ASRJC 2025 JC2 H2 P2 Preliminary Exams Suggested Responses

1 Anderson Serangoon Junior College History Unit Name: 2025 JC2 H2 Paper 2 Preliminary Examinations Class: Suggested Responses Section A – Source-Based Case Study Date: 1(a) Compare and contrast the evidence provided in Sources A and B on the reasons for Myanmar’s membership into ASEAN in 1997. [10] Similarities Sources A and B are similar in showing that Myanmar’s admission into ASEAN would help to foster regional cooperation and contribute to regional security. • Source A – ‘Myanmar’s admission to ASEAN marks a new chapter in regional harmony.’ • Source B – ‘Politically, it is better to bring them into the tent than leave them out where instability festers.’ Insights to similarities – Using common action CK By the 1990s, prevailing geopolitical and institutional context made it strategically important for Myanmar to join ASEAN. The end of the Cold War meant that there was little need to maintain the ideological blocs, meaning that Myanmar’s admission would be less likely to undermine current members’ interest. Furthermore, give the issues arising from the junta’s government against Aung San Suu Kyi, both ASEAN and Myanmar viewed that it was important for Myanmar not to be politically isolated. For ASEAN, Myanmar’s admission would allow it to continuously engage Myanmar over the issue to create opportunities for resolution, thereby helping to bring political stability. For Myanmar, its admission would minimise the political isolation that could help the junta go vernment maintain legitimacy. Differences Source A and B differ on the nature of the reasons for Myanmar’s membership into ASEAN in 1997. • Source A – ‘Our aspiration is to contribute to ASEAN’s goal of unity through peaceful coexistence and mutual respect.’ → highlighting that the goals are idealistic and for Myanmar to move towards more normative goals that are in alignment to regional goals. • Source B – Myanmar’s admission ‘is a pragmatic step: economically, Myanmar is rich in resources and offers untapped potential for trade and connectivity.’ Insights to differences – Using author’s purpose • Source A – Myanmar being a new member joining is likely to want to gain legitimacy by assuring ASEAN of its peaceful intentions to show a rhetorical alignment with ASEAN values. This was important in view of its reputation being under fire as a result of its oppre ssive response against protests the junta government and placing Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest despite being voted into government. Furthermore, given that this was a key priority for Myanmar and economically Myanmar was unlikely to make sign ificant contributions to regional economic cooperation, it would help to explain why Source A focused more on its contributions to the larger prevailing ASEAN goals. • Source B – Malaysian PM who was addressing the international community who at the time condemned ASEAN for admitting Myanmar into the regional organisation because of its actions were viewed negatively and Mahathir, who had strongly advocated and led the organisation in its engagement of Myanmar was trying to justify ASEAN’s actions. Therefore explaining why the source emphasised the pragmatic benefits to convince both its members and western critics for admitting Myanmar into ASEAN.

2 1(b) How far do Sources A – F support the view that the expansion of ASEAN’s membership in the 1990s undermined ASEAN’s strength as a regional organisation? [30] Sources C, D, E and F support the assertion showing that the expansion of ASEAN’s membership in the 1990s undermined ASEAN’s strength in terms of weakening its unity and affecting its credibility as a regional organisation. Sources A, B and to some C and F challenges the assertion, showing how the expansion of membership helped to enhance its regional legitimacy and create to potential to further regional cooperation. In view of the above, the support sources are preferred. Sources C, D, E and F support the assertion showing how the expansion of ASEAN’s membership in the 1990s had indeed undermined ASEAN’s strength in terms of weakening its efforts at regional cooperation because of greater diversity of views and undermining its credibility in managing regional conflicts. Source C helps to establish the ways in which ASEAN’s strength was undermined as seen when ‘it struggled to respond to human rights concerns in Myanmar’ and the enlargement also meant that ‘consensus was harder to achieve.’ This meant that the enlargement came ‘at the cost of decisiveness and diplomatic leverage.’ Source F reiterates one of the issues where ‘enlargement complicated the consensus model’ with the ‘developmental and governance disparities between original and newer members [making it] difficult to align on key issues like democracy’, highlighting the institutional limits of ASEAN that was highlighted because of greater diversity of political views. Further explanation of how ASEAN’s increase meant greater divergences in interests is seen in Source E which shows how the expansion of its membership worsened regional cooperation because of the need to accommodate greater ‘divergences of national interests’. This was seen with the example of how Cambodia repeatedly blocked the ‘joint communiques critical of Chinese actions’ in the South China Sea dispute which showed how the ‘external powers exploit the internal cleavages.’ Source E further elaborates by noting that ASEAN’s principle of non-interference became a source of the organisation’s ineffectiveness in responding to the humanitarian issues taking place in Myanmar and Cambodia. An example of ASEAN’s inability to deal with the humanitarian issues taking place in Myanmar is seen with Source D that shows a woman, representing ASEAN, who is being urinated on by a baby, representing Myanmar. The diaper box with the label ‘Bloody Crackdown Baby Dry Diapers’ is referring to the violent military suppression of dissent in Myanmar taking place in the 1990s. The cartoon shows the woman trying to take responsibility for Myanmar but ASEAN is being dirtied in doing so. Hence the cartoon suggest that Myanmar is a disruptive, violent child that ASEAN struggles to discipline or manage, and ASEAN’s attempt to “take care of it” damages ASEAN’s own image and credibility. The point made by the support sources are reliable when considering the prevailing context of the time. The reliability of Source C may be called to question given how the FEER was often critical of authoritarian regime and therefore less sympathetic to ASEAN and hence may focus disproportionately on ASEAN’s shortcomings. Yet the issues put forth in Source C were based on issues with the consensus model i.e. the ASEAN Way seen in Sources C, F and E was most evident following Vietnam’s admission in 1995. Vie tnam wanted pushed for ASEAN to take a more assertive position against China on the South China Sea dispute to prevent further Chinese expansion in the South China Seas. However, the diverging interests seen in how Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia being reluctant to antagonise China led ASEAN to only issue ‘serious concern’ but did not name China nor directly condemn China’s action. This meant that ASEAN could not exert significant pressure on China thereby undermining ASEAN’s strength as an organisation. The reliability of Source D may also be called to question as the Burmese exiles who are hostile to the junta government were likely to be sceptical of ASEAN’s engagement policy with Myanmar. However the point made by the source is reliable given how ASEAN received extensive western criticism for its inclusion of Myanmar into ASEAN in 1997. The inclusion effectively meant that ASEAN was legitimising a brutal military government and there was also little intervention to address Myanmar’s human rights abuses such as violent killings o