SAJC H2 HIST P2 Mark Scheme

9752/02 H2 History Paper 2 – Prelims Page 1 of 15 1. Compare and contrast the evidence provided by Sources A and B on the issue of diversity among the economies of ASEAN’s member states. Level Marks Descriptor L0 0 No evidence submitted or answer does not address the question. L1 1–3 The answer is likely to be characterised by paraphrasing or quotation and will be largely uncritical. Very simple comparisons may be made and these are not developed (e.g. that one source is a letter and the other is a speech). Answers that are simply based on contextual knowledge, with no source use, should be credited at this level. At the upper end of the level, there may be some attempt to explain how far the sources corroborate and/or differ (i.e. supported with source details), but any explanation will be confused or partial. E.g.: Sources A and B agree there was diversity in ASEAN’s economies… Source A is from an academic and Source B is from the Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN. L2 4–6 The answer will use both sources. There will be clear explanation on how far the sources corroborate and/or differ (i.e. supported with source details), though insights into why are less likely or are less successful. At the lower end of the level, there may be a tendency to treat the sources separately with most or all of the comparison implicit. E.g.: Sources A and B differ in that Source A says the diverse economies managed to ‘prevent the organization from taking a coherent and coordinated position on regional financial reform' while Source B maintains that ASEAN ‘had withstood and continue to withstand the challenges – both global and regional’. The sources differ because Source A is from an academic who is not from ASEAN and so would crit icise the organisation. Source B is from an ASEAN insider and he will speak well of the organisation. L3 7–8 The answer will make good use of both sources. There will be clear explanation on how far the sources corroborate and/or differ. The answer will demonstrate a sense of critical evaluation of the sources and provide some insights into why they are similar and/or different. Answers which argue that the sources entirely agree or disagr ee with each other (i.e. one sided) but demonstrate critical insight, may also be found in this level. Answers which are uneven (e.g. extracting information from a source at face value, and showing more critical insight in the analysis of the other source) may also be found in this level. E.g.: Sources A and B disagree on the impact that the diversity of economies had on ASEAN’s regional economic cooperation. While Source A saw diversity as detrimental such that it managed to ‘prevent the organization from taking a coherent and coordinated position on regional financial reform ', Source B believes ASEAN succeeded despite this diversity because it ‘had withstood and continue to withstand the challenges – both global and regional’.

9752/02 H2 History Paper 2 – Prelims Page 2 of 15 As B involves the Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN speaking at a large-scale business conference, he would have greater incentive to laud the achievements of ASEAN to boost the confidence businesses would have in the organisation and possibly allow ASEAN to reap economic benefits. However, A is from an academic book and has no such incentive. Sources A and B agree that the economies in ASEAN were indeed diverse. Source A states that there were ‘divergent economic policies and different levels of development’ and B echoes this by saying that ‘ASEAN members differed in their levels of economic development’. Both sources offer similar views because there were indeed many countries in ASEAN and they pursued different paths of economic development and this made it such that countries such as Singapore were more developed and others such as Burma lagged behind. L4 9–10 The answer will make full comprehensive use of both source s. There will be clear explanation on how far the sources corroborate and differ. The answer will demonstrate a strong sense of critical evaluation of the sources throughout and provide insights into why they are similar or different. E.g.: Sources A and B disagree on the impact that the diversity of economies had on ASEAN’s regional economic cooperation. While Source A saw diversity as detrimental such that it managed to ‘prevent the organization from taking a coherent and coordinated position on regional financial reform ', Source B believes ASEAN succeeded despite this diversity because it ‘had withstood and continue to withstand the challenges – both global and regional’. As B involves the Deputy Secretary-General of ASEAN speaking at a large-scale business conference, he would have greater incentive to laud the achievements of ASEAN to boost the confidence businesses would have in the organisation and possibly allow ASEAN to reap economic benefits. In contrast, A is from an academic book written in 2002 and has less incentive than A does to trumpet the achievements of ASEAN. This plausibly results in B discussing the detrimental effects that the diversity of economies has on ASEAN more openly than A does. Sources A and B agree that there was inherent diversity am ong the economies of ASEAN and this sometimes resulted in uneven development. Source A states that there were ‘divergent economic policies and different levels of development’ and B echoes this by saying that ‘ASEAN members differed in their levels of economic development’ and the economies of the newer ASEAN members were ‘in transition and their levels of development are significantly lower than that of the original members’. Both sources offer similar views because there was indee d substantial diversity among the economies in ASEAN with differences existing already among the capitalist economies with Singapore and Malaysia’s economic growth outstripping that of the Philippines and Indonesia in the post-independence period. This diversity was compounded when the relatively

9752/02 H2 History Paper 2 – Prelims Page 3 of 15 closed economies of Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar and Cambodia were added to the mix between 1995 and 1999. These economies from the latest additions to ASEAN tended to be among the weakest as they had pursued ideologies such as socialism that prevented their countries from benefiting more fully from global trade, thus creating a divide between the more advanced capitalist economies and the less advanced ones of the newer members.

9752/02 H2 History Paper 2 – Prelims Page 4 of 15 1 (b) How far do Sources A-F agree with the view that success was elusive in ASEAN’s pursuit of greater regional economic cooperation? Level Marks Descriptor L0 0 No evidence submitted or answer does not address the question. L1 1-4 The answer will make limited use of the sources. The sources may be paraphrased or described. Some relevant information from the sources may be extracted at face value to support and/or challenge the hypothesis, but the answer may be confused or undeveloped. E.g. Source B shows ASEAN rose above the challenges to ac hieve regional economic cooperation. Source F shows they agreed to reduce tariffs on many products. Both agree with each other. Source E is a table of facts and shows ASEAN trade with each other existed so there is economic cooperation. Source C is from Lee Kuan Yew and he is asking ASEAN to commit to free trade so this is likely to be true. Source D says that things were bad in the 1970s and 1980s so ASEAN did not achieve cooperation. L2 5-10 The answer will use relevant information from sources at fa ce value to support and/or challenge the hypothesis. Sources may be used in isolation. The answer may demonstrate some awareness of provenance of the sources but evaluation of the sources is unlikely. E.g. Sources B and F challenge the view. Source B supports w hat Source F says