I'll try to speak a bit more loudly into the microphone here.

ASEAN was therefore established in order to mitigate regional crises and to create a framework for stability and intraregional co-operation.

Due to this dominant concern over security, ASEAN developed two key principles that have defined its behaviour and actions until this day. These are the norm of non-interference and a specific type of decision-making, known as the ASEAN way.

This norm of non-interference is the central norm that holds ASEAN together today. Its basic tenet is that states should respect the sovereignty of independent nations. This norm has been crucial in maintaining peace in the region. Since 1967, no states within ASEAN have fought a war among themselves. This norm of non-interference ensures that neighbouring states, therefore, do not interfere in others' affairs.

The ASEAN way, the second principle, is a specific type of decision-making that shapes how ASEAN addresses problems and crises. It is based on informality, consensus, accommodation and compromise. Crucially, the ASEAN way shuns binding legal resolutions, majoritarian votes and formal pronouncements. Notably, this principle sets the association apart from the practices and processes of western organizations.

While these two principles of non-interference and the ASEAN way unite the association, in other aspects the association is extremely diverse and reflects very wide-ranging views.

In terms of regime type—the type of government—ASEAN includes democracies, hybrid or semi-authoritarian regimes, and hard authoritarian regimes. The commitment toward liberal values, including human rights, is consequently very mixed within the association.

In terms of economic development, the association also ranges very widely, from very poor countries to middle-income and rich countries.

Finally, in terms of foreign policies and relations to great powers, such as the United States and China, ASEAN states have very different positions and very different interests.

The consequence of this wide internal variation within ASEAN affects the way the association addresses problems and crises in two specific ways. First, the association usually looks for consensus when dealing with a pressing problem, precisely because it encompasses such a mix of nation-states. Second, ASEAN responds to crises in a relatively slow manner, because it tries to satisfy the range of states within the association.

My final point is that ASEAN has also been changing in recent years, particularly in terms of the question of legitimacy and how it is perceived in the international community. That concern is especially relevant for some of the more economically developed countries within the association, such as Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia. In that regard, ASEAN has recently sought to address problems of human rights and democracy more directly, especially on the question of the 2021 Myanmar coup. However, overall, ASEAN finds it very challenging to address illiberalism in the region, precisely because the association has long championed pragmatism, ambiguity and non-interference.

Thank you.