ACJC History Papers Paper 2 prelim consolidated

2 ANGLO-CHINESE JUNIOR COLLEGE Preliminary Examinations JC2 H I S T O R Y H 2 9731/02 Paper 2 History of Southeast Asia, 1900-1997 19 August 2008 3 hours Additional Materials: Writing Paper READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST Write your class, index number and name on all the work you hand in. Write in dark blue or black pen on both sides of the paper. Do not use staples, paper clips, highlighters, glue or correction fluid. Answer four questions. You must answer Question 1 (Section A) and any three questions from Section B. Begin each question on a fresh sheet of paper. At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together. All questions in this paper carry equal marks. © ACJC 2008 9731/02/Preliminary Exams/08

3 Section A You must answer Question 1. THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE ASEAN WAY 1 Read the sources and then answer the question. Source A ASEAN was designed to be first and foremost an association of states actively engaged in nation-building, as Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Singapore had become sovereign independent nations only after World War II. Since nation-building was often messy and vulnerable to foreign intervention, the governing elite wanted to have free hands to conduct their policies in the knowledge that their neighbors would refrain from interfering in their domestic affairs. In addition, smaller members such as Singapore, are consciously fearful of forceful and coercive measures from much bigger neighbors like Indonesia. As a result, non-interference became the cardinal principle of the organization. Members are committed to the norms of non-use of force and non-confrontation and they often shared reluctance to institutionalize and legalize regional cooperation. They were in favor of informal and under-institutionalized forms of regional cooperation instead. In fact, the ASEAN process has been managed through consultations and consensus among top leaders. An extract taken from the ASEAN Secretariat at www.aseansec.org. Source B The shaping of the organization itself has developed in a Southeast Asian way. What worked best was best. ASEAN had no preconceived constitution; no rules; nothing. It is based on the goodwill, tolerance and relaxed style of the six members. And to this day, this is what keeps ASEAN alive. True, we have differences, acrimonious debates at times but there are no breaching of rules, simply because there are no rules. That is why we are not unduly perturbed when people say that ASEAN has no organization, no ideology, no dramatic achievements. Many regional organizations which started off with an elaborate organization, rules and grand concepts have disappeared. What has ASEAN achieved? Well, for one thing, we still exist and are active after nearly twenty years. We are respected internationally. Singapore’s first foreign minister, S. Rajaratnam’s views on the workings of ASEAN. © ACJC 2008 9731/02/Preliminary Exams/08

4 Source C Perhaps the most prominent issue raised by the media, some politicians and other public commentators against ASEAN had been its policy and practice of not interfering in its members’ internal affairs. The public complaints have arisen in recent years, most of them in commentaries about certain events or situations arising in Southeast Asia. The leading issues had been the issue of transboundary haze, the financial crisis of 1997-98 and, above all, Myanmar and the question of human rights in general. Most commentaries blamed ASEAN’s failure to act on these occasions and there seems to be an element of frustration in this, in the face of the international community’s apparent helplessness or the region’s inaction. An extract taken from a newspaper editorial, 2006. Source D With only limited progress in the economic, so cial and cultural fields, ASEAN was more successful in political and diplomatic cooperation and by the late 1980s had achieved a major international standing. From the beginning ASEAN was important in providing a framework of cooperation and reconciliation in the post-independence era and from the early 1970s, its members adopted some concrete measures of mutual help. But for many years the outside world had dismissed the association. Its value came to be recognized only after the Bali Summit of 1976, when the ASEAN countries stood together in the face of communist victories in Indochina and later when they maintained a common stance against the Vietnamese-backed Heng Samrin regime in Kampuchea throughout the 1980s. This showed what could be achieved by diplomatic and political pressure, without a parallel military pact. A Southeast Asian historian’s perspective on ASEAN, 1992. Source E This does not mean that there is no realization by ASEAN leaders that the ASEAN Way might impose certain limitations on the Association. In 1997, faced with a coup in Cambodia, Malaysia’s Deputy Prime Minister Anwar Ibr ahim advanced the concept of constructive engagement through which ASEAN could become cognizant of a regional problem and cooperate in finding a solution. A year later, faced by extraordinary pressure from the West about the situation in Myanmar, Thailand’s Foreign Minister Surin Pitsuwan proposed a policy of flexible engagement that would allow ASEAN to place on its agenda a member states’ domestic policies that challenged regional harmony and stability. Both initiatives were coldly received and not acted on. The underlying objections were that constructive or flexible engagement might be disruptive to the ASEAN Way and come back to haunt any ASEAN state. A historian writing on international relations in Southeast Asia, 2005. Now answer the following question. “The ASEAN Way has been effective in promoting ASEAN’s development as a regional organization.” Use Sources A-E to show how far the evidence confirms this statement. © ACJC 2008 9731/02/Preliminary Exams/08

© ACJC 2008 9731/02/Preliminary Exams/08 5 Section B Answer any three questions. You must support each answer with examples drawn from at least three countries. 2 ‘The development of nationalist movements in Southeast Asia during the interwar period depended heavily on Western concepts and models.’ How far do you agree with this statement? 3 Which was a more serious obstacle to the attainment of independence for Southeast Asian states after World War Two: internal rebellions or the colonial powers? 4 ‘Post-independence Southeast Asian governments were initially committed to democratic institutions but became gradually more attracted to more authoritarian practices.’ Examine the validity of this claim. 5 ‘Government attitudes and policies have done more harm than good in their attempts to forge national unity in post-independence Southeast Asia.’ Discuss. 6 Critically evaluate the impact of inter-state tensions on regional cooperation and security in Southeast Asia.