The ASEAN Law Ministers meet once in three years whereas ASEAN Foreign Ministers and Ministers responsible for economic cooperation meet more frequently - at least once a year. Why? I think it reflects not just a difference in focus, but more importantly, how ASEAN has evolved. Over the last thirty years, regional economic cooperation has been the main platform to bond ASEAN and to deliver benefits to its members. For example, AFTA was established in 1992 and the ASEAN Investment Area (AIA) in 1998. And even before AFTA and AIA are fully implemented, the Economic Ministers are already working to create e-ASEAN, or the ASEAN Information Infrastructure.

One may therefore ask why the pace of legal cooperation has not quickened.

One reason is the great diversity of ASEAN. This includes the range of legal and constitutional systems in ASEAN. Some countries have Westminster-style parliamentary systems. Others have different forms of an elected executive President. The rest have other forms of Government. The laws and legal systems also vary greatly: some are based on the English common law while others are influenced. by continental Roman and Napoleonic legal systems or draw inspiration from Dutch continental law, Adat laws and Islamic law. In some ASEAN countries, there are also Muslim Syariah Courts exercising jurisdiction over Muslims on certain matters.

A second fact of ASEAN is that it was never meant to supplant individual sovereignties. ASEAN was founded to manage differences and to provide a framework for regional cooperation. Some of these differences were fundamental, but they did not prevent ASEAN from pursuing a larger regional dream. This is one reason why ASEAN has worked. We accepted its diversity - race, language, religion, political system, legal and constitutional traditions - and focused on developing our common interests.

ASEAN, therefore, is not like the EU. We do not, for example, have bodies like the European Parliament or European Court. We have different historical experiences whereas Europe had centuries of shared civilisation. Even wars between the European empires, and later nations, had their code of contact, conduct and contest. Perhaps as a result of their experience of military conflicts, European states have been willing to cede some of their sovereignty, including in certain legal fields, to a central authority. But European states are also looking to the future where a united Europe will better compete in economic and other fields with superpower United States and other emerging powerful countries or regions.

These two central historical facts of ASEAN have therefore set a definite limit not necessarily well delineated - to the convergence of our legal frameworks.

However, this is not an argument for status quo. The global landscape has changed drastically and will continue to do so at an even faster rate. Within our national borders, the forces of globalisation have transformed the way we live, work and play. Within ASEAN, globalisation has heightened our sense of vulnerability and the need for closer regional cooperation. In the larger regional and international context, globalisation has engendered greater economic competition for finite investments and resources.

Globalisation even challenges the sanctity of our traditional legal institutions. For example, it has revealed the close nexus between economic growth and our legal systems. Indeed, the existence of a sound legal system and effective administration of justice is now seen as a key requirement for attaining economic and social growth. The Heritage Foundation's 1999 Index of Economic Freedom identifies the rule of law and the protection of property rights as a key driving force for economic growth. Other economic institutions like the World Economic Forum also assess a country's legal system and the performance of its judiciary in ranking a country's global economic competitiveness. They argue correctly that without these elements, individuals and firms would face severe disincentives to invest and engage in productive activities.

The financial crisis of July 1997 was a dramatic lesson in globalisation. It did not only expose bad economic practices and inadequate policies. It also holds lessons for our legal institutions. Following the crisis, it is increasingly clear that we need to support our economic growth with a more transparent and consistent legal regime laying down guidelines and standards for corporate governance. For example, clear business laws such as those governing bankruptcy and insolvency will encourage foreign investments and funds to move into our countries. The lack of such laws will be a major disincentive for commercial lending, which is necessary for economies to grow.

If sound legal systems are important for each country's economic development, the laws and legal systems of ASEAN countries must also collectively assist in accelerating and facilitating ASEAN regional cooperation.

I am not suggesting that we contrive a convergence of the diverse legal frameworks in ASEAN. Even if done gradually, it is unrealistic. But the process of globalisation will compel us to move in the direction of harmonisation and coordination. If ASEAN wants to succeed in the new globalised economy, increased harmonisation will help ASEAN integrate into that economy. In addition, without some degree of harmonisation, our long-term credibility as a regional organisation will be difficult to maintain. Investors tend to rate us as a region, and not only as individual countries. When there is instability in one country, they become anxious about the entire region. Thus, ASEAN's comfortable sense of regionalism, which is more inward than outward and less legalistic, may no longer be a valid response to globalisation. We must seek a balance between our own distinctive national legal structures and the need for more harmonisation and institutionalisation in some useful and common legal areas.

In the economic sector, ASEAN has done much to meet the challenges of globalisation. But progress here can be hindered by inadequate legal infrastructure. Our legal cooperation needs to catch up to support and facilitate our economic initiatives. In a globalised economy, where clear and transparent laws and effective judicial mechanisms become the norm, there is a need for ASEAN countries to develop laws in line with international trends. Good legal frameworks have become an important requirement of economic competitiveness.

As you, the Law Ministers, will be addressing the legal dimension of ASEAN cooperation, I will now suggest some feasible areas where we may need to see more harmonisation of our legal interests and structures.

First, I see a need to examine ASEAN legal regimes to see if they are in fact consistent with the provisions of the various economic agreements such as AFTA and AIA. Apart from ensuring that their legal framework facilitates the implementation of specific AFTA programmes, Law Ministers can also help to remove disparities in national laws governing international trade, which can create obstacles to the flow of trade. There is, therefore, a case for a common set of rules to be promulgated for trade between ASEAN countries. These rules can be cast along the lines already agreed upon at international level, such as those drafted by United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL). In addition to facilitating the expansion and deepening of the AIA, ASEAN countries should re-examine their laws to remove impediments that discourage foreign and intra-ASEAN investments. For example, foreign investments will flow to areas where they have better protection. The existence of a transparent legal system with fair and consistent enforcement, which ensures that commercial contracts and arrangements will be respected, is a plus factor.

Another fast-growing area is e-commerce. Already, a significant part of the world economy is being "virtualised". In 1998, on-line sales were approximately US$32 billion. They will grow by leaps and bounds. Hence, ASEAN must develop a predictable legal environment for e-commerce transactions. Global e-commerce will shift international trade from paper documents to paperless transactions. We will have to develop a commercial code to deal with legal issues arising from this shift, such as, the legal status of electronic contracts. Intellectual property laws will also need to be reviewed.

However, our objectives must be clear. The legal environment should facilitate and encourage more transactions, not place legal obstacles to them. In short, we should shape and take advantage of e-commerce rather than try to stop an irreversible trend. ASEAN would be moving backwards if we believe that global IT development and e-commerce can be managed according to our designs. Our legal environment must conform to international standards so as not to cause dislocation between the local legal infrastructure and the rest of the world. The immediate challenge for Law Ministers is to consider how they can develop a conducive legal framework for the ASEAN Information Infrastructure initiative.

Finally, to achieve many of these tasks I have raised, a more basic need must be achieved in ASEAN: greater networking, more mutual understanding and knowledge-pooling among our legal institutions and people. We should not confine it to only the officials. We should harness the private legal profession as well as University Law Faculties and other legal institutions. I am pleased that the Law Ministers have been discussing how to establish such networks for the legal officers and law graduates of ASEAN countries.

I note that you will also discuss appointing an ASEAN Legal Information Authority in each country to encourage exchange of legal information. This can be a first step towards an ASEAN Legal Information Centre, a one-stop comprehensive documentation centre holding and disseminating ASEAN legal materials. As part of this effort, you could also prepare a compendium of ASEAN trade and investment laws as a ready reference for businessmen. It will certainly facilitate intra-ASEAN trade and increase investment into ASEAN.

In conclusion, ASEAN should take a building block approach to harmonising our laws or legal frameworks. We are not looking for a radical transformation or convergence of our legal frameworks. Instead, in reviewing our legal cooperation, we should prioritise and focus on areas where there is already a common agenda, namely economic cooperation. But we must also be mindful that our legal infrastructures must also keep pace with global trends. This will help ASEAN ride the next wave of economic growth.

I wish you a productive meeting.