Judging a source means asking who produced it, why, when and how well it is supported. The judgement stays inside the period and the evidence, and does not reach for modern politics.
This lesson belongs to Emergency and security responses. For the wider skill of writing answers, see answering historical questions.
What questions do I ask of a source?
Use four questions, in this order.
- Author: who wrote or said it, and what was their position?
- Purpose: why was it produced, and for whom?
- Date: how close was it to the events?
- Support: does other evidence agree with it?
Answer each in one sentence, then state what the source is useful for and what it cannot show.
Worked example: accounts of the Baling talks
The Baling Talks took place on 28 and 29 December 1955. 1 On one side were Tunku Abdul Rahman, Chief Minister of the Federation of Malaya, David Marshall of Singapore and Tan Cheng Lock. On the other was Chin Peng of the Malayan Communist Party. 2
The talks ended without agreement because the Malayan Communist Party refused the condition that it lay down its arms. 2
Suppose you are given a statement by Tunku Abdul Rahman explaining why the talks ended.
Author and purpose: the Chief Minister, who led the government side, so he may want to explain why his position was right.
Date: a statement made at or soon after the talks is close to the events, but written while the Emergency was still on.
Support: the condition about laying down arms is recorded in other accounts, so a claim about why the talks ended can be checked.
Judgement: the source is useful for showing the government’s position and reasoning. It cannot alone show the communists’ reasons, so the answer needs a source from the other side or a later historical account.
The mistake that costs marks
The common slip is to answer with a modern comparison: “This is just like how some politicians talk today.” The sentence contains no evidence from the period and sounds partisan.
Instead, name the author’s position and use the source’s own details.
| Answer with a modern analogy | Answer inside the evidence |
|---|---|
| This is like politicians today spinning the news. | The Chief Minister led the government side, so his statement shows the government’s view of why the talks failed. |
| The source is biased. | The source is from one side of the talks, so it is useful for that side’s position but does not show the other side’s view. |
Check yourself
Chin Peng led the communist side at Baling. Write one sentence on how a statement by him would differ in purpose from one by Tunku Abdul Rahman, and one sentence on what you would still need.
Answer
Difference in purpose: each author represents one side and would explain the failure of the talks from that side’s position, so each source shows one view.
What you still need: a later account or a record of the meeting that does not belong to either side, to check what was actually asked and refused.
What to study next
Put the skills together in the Emergency and security responses practice set. Plan source answers with the Sejarah evidence-to-explanation planner.
For a teacher to mark your source answers for neutrality and evidence, see online one-to-one Sejarah tuition.