reasons.
e.g. I think this is very true. In most countries, the nationalists were not at all popular
and 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 supporting
detail, up to a maximum of 5 marks.
e.g. Lack of popular support was a major reason why nationalism did not get very far
in Malaya before World War II. Most people identified with their own state and sultan
and there was no real sense of Malaya as a country. In any case, no single political
entity called Malaya existed: people lived in the FMS, the Straits Settlements, or the
other 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 after
the war.
L4 Explains the given OR other reason(s)
[7-8]
Award 7 marks for an explained reason, and additional marks for supporting detail, to
a maximum of 8 marks.
e.g. It is true that lack of public support was a major limitation on the growth of
nationalist movements before World War II. In the early years, nationalists were
mainly from the educated middle-class, so they were few in number and lacked mass
support. After World War II, the nationalist leaders were also from the educated elite
class, yet they had popular support. In many areas of Southeast Asia, traditional
rulers and the old way of life continued without that much interference from the
Europeans. Even in Indonesia, where nationalism developed in some parts fairly
quickly, in areas like Borneo and the eastern islands, which did not experience much
European influence, people had no nationalist awareness at all. To some extent this
was true also of Malaya. Most people there identified with their own state and sultan
and there was no real sense of Malaya as a country. So there was no country of
Malaya to be nationalistic about. UMNO was the first nationalist party for Malays and
this wasn't founded until after the war. It was the impact of modernisation the
development of education and the spread of new ideologies, as well as urbanisation
and the destruction of traditional societies - that enabled nationalism to develop mass
support, and this mainly occurred after World War II. Thus, although after World
War II the nationalist leaders were also from the educated elite class, for reasons
given 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 marks
for 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 they
did not have the military strength of the Europeans. As soon as the Europeans felt
threatened by a nationalist group, they could suppress it. Look how quickly the Dutch
suppressed the Indonesian communists in 1926. So only the most determined and
committed people became involved in organised nationalist movements.
L6 Reaches a balanced conclusion based on the relative significance of the
reasons
[12-13]
e.g. [As L5 plus] However, I think the military power of the Europeans was the most
important reason. This is because not only does it explain why they could always
crush the nationalists when they wanted to, but it is also a reason why the nationalists
lacked mass support. Who would want to get involved in a nationalist movement
when it had so little chance of success? This explains why nationalist movements had
no mass support until after the war. The Japanese shattered the myth of European
power in Southeast Asia. Once people believed the Europeans could be beaten, then
they 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 colonial
powers' 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
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

[1-2]

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 were
nationalists who fought against attempts by the Europeans to regain control.
L3 Explains difference(s) AND/OR similarity(s), but without examples from at least
two countries
[4-5]
e.g. They were similar because nationalists would not just sit back and let the
Europeans take over again. They resorted to violence to demand for independence.
For example, when it became clear in Indonesia that Japanese control was
collapsing, Sukarno declared independence. When the Dutch refused to recognise
the new republic, the Indonesian revolution broke out, which saw violent resistance by
the Indonesians against the re-imposition of colonial rule.
L4 Explains difference(s) OR similarity(s), with examples from at least two
countries
[6-7]
Award 6 marks for an explained comparison, and additional marks for any supporting
detail or further comparisons, to a maximum of 7 marks.
e.g. They were similar because nationalists would not just sit back and let the
Europeans take over again. For example, when it became clear in Indonesia that
Japanese control was collapsing, Sukarno declared independence. When the Dutch
refused 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 in
Vietnam, 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 would
not accept independence for Vietnam and fighting continued until the defeat of the
French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, which led to the Geneva Agreements.
OR
e.g. No, the nationalists did not always react in the same way to colonial regimes
being restored after World War II. Sometimes they refused to accept that the
Europeans could come back, and this led to violence, but elsewhere progress
towards independence was more peaceful because the nationalists were prepared to
work with the Europeans. So in Vietnam, where the Vietminh refused to accept that
the French could come back, there was a war. They set up their own republic and
had to fight for freedom. The French would not accept independence for Vietnam and
fighting continued until the defeat of the French at Dien Bien Phu in 1954, which led
to the Geneva Agreements, But in Malaya it was not like this at all. Although the
Malays objected to British plans for a Malayan Union, which was seen as a British
ploy to re-assert its rule, they did not fight against it, but instead they campaigned
peacefully, and UMNO was formed, which provided the political leadership and a
focus 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 a
maximum 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 of
nationalists in, say, Indonesia and Malaya, this was really a difference over means
rather than ends. They shared the same goals - to get rid of the Europeans and
achieve independence - but they differed over how to do it, whether violence was the
only 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 the
contribution made by outstanding nationalist leaders.' How far do you agree?
Explain your answer.
[13]
L1 Writes about independence but without focus on the question
Award 1 mark for each detail, to a maximum of 2 marks.

[1-2]

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 other
reason(s). Award 4 marks for both reasons.
e.g. It is true that the main reason for gaining independence was that there were
outstanding nationalist leaders. Sukarno, Ho Chi Minh and Tunku Abdul Rahman all
provided 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 supporting
detail, up to a maximum of 5 marks.
e.g. All independence struggles need effective leadership. Ho Chi Minh is a good
example. In Vietnam, he founded the Viet Minh movement and led resistance to the
Japanese. This gave him the clout to persuade Bao Dai to abdicate, and then set up
the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945. It was his leadership that enabled the
Vietnamese people to take advantage of French weakness and fight for their
freedom.
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 additional marks for supporting detail, to
a maximum of 8 marks.
e.g. Any independence struggle needs effective leadership. Sukarno had been a
prominent nationalist leader in Indonesia for many years before his big chance came
along at the end of the war. He had realised that working with the Japanese would
allow him to plan for independence, and this kept him in a prominent leadership
position, so that, when Japanese rule collapsed in 1945, he was the obvious person
to declare independence. By seizing this chance, the nationalists had prevented the
Dutch from being able to re-assert their rule again because of local resistance. So it
was the leadership of Sukarno that made sure the Dutch would not be able to do this
without resistance. And in Vietnam, Ho Chi Minh founded the Viet Minh movement
and led resistance to the Japanese, which gave him the clout to persuade Bao Dai to
abdicate, and set up the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in 1945. It was his
leadership that enabled the Vietnamese people to take advantage of French
weakness 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 most
important reason. Another reason was the Japanese occupation. Vietnam, Malaya
and 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 be
beaten. When the war finished, it was only natural that people did not want to be
ruled by Europeans any more, when they had been shown up as weak, and so
people were more willing to stand up and resist and fight for freedom.
L6 Reaches a balanced conclusion based on the relative significance of the
reasons
[12-13]
e.g. [As L5 plus] However, what I really think is that each of these factors played its
part in bringing about independence. It is hard to see that the nationalist leaders
could alone have achieved independence. Before World War II, there were plenty of
nationalists, but no independence. It was the war that was the catalyst. It changed
attitudes and showed that the Europeans could be beaten. But this alone would not
have been enough if there had been no effective nationalist movements ready to take
the opportunity, and this is where the great leaders came in. They had been working
for independence, and making preparations, and without them there would have been
nobody ready to challenge the Europeans at their time of weakness.

) UCLES & MOE 2006

2173/01/SP08