YIJC 2019 HT H2 Prelim Paper2

YISHUN INNOVA JUNIOR COLLEGE JC 2 PRELIMINARY EXAMINATION Higher 2 CANDIDATE NAME CG INDEX NO HISTORY Paper 2 The Making of Independent Southeast Asia (Independence to 2000) Additional Materials: 1 Answer Booklet 9752/02 18 September 2019 3 Hours READ THESE INSTRUCTIONS FIRST Write your name and CG in the spaces provided on the cover page and on the Answer Booklet. Write your answers in dark blue or black pen in the Answer Booklet provided. Section A Answer Question 1. Section B Answer two questions. At the end of the examination, fasten all your work securely together. The number of marks is given in brackets [ ] at the end of each question or part question. INFORMATION FOR CANDIDATES You are reminded of the need for clear presentation in your answers. This document consists of 5 printed pages.

2 Section A You must answer Question 1. INTER-STATE CONFLICTS & THE ESTABLISHMENT OF ASEAN 1 Read the sources and answer the questions which follow: Source A The establishment of ASEAN was a product of a desire by its five original members to create a mechanism for war prevention and conflict management. The need for such a mechanism was made salient by the fact that ASEAN’s predecessor[s] had foundered on the reefs of intra-regional mistrust and animosity. The Association of Southeast Asia (ASA) had collapsed over the Phil ippines’ claim to North Borneo. MAPHILINDO’s demise was ensured by Indonesia’s challenge to the legitimacy of newly independent Malaysia through a coercive diplomacy known as Konfrontasi. In wrecking the prospects for MAPHILINDO, Konfrontasi had underscored the importance of regionalism by demonstrating the high costs of the use of force to settle intra -regional conflicts. After fundamental political change, Indonesia’s decision to renounce Konfrontasi served as a model for its neighbours and raised the possibility of a regional order based on the non-use of force in inter-state relations. While interest in regionalism among the five member states of ASEAN was a result of varied geopolitical considerations, all recognised ASEAN’s value as a fr amework through which to prevent a return to a Konfrontasi-like situation. From a book published by a leading Indian academic on Southeast Asian regional issues, 2001. Source B ASEAN was the manifestation of the member states’ recognition of their inability to solve their conflicts on a bilateral basis. This realization prompted the leaders to seek solutions beyond their national boundaries. In this sense the Association was seen as providing the indigenous machinery whereby intraregional conflicts could be minimized if not settled. In addition the Association was viewed as a convenient institution that could minimize feelings of insecurity and increase economic bargaining power by providing strength through unity, es pecially for smaller ASEAN states. ASEAN was thus the product of a combination of common fears and weaknesses, not of common strength. From an American Journal on ASEAN’s first decade, 1977.

3 Source C MINDFUL of the existence of mutual interests and common problems among countries of South-East Asia and convinced of the need to strengthen further the existing bonds of regional solidarity and cooperation; CONSCIOUS that in an increasingly interdependent world, the cherished ideals of peace, freedom, social justice, and economic well -being are best attained by fostering good understanding, good neighbourliness, and meaningful cooperation among the countries of the region already bound together by ties of history and culture; CONSIDERING that the count ries of Southeast Asia share a primary responsibility for strengthening the economic and social stability of the region and ensuring their peaceful and progressive national development, and that they are determined to ensure their stability and security fr om external interference in any form or manifestation in order to preserve their national identities in accordance with the ideals a nd aspirations of their peoples. From the Bangkok Declaration, 8 August 1967, which created ASEAN. Source D [Interviewer] Which of the original five ASEAN countries felt the need for this regional grouping [ASEAN] first? [S. Rajaratnam] Initially, it was Mr Thanat Khoman of Thailand and Mr Adam Malik of Indonesia. The Thais were the nearest to Indo-China. The Thais, as you know, had been involved in Indo -China and had been very pro -American. Indonesians were concerned that if the Vietnamese won, they would become the proxy of either the Chinese or the Russians or both … Singapore was responsive to the concept of ASEAN because it saw merit in it, provided it was not a resurrection of SEATO or ASA, or an anti -communist or pro-American outfit, because then we would be repeating an error. We stressed that ASEAN should be a regional organization for economic, polit ical, and cultural cooperation … I don’t know what private thoughts prompted Filipinos to join ASEAN because until then they were not deeply involved in the mainstream of Southeast Asian politics. But they were brought in because they partnered Indonesia in c onfronting the newly-formed Malaysia which included Singapore. The Thais came in because they were fearful of Vietnamese vengeance and of communist China. So, you see, each of us had our own private reasons for joining ASEAN apart from the principal object of reversing the domino theory which many, including communists, predicted would follow a Vietnamese victory in Southeast Asia. Singapore’s Foreign Minister S. Rajaratnam, in an interview conducted by a Singaporean journalist, November 1985.

4 Source E I throw caution to big countries, including Japan, not to try to influence ASEAN to suit their own interests. Indonesia, as the big nation among the member countries of ASEAN, would hit back if this were tried. We would not let member countries which are members of SEATO [Southeast Asia Treaty Organization] draw Indonesia into SEATO. The main purpose of ASEAN is to strengthen economically and culturally the countries in Southeast Asia through joint efforts. Most Southeast Asian countries have some experiences under the domination of Japan and will be careful in facing it. Indonesia, too, had the sam e experience. But the Indonesia of today is not the Indonesia of yesterday. We will hit back if any big nation tries to treat us to suit their interests. If Southeast Asian countries do not strengthen themselves, they would be crushed sooner or later by the big countries. From a speech by Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr. Adam Malik, at a press conference, 30 August 1967. Source F Konfrontasi underlined the disruptive potential of Indonesia as the largest and most militarily powerful state in the region. Suspicion of Indonesia was a powerful factor in shaping Southeast Asian security perceptions in the post -Konfrontasi era. Konfrontasi, however, also revealed to the involved states their mutual dependency and vulnerability. Indonesian economic sanctions against Malaysia were almost as painful to Indonesia as to its intended target. Suharto’s government became concerned with reducing intra - regional tensions and tried to reassure its neighbours that the new Indonesia would not be the destabilizing influence it had been in the past. Indonesia went from being a state largely indifferent to efforts at regional organization to a major proponent of reg ionalism. The territorial and political disputes between the nations of Southeast Asia emphasized the need for a regional organization that could deal with these tensions. Outsiders saw the ASA as politically aligned to the West, an overt affiliation that Indonesia, as a leader in the nonaligned movement, wished