Today, this question carries greater weight for several reasons. First, the world has become increasingly globalised, with countries seeking to augment their interests through the promotion of regionalism.

Second, as a result of this globalisation, the rise of China and India is now reshaping the Asian geopolitical landscape and shifting the regional balance of power.

And third, this new international environment comes with new international realities, most notably the threat of terrorism.

Amid the regional and global changes, Asean has recently embarked upon reinventing itself with the launching of new initiatives designed to prove its viability. It has formulated a planned integration of all 10 members, drawn up the Asean Vision 2020, which outlines a number of objectives towards regional development, organised last December's East Asia Summit in Kuala Lumpur and drafted the Asean Charter, all as part of strengthening its institutional structure.

All in all, Southeast Asia wishes to see an Asean community that emphasises historical ties, a shared cultural heritage and the bonds of a common regional identity. An Asean identity would provide a sense of belonging among member states and hopefully encourage them to coordinate their policies in regard to external powers.

But identity creation is a tricky business. Identity is an amorphous concept, often brought into existence through comparison and contrast. What Asean countries think of as their common identity is usually exemplified by impressive intra-trade statistics and lots of annual meetings.

The moulding of a regional identity is indeed more intricate than simply compiling a record of Asean activities. An identity needs to reflect a certain level of organisational achievement, common values and ethical beliefs among members, a striving for international stature and, most importantly, political commitment.

In an attempt to determine what best represents an Asean identity, the Asia News Network (ANN) conducted a joint survey last year. Known as the ANN AsiaPoll, the results showed that 60 per cent of those questioned felt "people in Asean identified with one another".

Although the findings shed positive light on a rising awareness of being "citizens of Asean", they told nothing about how such a regional identity could actually be achieved. To outsiders, Asean remains trapped in its old self-proclaimed identity, frequently associated with inward-looking values like non-intervention, quiet diplomacy, veiled politics, symbolism/ritual and rule by consensus.

Nowadays, even Asean's most conservative guardians have begun to downplay the principle of non-intervention and understand the benefits of regional integration in the face of a highly competitive world. Yet stripping off Asean's old image and reasserting a new identity are equally daunting challenges, ones that require willingness and determination on the part of each member.

The most critical hurdle is the development gap among member states, which has a powerful impact on the degree of regional engagement. Less-developed Asean countries sometimes feel isolated, due to their own deficiencies in resources and knowledge while attempting to catch up with the rest of the grouping, particularly in areas of more sophisticated cooperation like free-trade agreements or prevention of infectious diseases.

Some members have had very little experience with multilateral cooperation after long years under colonial rule. And some have even employed Asean as a shield against external pressure, in order to prolong their brutal regimes.

During a seminar held last month in Singapore, Asean Secretary-General Ong Keng Yong voiced his concern about the issue of Burma, which has further separated Asean from the new global realities. The lingering debate over how Asean should handle Burma - firmly or gently - only confirms the elusiveness of an Asean identity-building process.

I had the privilege of asking Ong how he thought an Asean identity could be brought about and what its characteristics might be. He replied succinctly that the concept of Asean must be central to each member's policies and in the hearts and minds of its leaders. In recent years, though, no Asean member has even come close to achieving this essential element, even though members consistently claim they hold tightly to Asean principles.

Ong also mentioned that "being Asean" must be part of every Southeast Asian's psyche. But because of Burma, Asean's significance diminished quickly after that country gained admission nine years ago.

Other Asean members learned of the eviction of former Burmese junta strongman General Khin Nyunt and the relocation of that country's capital only through the news media. This has exemplified the extent to which a regional identity as a whole can become tarnished from the actions of a single member.

As at the national level, an identity can bring harmony, confusion, perhaps even a degree of resentment, to different groups of people within the region. Artificial though it can be in its making, an identity can also prove forceful once it is fully formed. Therefore, our regional identity must be built upon recognised universal values: human rights, mutual prosperity and freedom from oppression.

Apart from placing Asean at the core of domestic and foreign policy, other ingredients could include greater collaboration between Asean governments and their respective citizens in defining a regional identity. And since the expression of an identity is collective by nature, a greater role for civil society is quintessential, as that would symbolise a regional identity that is based on people power and not solely on state authority.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun is an independent writer based in Singapore.

Pavin Chachavalpongpun