ACJC H2 HIST SEA P2

© ACJC 2016 9731/02/Preliminary Exams/16 ANGLO-CHINESE JUNIOR COLLEGE Preliminary Examinations JC2 HISTORY 9731/02 Paper 2: History of Southeast Asia, 1900 – 1997 26 August 2016 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 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. This document consists of 4 printed pages. [Turn over]

© ACJC 2016 9731/02/Preliminary Exams/16 Section A You must answer Question 1. Achievements & Limitations of ASEAN 1 Read the sources and then answer the question. While answering Question 1 candidates are advised to pay particular attention to the interpretation and evaluation of the sources both individually and as a group. Source A The Indonesian government have seemed to drag their feet in accepting help to deal with the situation, agreeing eventually to do so when the situation was clearly beyond their control. Other Asean countries, which have been suffering from the effects, have had to keep lamenting the impact on their people and repeating their offers to do more to help. They have been hampered from doing very much, given the much vaunted "Asean Way" of dealing with regional issues, whereby member states do not intervene in each other's affairs, and avoid stoking controversy, in the name of upholding the principle of national sovereignty. An article in a Singaporean newspaper, 2016. Source B We last met in Singapore in 1992, some three years ago. ASEAN was preoccupied then with the end of the Cold War. We were anxious that the rapid changes following the collapse of the Soviet Union would affect Southeast Asia. We recognised the need for an update of ASEAN’s directions as we sailed onto the unchartered waters of the post-Cold War era. Looking back, I am glad we undertook several bold and new measures for economic and political cooperation. ASEAN has made progress over the last 3 years. We have a strong foundation upon which to build regional co-operation. The principles enshrined in the Treaty of Amity and Cooperation provide the framework on how to manage and resolve problems in the region peacefully. it is important that all major powers associate themselves with and observe the principles of this Treaty. An excerpt of Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah’s speech at the Fifth ASEAN Summit, 1995. *Sultan Hassanal Bokiah is the Sultan of Brunei

© ACJC 2016 9731/02/Preliminary Exams/16 Source C Since the normalization of relationship in the early 1990s, economic integration between China and ASEAN has been deepening. Trade between ASEAN and China boosted more than 36 times throughout 1990s and 2000s, from $7.96 billion in 1991 to $292.78 billion in 2010 (He Shan, 2011). In the 2000s, China had become the primary trading partner of ASEAN surpassing Japan, the United States (US) and the European Union (EU); while on the other hand, ASEAN also had become the third largest trading partner for China, surpassing Japan. ASEAN-China Free Trade Agreement (ACFTA) has been in effect since 2010 and boosted regional trade ever since. Even in the face of global economic crisis in 2008, the region is considered by international financial institutions as the motor for global economic recovery for its sustainable high growth. A paradox reveals as we juxtapose the above economic relations and the political dynamics underlining China-ASEAN relationship. What happens in the South China Sea has so far been quite different from what liberalists might expect. Increasing economic integration and interdependence do not automatically cause cooperative gesture in solving disputes in the SCS. Quite on the contrary, tensions between China and ASEAN claimants were heightened recently, following each claimant’s unilateral policies and reluctance to multilateral solutions. An academic article written by an Indonesian, 2014. Source D It is almost an aphorism to say that Vietnam’s invasion of Cambodia was a gift to the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) – an organization in search of a cause. Ever since 1979, when a Vietnamese blietzkrieg swept the Khmer Rouge out of power in Cambodia, ASEAN has not only found the call for withdrawal of the Hanoi troops from Cambodia an important glue for the organization but also a very useful cause to promote themselves on the world stage. Nayan’s Chanda’ “Vietnam’s Withdrawal from Cambodia: The ASEAN Perspectives.”, 1990. . Source E President Ramos’ strong efforts to launch the APEC Business A dvisory Council (ABAC) and to involve the business community through the APEC Business Forum proved a resounding success. In addition, President Ramos’ work to focus APEC’s economic cooperation agenda and to define meaningful goa ls for APEC’s environmental work should provide momentum and clarity over the next few years. Bill Clinton’s letter to Mahathir Mohamad, 1996. Now answer the following question. To what extent do sources A-E show that ASEAN's lack of success as an organization was a matter beyond its control?

© ACJC 2016 9731/02/Preliminary Exams/16 Section B Answer any three questions. You must support each answer with examples drawn from at least three countries. 2 Assess the claim that successful pre-1941 movements were mainly driven by Western ideologies. 3 To what extent was decolonization in Southeast Asia halted due to the intervention of foreign powers? 4 ‘ The Asian Financial Crisis proved the incompatibility of capitalism with Southeast Asian economies.’ How far is this assertion justified? 5 ‘ Maximum governments dealt with threats to national unity better than democratic governments.’ Discuss. 6 How true is the assertion that the decisions made by colonial masters were more detrimental to the inter-state relationship between Southeast Asian states as compared to those made by leaders of Southeast Asian states?