Sec 3 IHC SBQ Revision Paper 3 – Bonding Singapore

Sec 3 IHC SBQ Revision Paper 3 – Bonding Singapore
Suggested Answers
1(a)
L1
No source reference / details taken from the source.
1m
L2
Inference(s), unsupported
Award 2m for 1 inference unsupported and 3m for 2 inferences unsupported
2-3m
L3
Message: content of source, supported
Award 3m for 1 weak inference supported;
Award 4m for 1 strong inference supported. OR for 2 inferences supported
3-4m
L4
Motive & Outcome: To convince/ persuade? To mock/criticise? Any sarcasm involved?
Award 4m for a weak answer.
Award 5m for a more developed answer with outcome.
4-5m
*if answers do not provide any evidence = drop to L2/L3
Eg. The Senior Minister wanted to remind bright young Singaporeans about their duty to return after
studying abroad to serve the community who are not as fortunate as them by sharing with them the
situation during his student days when those who were educated “felt a keen sense of obligation to
those who weren’t”. (Weak motive)
OR
*Stronger answer
The Senior Minister wanted to warn this group of bright overseas educated Singaporeans of the dire
consequences for Singapore if they chose to remain abroad because of their “English fluency” and “high
demand worldwide” saying that if they did so “ Singapore [would be] finished”. He said this to try and
stem the outflow of young Singaporeans out of the country by convincing them that it was their duty to
return just like those who did in his student days to serve those less fortunate than themselves.
(b)
L1
Answers based on provenance/ source type/ lifts from source / failed comparison
1-2m
L2
Identifies similarities/differences based on source content/ superficial comparison
Award 2m for at least 1 unsupported similarity/difference
2-3m
L3
Supports similarities /differences based on source content
Award 4m for one weak (sound) similarity/difference
Award 5m for at least one strong (sound) similarity/difference/ 2 weak comparisons
Award 6m for two strong comparisons
4-6m
*L4
L3 and purpose explained
5-6m
1|P a g e
Eg. They are different in the reasons why Singaporeans remain in Singapore. The woman in Source B is
staying due to material possessions, whereas in Source C, the shop-owner indicates it is due to other
commitments like family. From Source B, it states that “If I owned a condo and a car someplace else,
how would I be able to show them off to my friends?” indicating that she is concerned about her
reputation and material possessions. However in Source C, the shop-owner stated that he “never wants
to live where [his] children cannot visit their grandmother every week” showing that he was more
concerned about family ties and thus would not leave Singapore because of that.
The sources are similar in showing that given a choice, Singaporeans would not emigrate. The woman
in Source B says that she will not be able to enjoy showing off her condo and car if she lived someplace
else. Therefore if she emigrated, she would not be able to show off these possessions as most people in
other countries would be able to afford the same. The shop owner in Source C says that his children
would not be able to enjoy the privilege of “visit[ing] their grandmother every week” if they emigrated.
Therefore both sources show that living in Singapore means being able to do things that you would not
be able to do elsewhere.
*Since this question is only worth 6 marks and purpose is not easily discernible, one similarity and one
difference supported should earn you the full marks.
Purpose = similar
*Both indicate their desire to live in Singapore
Source B
Source C
By Singaporeans, for Singaporeans
M – convince Singaporeans to remain in Singapore (not to emigrate) due to the benefits obtainable by
staying in Singapore (either tangible or intangible benefits)
O – get them to remain in Singapore
2|P a g e