Fajar 4NA SS Prelims 2019 LORMS

1 Fajar Secondary School, 4NA Prelims 2019 SUGGESTED ANSWERS Section A: Source-Based Question (35m) (a) Study Source A. What can you infer about the role of foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore? Explain your answer. [5] Level Level Description Marks L1 Describes the topic i.e. FDWs without stating any message / Lifting from source  There are a lot of FDWs in Singapore.  FDWs are like a swiss army knife. [1] L2 Inference of sub-message / Weak inference Award the higher mark to answers w ith supporting details (evidence). Submessage:  FDWs are scared to work in Singapore. [2-3] L3 Inferences based on content + link to question 4m for Inference, supported (many roles mentioned only) 5m for well-explained answers (mention of FDWs not liking it/ intimidation to work) e.g. I can infer that FDWs have too many roles to juggle in Singapore. As I can see from the source, the FDW is portrayed as a swiss army knife and has many ‘arms’ extending out of her, representing the different roles and jobs that she must do. For example, she is expected to cook, clean, iron, as well as walk the dog. She looks worried and intimidated due to the many roles that is expected of her. This shows how FDWs in Singapore are treated unfairly because they have too man y responsibilities. [4-5]

2 (b) Study Source B. What is the intention of this source? Explain your answer. [6] Level Level Description Marks L1 Lifting / Copies the source The intention is for Ms Teo to respond to the FDWs being listed on Carousell. [1] L2 Weak inference / Inference unsupported / Misinterpretation 2m for weak inference 3m for weak inference + supporting details/evidence Weak inference:  FDWs put in a lot of effort in working here.  FDWs are caring towards their employers  We should be more caring towards FDWs [2-3] L3 Inference supported 4m for 1 supported inference Inference: FDWs should be shown respect and dignity. As I can see from Source B, Ms Teo says that the act of “marketing” FDWs on Carousell “ in such an undignified manner is not only insensitive, but absolutely unacceptable ”. She disapproves of the Carousell listings of FDWs. [4] L4 Explains purpose, supported 6m for purpose answer with support (acceptable inference and reaction) Cap at L3/4 for Weak Impact. The intention is for Ms Teo to convince Singaporeans that FDWs deserve to be treated with respect so that Singaporeans will stand up when they see FDWs being treated disrespectfully, like being treated as commodities on Carousell. In doing so, she hopes that Singaporeans would empathise with FDWs and be more caring towards them. As I can see from Source B, Ms Teo says that the act of “marketing” FDWs on Carousell “ in such an undignified manner is not only insensitive, but absolutely unacceptable ”. Weak impact = so that Singaporeans will understand what the MOM is trying to do. [5-6]

3 (c) Study Sources C and D. How different are these two sources? Explain your answer. [7] Level Level Description Marks L1 Similarity or Difference of provenance/source type/ source topic Both sources talk about FDWs in Singapore. Both are articles. [1] L2 One-sided or Half matching Source B says that FDWs need more food to eat, while Source C is encouraging towards FDWs having a w eekly off day. [2] L3 Similarity OR Difference in content No evidence = L3/3 With evidence = L3/4 [3-4] L4 Similarity AND Difference in content No evidence = L4/5 With evidence = L4/6 [Difference] Both sources are different in whether the FDWs are treated fairly or not . Source C shows how the FDW is treated unfairly, but Source D shows how the FDW is treated fairly . C mentions how Paulene’s employers only left her “$20” and “ half a can of luncheon meat, some dumplings, eggs, noodles and onions ”, whi ch is not enough for one week’s worth of food. However in D, Hani’s employer ensures that she has her rest day, and even “supports her study by paying the fees for her ”. [Similarity] Both sources are similar in showing how the FDW takes the initiative in taking care of themselves . In Source C, she says that “she has had to use her own money to buy enough food ”. This shows how she has to take care of her basi c necessity of food. In Source D , Hani take the initiative to take a course during her rest day so t hat she has “ a chance to better ” herself and maybe start her “own small business” when she goes back to Indonesia. [5-6] L5 Difference in purpose (supported) [7]

4 Level Level Description Marks Cap at L4/6 for answers with no valid Content paragraphs, but valid Purpose paragraph. Both so urces are different in tone because So urce C is critical of employers who are not mindful of their FDW needs for proper meals, but Source D is praising employers who allow freedom to their FDWs. In C, Paulene, a FDW, is left with little food and money when her employer left for a one -week holiday. In fact, she “had to use her own money to buy enough food”, which shows how uncaring her employer is. But in D, it paints a happier picture of Hani, a FDW, who had a “weekly rest day” and is also allowed to take c lasses every alternate Sundays and whose employer even “supports her study by paying the fees for her”. OR Both sources are similar in purpose which is to convince Singaporeans that FDWs are humans too and deserve to be treated with more care and dignity. C’s impact is for employers to be more caring towards their FDWs, while D wants employers to continue being caring towards their FDWs, just like Hani’s employer. In C, Paulene, a FDW, is left with little food and money when her employer left for a one -week holiday. In fact, she “had to use her own money to buy enough food”, which shows how uncaring her employer is. In D, it paints a happier picture of Hani, a FDW, who had a “weekly rest day” and is also allowed to take classes every alternate Sundays and whose employer even “supports her study by paying the fees for her”. Even though both sources depict different FDWs, both wish to encourage employers to be caring to their FDWs.

5 (d) Study Source E. Is this source reliable in showing that foreign dom estic workers in Singapore are treated unfairly? Explain your answer. [7] Level Level Description Marks L1 Lifting / Copies the source / Not answering the question This source is an extract from a research about forced labour in Singapore. [1] L2 Weak inference / Inference unsupported / Misinterpretation / Typicality 2m for weak inference Weak inference: This source is reliable in showing how HOME is working hard to ensure the well-being of FDWs in Singapore. Typicality: This source is relia ble in showing how FDWs are being mistreated, but it does not apply to all FDWs. [2] L3 Reliable/ not reliable based on content 3m for no evidence, 4m for answers with evidence This source is reliable in showing that foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore are treated unfairly because there is a high number of cases of FDWs who come to HOME “for help” and to report being mistreated. As I can see from the table, over a 12 -month period, there are 483 cases of FDWs who report to being “overwork”, and 4 72 faced “verbal abuse. These are high numbers of FDWs just for a 12 -month period. OR This source is not reliable in showing that foreign domestic workers (FDWs) in Singapore are treated unfairly because it is just based on one research report, over a 12 -month period. As I can see from Source E, the statistics are only “over a 12 -month period”. Furthermore, we do not have qualitative evidence of the FDWs who ask for help, and whether they are also fair towards their employers,