1

ANGLO-CHINESE JUNIOR COLLEGE

Preliminary Examinations
JC2

HISTORY H2 9752/02
Paper 2: The Making of Independent Southeast Asia, Independence – 2000

22 August 2017

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 three questions.

Section A
Answer Question 1.

Section B:
Answer two questions: EITHER Question 2 OR Question 3, AND EITHER Question 4 OR
Question 5.

Begin each question on a fresh sheet of paper.

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.

This document consists of 5 printed pages.

[Turn over

© ACJC 2017 9752/02/ Preliminary Exam/17

 2

SECTION A

You must answer Question 1.

REGIONAL UNITY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

1 Read the sources and answer the questions which follow.

Source A

ASEAN is the third attempt at establishing a regional organization. Maphilindo, composed of

Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, was destroyed by Sukarno’s “confrontation” with
Malaysia. The Association of Southeast Asia (ASA), formed in 1961 by Thailand, Malaysia and
the Philippines, was broken by Manila, which laid claim to Sabah in North Borneo.

The atmosphere is more promising now. The member states have broadly agreed on their
aspirations for the new organization. Sukarno is out of the way and the Communist Chinese
have lost influence everywhere. ASEAN holds special promise because it brings Indonesia back
into the fold. In size, population and wealth Indonesia is the most important of the Southeast
Asian nations. The states that failed twice in regional attempts at unity have surely learned
some lessons that can make the third time around a success.

From a report in an American newspaper, dated 9 August 1967.

Source B

When [Indonesian General] Ali Moertopo and I worked on the mechanics of bringing about
reconciliation between our two nations, we were asked by General Suharto and Tun Abdul
Razak to consider the wider perspective and to relate the Indonesia-Malaysia reconciliation to a
regional spectrum which would involve our other neighbours, particularly the newly established
Republic of Singapore. We were in fact considering an association of countries of Southeast
Asia – eventually known as ASEAN – to live as good neighbours and friends so that we would
not be pitted by external powers to fight one another. We were conscious of the fact that two
fore-runners of such an organ – ASA and Maphilindo – had already failed.

From a speech by Malaysian Foreign Minister Ghazalie Shafie in the

United States, 1981.

Source C

From the outset, ASEAN was conceived to be more an economic and less a political, or security
grouping. It was hoped that through economic cooperation, each country would build up its
economic resilience, and collectively be strong enough to protect ourselves against a victorious
Communist Vietnam, and a Communist China dedicated to exporting revolution.

The first ASEAN Summit Meeting was held in Bali, Indonesia, in February 1976. To prepare for
this inaugural summit, Indonesia, which considered itself the first among equals, sent a
consultative team to sound out other ASEAN countries on economic cooperation.

© ACJC 2017 9752/02/ Preliminary Exam/17

 3

Indonesia is the largest and most populous country in ASEAN; in contrast, Singapore is
geographically a tiny dot. Our approaches to economic cooperation were at polar opposites.
Without a domestic market of any significance, Singapore suggested that the way forward was
the creation of an ASEAN Common Market with common external tariffs to keep foreign imports
out, and free competition within ASEAN on a level playing field for all members. At our very first
preliminary meeting, Indonesia objected to the concept of an ASEAN Common Market.

From the recollections of a former senior civil servant in

Singapore’s Ministry of Trade and Industry, 2006.

Source D

The prospect of a peace settlement in Vietnam toward the end of 1972 raised Malaysian hopes
that its proposal for the neutralization of Southeast Asia would receive more enthusiastic
treatment than before from its ASEAN colleagues and the great powers. These hopes proved
unfounded. In fact, the uncertainties in the wake of the eventual Paris Peace Accords actually
produced an atmosphere of apprehension which inclined countries like Thailand, Indonesia and
the Philippines to be less interested in discussing a long-term proposal like neutralization and
more anxious to focus on the immediate implications of these developments concerning
Indochina.

Out of deference to the sensitivities of its ASEAN allies, the Malaysian government has publicly
played the neutralization theme in softer tones, emphasizing the long-term nature of the
proposal and the prior necessity of strengthening regional and national “resilience”.

From a telegram sent by the US Embassy in Malaysia to the US Department of State, 1973.

Source E

Security and economic cooperation were supposed to be the main bases for regional
cooperation in ASEAN. Nationalism, however, has been the stumbling block to the growth of
cooperation. The record so far shows that no single state has been willing to sacrifice its
national interests for the sake of regional cooperation. The diversity in perceptions and
interpretations of regional security is a clear illustration of the problem.

Nationalism is also evident in trade and economic development, although recent progress has
been heartening. At the end of February, an ‘Agreement on ASEAN Preferential Trading
Arrangements’ was concluded – a significant step in economic cooperation and coordination.
Difficulties remain, however. There are important differences in the economic development –
and hence, in the national interests – of the ASEAN member states. The further implementation
of regional cooperation hinges upon whether tangible advantages for each member state can be
discerned.

From a commentary by an academic, 1977.

© ACJC 2017 9752/02/ Preliminary Exam/17

 4

Source F

ASEAN held its 25th Annual Ministerial Meeting and Post Ministerial Conference in Manila this
July. At these meetings, ASEAN and its dialogue partners held discussions dealing with a broad
spectrum of regional issues, and made headway on a number of the most difficult, such as the
disputes over territory in the South China Sea claimed by several nations.

Among the other achievements in Manila last month was the accession of Vietnam and Laos to
the ASEAN Treaty of Amity and Co-operation. That treaty, adopted in Bali in 1976, lays down a
number of principles governing relations between states. The treaty emphasizes the duty of
states to settle their disputes peacefully and prescribes procedures for doing so. By acceding to
the treaty, Vietnam and Laos have signaled their wish to put an end to the confrontation of the
Cold War era and to become more closely associated with ASEAN. ASEAN has reciprocated
their goodwill by granting them observer status. This is a first step that will lead eventually to
their full membership.

From a report in an international newspaper, 1992.

Now answer the following questions:

(a) Compare and contrast the evidence provided in sources B and C on the reasons for the
formation of ASEAN. [10]

(b) How far do sources A-F support the view that the Southeast Asian states were
successful in their attempts to forge regional unity? [30]

© ACJC 2017 9752/02/ Preliminary Exam/17

 5

SECTION B

You must answer two questions from this section:

EITHER Question 2 OR Question 3, AND EITHER Question 4 OR Question 5

Remember to support each answer with examples drawn from at least three countries.

EITHER

2 How far do you agree that the decolonization process was more significant than the role of
indigenous leaders in determining the political structures of the independent Southeast
Asian states? [30]

OR

3 Assess the view that political representation was more important than education in ensuring
the successful integration of ethnic minorities in independent Southeast Asia. [30]

AND EITHER

4 ‘Governments failed to achieve sustained success.’ How far do you agree with this view of
economic development in independent Southeast Asia? [30]

OR

5 Why did some Southeast Asian states suffer less severe consequences from the Asian
Financial Crisis than others? [30]

© ACJC 2017 9752/02/ Preliminary Exam/17