history is fun

hi all,

After having marked quite a few practice SEQs, I would like to just take this opportunity to remind you about the use of evidence.

Now, the SEQ answering structure should follow the following:

Point - Just recycle the topic statement of the question.

Evidence - This is where it seems to be lacking - for the 1959 elections, it is not sufficient to just talk about the fact that the parties were more active in canvassing for votes. Someone who didn't study could say that! Evidence is something tangible, a name, a place, a date, a time, a statistic, an event, something that tells the examiner that you know something tangible about what happened during that period of time.

Explaination and Link - This is where you show the examiner that you are able to explain how the facts that you have given in the evidence help to answer the question. For example, just because the Japanese had better preparations (e.g. intelligence and training) doesn't necessarily translate into an immediate Japanese victory. So how did it lead to Japanese victory? Here you must make the connection between preparation and victory (see the section in bold).

For example: Due to the better Japanese preparations, the Japanese army had a tremendous advantage over the British. They were thus able to surprise the numerically superior British army during the battles in Malaya and Singapore and easily overcome the British, thus leading to the Japanese victory.

Someone once said, in the humanities (geography notwithstanding), it is not always about what you know (i.e. the content), but what you do with it.

In this case for SEQs, it is all nice and well if you can regurgitate the textbook, but if you cannot explain the significance of these facts with regard to the question, then you have failed to build on your knowledge.

What constitutes explanation?

Let's have a look at a paragraph from an earlier post.

First, with the coming of the immigrants, Singapore began to open itself up as a centre for entrepot trade. It began to import and export goods for different areas to different parts of the world. These immigrants also provided important support services such as workers in the dockyards, plantations, factories and some even provided daily necessities for traders all over the world. All these contributions of the immigrants helped to maintain Singapore as an attractive trading centre and kept it competitive. Without them, Singapore would not have grown so fast from a backwater island to a bustling island of trade and other commercial activities. Hence, the impact of the coming of the immigrants leading Singapore to a well-grown trading centre was the most important.

The section of the paragraph in bold is the explanation, but can we break it down even further?

All these contributions of the immigrants [This component can be called the cause, i.e. sum up the evidence that you have presented in the earlier section]
helped to maintain Singapore as an attractive trading centre and kept it competitive. Without them, Singapore would not have grown so fast from a backwater island to a bustling island of trade and other commercial activities. [This component can be called the effect, i.e. what did the evidence lead to in relation to the issue?] Hence, the impact of the coming of the immigrants leading Singapore to a well-grown trading centre was the most important. [This component can be called the consequence, i.e. what was the final consequence and the outcome as a result of the 'effect']

In most instances, students are able to write the cause and the consequence. However, they are not able to clearly state the effect which links the cause and the consequence. The contributions of immigrants may not always lead to a well-grown trading centre. Therefore, it is very important to make this link between the contributions of the immigrants and Singapore becoming a well-grown trading centre.

Try breaking down this paragraph yourself! Comment if you are not sure.

The lack of preparations for the defence of Singapore by the British was responsible for the Japanese victory. The British had underestimated the Japanese capabilities as they had inadequate intelligence and were caught by surprise by the better Japanese equipment. The British also had poor and obsolete equipment which was no match for the Japanese which resulted in Japanese air superiority which gave the Japanese a tremendous advantage over the British. In addition, the British soldiers were not well trained in jungle warfare and were unable to match the Japanese during their battles. Because of their lack of preparations, the British inferiority in all areas was quickly exposed by the Japanese which resulted in one Japanese victory after another. As a result, Malaya and Singapore fell within a short space of 4 months resulting in a Japanese victory.

In my earlier post, I covered the (a) question which is the how far/to what extent question.

This post will cover the (b) question which relates to a hypothesis or an assertion which is made. An example of this question is as follows.

(b) The fall of Singapore in 1942 was a complete success for the Japanese. How far do you agree? Explain your answer. [8m]

Now as you can see, the first part of the question is an assertion, it is not a factor. Hence, this should tell you that it is different from the (a) question.

What this question is looking out for is an argument of whether indeed the fall of Singapore was a complete success for the Japanese, hence it requires you to use all the relevant knowledge about the subject area to answer the question of whether or not it was a complete success.

In your answer, you should utilise the PEEL structure in order to organise the facts and to tell us how the facts support the assertion in paragraph 1, then tell us how other facts contradict the assertion in paragraph 2. Then in paragraph 3, determine, is it more yes than no or vice versa?

A sample answer should look like this.

I disagree that the fall of Singapore was a complete success for the Japanese .

The Japanese achieved a brilliant victory in all aspects. Not only had they managed to defeat the British armed forces during the Battle for Malaya and Singapore, but they had also destroyed the two famous battleships of the British thereby asserting their superiority. Besides that most of the Europeans were so terrified that they ran away for their lives. The British who all along had been invincible in battle had been dealt a devastating blow by the Japanese in such a quick time and with minimum casualty on the Japanese sides. Thus it is indeed a qualified success on the part of the Japanese.

However, it should also be born in mind that the Japanese were successful only from a military perspective. While the victory over Singapore was won, yet it was another matter in capturing the hearts and minds of the people. The Japanese were feared and hated by the local people so much and they were secretly despised. Furthermore the Japanese also mismanaged the economy and there was a shortage of essential commodities like food, clothing, medicine and other stuff. Furthermore there was uncontrolled inflation and the people’s lives were more miserable than during the British. Thus it would be incorrect to say that the fall of Singapore was a complete success for the Japanese.

In conclusion, it would be incorrect to assume that the fall of Singapore was a total success for the Japanese. While it was indeed true that from a military perspective it was a success yet it was severe failure from all other aspects. In terms of the economy, in terms of freedom, and in terms of happiness the Japanese occupation was far from success. The fact that even today the Japanese occupation is remembered as the days of darkness stands as testimony to the fact that the Japanese Occupation of Singapore was not a success.

More to come.

Regards,
Mr Tan

In your SA2 paper, you will be encountering two different question types.

The first type of question is the (a) type question which asks you how far or to what extent was a factor (called the GIVEN FACTOR) responsible or the reason for a particular issue or outcome.

(a) To what extent was the growth of Singapore as a trading centre the most important impact of the the immigrants? (7)

First of all, you need to identify the GIVEN FACTOR and the ISSUE.

To what extent was the growth of Singapore as a trading centre [given factor] the most important impact of the the immigrants [issue]?

Once you've done that, you need to identify another factor that addresses the issue.

The two issues are:
1) Growth of Singapore as a trading centre
2) Social Impact of Immigrants

Now you need to write one paragraph on each issue using the PEEL structure and follow up with a conclusion that ranks the relative importance of both factors and concluding which was more important.

So your answer should look something like this:

I agree that the most important impact for the coming of the immigrants was the growth of Singapore as a trading centre.

First, with the coming of the immigrants, Singapore began to open itself up as a centre for entrepot trade. It began to import and export goods for different areas to different parts of the world. These immigrants also provided important support services such as workers in the dockyards, plantations, factories and some even provided daily necessities for traders all over the world. All these contributions of the immigrants helped to maintain Singapore as an attractive trading centre and kept it competitive. Without them, Singapore would not have grown so fast from a backwater island to a bustling island of trade and other commercial activities. Hence, the impact of the coming of the immigrants leading Singapore to a well-grown trading centre was the most important.

However, besides the impact of growth of Singapore as a trading centre, there were other social impacts such as acts of philanthropy by rich businessmen. These businessmen from different ethnic groups saw the need to contribute to the well-being of the society and started kind acts such as building schools, hospitals and places of worship for their fellow countrymen. An example would be Tan Tock Seng. Such acts were important as they made lives of the immigrants more bearable and ensured that these immigrants were well taken care off so that they could continue to contribute to Singapore growth.

All in all, the most important impact of the coming of the immigrants was the growth of Singapore as a trading centre as it is due to their hard work that Singapore could continue to grow and this would benefit everyone. As for the acts of the philanthropists, some of these acts were given to specific ethnic groups only, hence the impact is not as great as the first.

More to come.

hi all,

This is the 2007 SA paper for your practice.

Best Wishes,
Your History Teachers

hi all,

For help with the Structured Essay Questions, please refer to an earlier post by Mr Donald Leo at the following link.

The worksheet attached at the following link are some additional questions on merger and separation with answers for your practice and reference. Remember to try the questions first and have a look at the answers thereafter to see if you are on track.

Hope you find this helpful!

Best Wishes,
Mr Tan