Nine years have passed since Burma joined Asean on July 23, 1997 and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) is still struggling with the thorny issue of Burma's democratisation.
Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar's admission on Friday that Asean should let the United Nations deal with the issue says a lot about what the 39-year-old organisation has achieved or failed to achieve on this sticky issue.
In recent years, Asean has tried to create a perception in the eyes of the international community that it is relevant, if not important. It appears to be content with achievements such as signing a Treaty of Amity and Cooperation with China in 2003, followed by ones with India, South Korea, Japan, Russia, New Zealand and Australia.
But in other core areas of cooperation with the international players, Asean still struggles.
The Asean voice could focus attention on issues such as North Korea's nuclear development programme. After all, the six-party talks involving both Koreas, the US, Japan, China and Russia could be held in the Malaysian capital.
Also, Malaysia and Indonesia are keen to take up the issue of Middle East conflicts and are calling for a cease-fire.
The Philippines, which takes over the Asean chair in August, has suggested Friends of the Chair system be established, comprising the past, present and future chairs of Asean for consultations.
While Thailand's caretaker government disapproved of a similar troika when it was proposed by the former Democrat-led government, it is now promoting the role of the chair to have more room for manoeuvring.
If we want to address, say, the troubles on the Korean peninsula, we might need China as a Friend of the Chair, said political scientist Nopadol Gunavibool.
So it should be flexible and up to the chair to choose.
Thailand favours the idea of the chair having a greater role, because they realise that the ball will soon be in its court. After the Philippines and Singapore, the torch will be passed to Bangkok.
Against outgoing-chair Malaysia's seeming exhaustion with the Burma issue, Thailand needs to try to convince Rangoon and other Asean colleagues that the Burma issue should not be a cause for disunity.
Since expelling Burma or even sanctions against the country are out of the question for Asean, the grouping needs to retain what little influence it has in Rangoon by taking a regional approach to the issue, a senior Thai official said.
Mr Syed Hamid was denied access to Nobel laureate Aung San Suu Kyi during his March visit to Rangoon, but the junta then allowed a brief meeting between the opposition leader and the UN undersecretary-general for political affairs Ibrahim Gambari two months later.
The next Asean chair, the Philippines, should be permitted to meet The Lady, at least as a symbolic gesture to show the world that Rangoon also cares about Asean, the Thai official said.
But Sunai Phasuk, a Bangkok representative of Human Rights Watch, said he did not know if the Thaksin caretaker government still has the credibility and clout to play a leading role.
In fact, if there is any change of government in Thailand, foreign policy towards Asean and Burma would certainly change, he said.
The appeasement policy towards the military junta and the negligence of Asean's role should be reviewed, Mr Sunai said.
The rights activist, however, said he had hopes that, with pressure from within Philippine society and from advocates in Manila's parliament, the Philippine government would take a much tougher stand on Burma.
Asean must not compromise with Rangoon by not mentioning Mrs Suu Kyi in dealings with the regime, he said.
Otherwise the grouping will lose all credibility.
Chulalongkorn University political science lecturer Surat Horachaikul agreed Asean needed to review what it has done.
If it intends to stand as a counter-balance to the world's major powers, Asean leaders must prove it by acts, not words, he said.
Caretaker Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's letter to President George W. Bush a month ago has indicated that the government had acted contrary to its own words, he said.
"We cannot be counted on by democracy lovers as we support the junta. The Thaksin government has lent money to that regime. Even if we offer [Rangoon] a lesson in democracy with elections every four years, can a non-transparent regime like Thaksin's be a good model for the military regime?" Mr Surat said.
"I don't think the Burmese generals will listen to his lectures anyway."
Unlike the European Union (EU), Asean has not given itself the right to force new members to behave or adjust themselves to the rules of the founding members, the political scientist said.
All 10 new EU members' records on labour and democracy have improved, while Asean has made compromises to allow in newcomers with poor records, like Burma, he said.
He also did not see how expansion of the Asean Plus Three process or the 23-member East Asian Summit (EAS) process would improve the situation.
Deepening cooperation with Burma has yet to yield a good result, Mr Surat said. Asean's, or more precisely Mr Thaksin's, talk about an Asia Bond and rice and rubber alliances sound good, but it goes nowhere, he said.
Members of Asean are already striving to forge bilateral trade agreements with major countries, instead of doing so as a group or within the World Trade Organisation, he said.
Yet Prapat Thepchatree, chairman of Thammasat University's Asean Studies Programme, said the EAS could be regarded a clever strategy for Asean to counter a rising China. If Beijing does not conform under the Asean Plus Three forum, Asean would still have the EAS card to play, he said.
Mr Prapat saw a gradual evolution of the EAS security forum. "At least they are moving from a confidence-building stage to preventive diplomacy now and... seem to listen to each other more."
Overall, he said, we should not expect much from Asean. "The non-interference principle remains strong. Burma has been a chronic symptom for years and will be for years to come."