FU HUA SEC SCH PRELIMS 4N 2019 SS Qn and Ans

Candidate Name: Class Index No. FUHUA SECONDARY SCHOOL 4NA Secondary Four Normal (Academic) Preliminary Examination 2019 Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Seconda ry Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fuhua Secondary Fu hua Secondary Fuhua Secondary _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ Humanities 2175/01 & 2176/01 Paper 1 Social Studies 16 August 2019 0755 - 0940 1 hour 45 minutes Additional Materials: Writing papers _____________________________________________________________________________________________________ READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST Write your name, class and index number on the work you hand in. Write in dark blue or black pen. Do not use staples, paper clips, glue or correction fluid. Answer all questions. Write your answers in the writing paper provided. Begin Sections A and B on a new piece of paper. At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together. Tie each section separately. The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question or part question. Setter: Mr Ian Tai Vetter: Ms Chan Bijun This question paper consists of 6 printed pages including this page. PARENT'S SIGNATURE FOR EXAMINER'S USE Section A Section B Total 35 15 50

2 Section A (Source-Based Case Study) Question 1 is compulsory for all candidates. 1 Exploring Citizenship and Governance 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. ln answering the questions you should use your knowledge of the topic to help you interpret and evaluate the sources. 1a) Study Source A. What can you infer from Source A? Explain your answer. [5] b) Study Sources B and C. Does Source B prove that Source C is reliable? Explain your answer. [7] c) Study Source D. How useful is this source in showing that enough is being done to ensure safety in the army? Explain your answer. [7] d) Study Source E. Why was this post written? Explain your answer. [6] e) How far do the sources in the case study show that the Singapore Armed Forces is doing enough to ensure the safety of its men ? Explain your answer. [10]

3 Is the Singapore Armed Forces doing enough to ensure the safety of its men? BACKGROUND INFORMATION Read this carefully. It may help you to answer some of the questions. Over the past four years, the number of accidents in the Singapore Armed Forces (SAF) has been growing. The most recent one, where Corporal Aloysius Pang was crushed by the barrel of a gun while in an artillery vehicle received the most coverage and has sp arked many to ask: Is the SAF doing enough to ensure the safety of its men? Are accidents caused by the lack of safety within the SAF? Or is it due to reasons beyond their control? Study the following sources to find out more about safety in the SAF. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Source A: A comment by a local in a forum regarding the death of Aloysius Pang in January 2019. People ought to be sacked and the whole Army needs to be revamped. Anyone can tell that something is seriously wrong with the Army with so many deaths in training. How many more deaths are needed before we find out all the potential death traps any NS man might get into each time they go for training? I don’t know what officers and sergeants are doing nowadays. Drinking coffee and slacking off instead of taking charge . The accident could be prevented if proper safety measures were in place and the officers had told Aloysius and the other two what to do. The Army is responsible for the death of Aloysius Pang. Source B: The conclusion of an independent investigation* on the cause of death of Aloysius Pang, read out at Parliament on May 2019. All three soldiers in the vehicle, the Gun Commander, the Technician, and Corporal Pang, were briefed on the safety rules. They knew no one should stand below the gun barrel while it was lowered. Corporal Pang knew he was in the danger zone but did not move… If any soldier in the cabin had followed the rules, this wouldn’t have happened. All three ignored the safety rules. The reason given for not complying was that they wanted to get on with it. They did not want to wait a few extra seconds. Improving the level of safety in the army… is not about making new policies. Enough was done, but if safety is not taken seriously by the men, accidents will happen. *Independent investigation: A group of experts, not hired by the SAF or Ministry of Defence, who investigated and presented their findings regarding Aloysius Pang’s death.

4 Source D: A statement by the Minister of Defence when questioned by parents about the safety of their sons during NS after Aloysius Pang’s death. I’ve said very clearly to the recruits: anybody can stop unsafe training or practices. If you think that someone is pushing you or your buddy beyond what you can cope, voice out. That’s the way we maintain realistic training and look after our men. If they are afraid their commanders will punish them for voicing out concerns, servicemen can always use the safety hotlines to report issues anonymously. We will take action against those commanders. All Army commanders know that any action that endangers lives will not be tolerated. The safety and welfare of the men is always our top priority. Source C: A diagram created by a local netizen, explaining Aloysius Pang’s death.

5 Source E: An online post made by a local youth who is serving National Service. Having good safety precautions are necessary, I don’t disagree. My argument is that safety precautions in the SAF have gone way too far. To the point of compromising effective training. Going for a simple run now requires so many supporting elements: a water point with ice, a convoy of vehicles, an ambulance and medic… The moment someone feels dizzy, the training sergeants have to end training for the rest of us recruits. Worst, when a death or injury occurs, people start blaming the army and putting training on hold. When in most cases, like with Aloysius Pang, it was literally their own fault. I want to make the most of my two years in NS and pass out of the army as a trained soldier. Why should a few soldie rs getting themselves injured or killed carelessly compromise the effectiveness of our training? Source F: An online post made by a local who served National Service. I was an instructor in Basic Military Training (BMT) during my NS days. I used to take it easy on the recruits, many of whom were only a few years younger than me. However, most of the sergeants at BMT were not so nice. One sergeant I knew was very cruel. Don’t know what his problem was, he always like to tekan* his recruits. One fine day, when training in the field, he asked one of the recruits to empty his water bottles during training. End up the poor recruit ha d heat stroke and brain damage. Last I heard, the parents of the recruit tried to sue him. I don’t know what happened in the end. If there’s an accident in training, there’s a 90% chance an army sergeant is behind something stupid. Tekan: Punish Source Acknowledgements Source A: https://www.chan