ACSI 2025 HIST PRELIM P1 MS

1 ACS INDEPENDENT 2025 Y4 HISTORY P1 PRELIM Suggested Answers 1a) Study Source A. What does the advertisement’s message reveal about British attitude and its role in the world? Explain your answer. 5m L1 Misunderstands/paraphrase with no inference/describes source. 1m L2 Inference unsupported. I can infer that the British were condescending and prejudiced towards the non- Europeans. 2m L3 Inference/s supported and explained. Award 3m for 1 inference and 4m for 2 inferences. Attitude: I can infer that the British had a negative attitude as they were condescending and prejudiced towards the non- Europeans. This is evident in Source A where the British perceived the people in ‘the dark corners of the earth’ as backward and unrefined as they lacked the “virtues of cleanliness”. Role in the world: The fact that the British saw it as their White Man’s burden/moral duty to bring civilisation (bring ‘lightening’) to ‘the dark corners of the earth’ / to reform/teach the non-Europeans meant that they perceived the people there to be inferior/undeveloped and viewed them with disdain. 3- 4m L4 Inference supported and explained with source evidence and in context. Award 5m only if inferences address both attitude and role in the world. L3 + This was the common attitude of the British at the time as the fact that the soap manufacturers used the British’s heightened sense of superiority to promote their brand of soap must mean that this was how the British must have felt and thus reflective of the British attitudes towards the people in dark corners of the world/SEA/the colonies. 4- 5m

2 b) Study Sources B and C. How similar are these two sources? Explain your answer. 6m L1 Mismatch 1m L2 No BOC, Valid comparison but with no evidence/Difference in provenance only. Source B is by a Singaporean historian while Source C was by a British historian hence, they have different viewpoints. 2m L3 Similarity and/or difference in content explained. (Award 3m max if only evidence provided but no explanation, 4m for 1 analysis and 5m for both Sim and Diff) Both sources are similar in showing that the British foreign policy changed from non-intervention to intervention in the 1870s. Source B: British foreign policy had long been based on non-commitment… Several forces were at work, both in Southeast Asia and in Britain itself to bring about a change in British foreign policy .” This shows that that the British was shifting towards a forward movement to expand its influence. Source C: “The decision made by Lord Kimberly in 1873 to take some action in Malaya, and if necessary to intervene in the affairs of the states...” This means that due to circumstances, the British non-intervention policy changed. Both sources are different is showing the reasons for the change in British foreign policy. Source B: “… In Britain was growing the imperial idea that it was the role of the British empire to lead the world in the arts of civilization, to bring light to the dark places, to teach the true political method… and act as trustee for the weak. ” This means that the reason for British intervention/change in British foreign policy was due to the sense of superiority the British felt in their duty to lead the rest of the world. Source C: This source shows the reason for the change in British foreign policy was the “fear of foreign – specifically German- intervention.”. the newly formed Germany was expanding its empire and there was concern that they would target the territories in Asia/SEA, blocking British economic interests. OR Possible to argue that the sources are similar in the reasons for British intervention/change in British foreign policy: To build empire/imperialistic spirit/not losing out to foreign rivals. 3- 5m

3 L4 Explains similarity/difference in purpose. (Award 5m only if impact/evidence lacking in purpose explanation). The purpose of both sources is similar in that they aim to explain the shift in British policy towards intervention in Malaya in the 1870s, The purpose of Source B is to explain the shift in British foreign policy in the 1860s– 1870s from non-commitment to active imperialism in Southeast Asia by analyzing both external pressures and internal ideological motivations. Written by a Singaporean historian in 1965—a time of decolonization and national reflection—it was likely intended for students and readers examining colonial history. The historian highlights evidence such as European rivalry (Dutch in Indonesia, French in Indochina) and Britain’s growing belief in its civilizing mission (“to bring light to the dark places”), aiming to show how these factors justified and drove imperial expansion, and to encourage critical understanding of the colonial mindset and its impact on the region. The purpose of Dr. Cowan’s 1961 source is to explain the primary motive behind Britain’s decision to intervene in Malaya in the 1870s. As a British historian writing in the early 1960s, Cowan was part of a scholarly movement reassessing imperial history during the era of decolonization. Aimed at academic readers, his message is that British policy was driven not by local conditions or ec onomic interests, but by fear of foreign— specifically German— intervention, as seen in his clear statement of this cause. C owan intended to challenge older, simplistic interpretations and encourage a more critical understanding of British imperialism as shaped by European geopolitical rivalries. Thus, while both sources aim to interpret the causes of British involvement, Cowan focuses narrowly on geopolitical rivalry with Germany, while the Singaporean historian offers a broader interpretation that also critiques Britain’s ideological justifications for empire. Accept other valid answers including possible differences in purpose analysis. 5- 6m c) Study Source D. Why did Sir Andrew Clarke write this letter to the Earl of Carnarvon? Explain your answer. 5m L1 Inference in general/misinterpretation/no purpose 1m L2 Answer based on valid message/impact, unsupported / context. The context was growing unrest in Perak and Britain’s reconsideration of its policy of non-intervention. 2m L3 Answers on valid message or valid impact, supported. Clarke’s main message, supported by statements like “require to be treated much more like children” and calls for an officer to “control” revenue and expenditure, was that appointing a Resident was necessary for orderly government. 3- 4m

4 His intended impact was to persuade London to approve a system of indirect rule in Perak under British oversight. L4 Explains message with evidence, context and intended impact. Award 4m only if impact/evidence/context about the time is lacking. Sir Andrew Clarke wrote this letter in 1873 to the Earl of Carnarvon to convince him that the Malays were ineffective in ruling Perak. As Governor of the Straits Settlements, Clarke was responding to Sultan Abdullah’s request for help and used the letter to argue that Malays required British “teaching” and supervision. The context was growing unrest in Perak and Britain’s reconsideration of its policy of non-intervention. Clarke’s main message, supported by statements like “require to be treated much more like children” and calls for an officer to “control” revenue and expenditure, was that appointing a Resident was necessary for orderly government. His intended impact was to persuade London to approve the need for formal British intervention in Perak. Accept other valid answers. 5- 6m d) Study Sources E and F. How far does Source F prove that Source E is wrong about the state of internal stability in the Malay states? Explain your answer. 6m L1 Inference unsupported/ misinterpretation/describes source only. 1m L2 Proves/does not prove through limited analys