The Association of Southeast Asian Nations' Peoples' Assembly was held on the Indonesian island of Batam, after last week's Association of Southeast Asian Nations (Asean) heads of government summit in Singapore, and ended on Sunday ( Nov 26) night.

The event was an attempt to fend off one of the loudest criticisms of Asean in recent years - namely that it is a bunch of old fuddy-duddies who happen to be heads of state, intent only on upholding their long-standing principle of not interfering in each other's problems in the name of regional stability.

And the motley contradictions and contrasts on show gave a resounding message of Asean's intense diversity - long in existence and increasingly sophisticated, but studiously ignored by old-guard governments intent on clinging to a notion of Asian values.

The generational gap was perhaps the most obvious, with older comments veering toward the patronising and patriarchal, while younger voices brandished their Palm Pilots and shouted, "Give us a chance."

These are people for whom Asean's so-called Vision for 2020 - which stresses the need to build caring communities - is decades late and inadequate.

The groups represent that amorphous, ever-growing band of non-governmental organisations spread across Asia, where contacts around the world are the daily bread. And they ranged from one-room e-mail networks to international campaign lobbyists familiar with the halls of power from Washington to Geneva, Strasbourg and The Hague.

If nothing else, these people, mainly young, cancel out the old-guard arguments of Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew and his ilk about the existence of some kind of Asian veneration for authority and order for the sake of riches.

Bluntly divergent opinions and profound oppositions marked every discussion on issues ranging from human rights and the empowerment of women to corruption, poverty and the case studies of Burma and East Timor.

Radical feminists from Mindanao in the Philippines sat in veils alongside anti-globalisation activists from Thailand, with Indonesian businessman Sofyan Wanandi in between.

A Swedish thesis-writer talking about the need for a regional human rights mechanism, Western diplomats, leaders of the anti-Anwar Ibrahim movement in Malaysia and of Indonesia's radical Peoples' Democratic Party, government functionaries from Laos and exiles from Burma - all sat down to discuss the fate of the region, in perhaps the first dialogue of its type between such a diverse collection of people in the region.

No formal results were sought but, at least, it marked a start to discussions. "It wasn't bad," said one panellist.

On every subject, the clear voice from the young was that Asean's principle of non-interference in the affairs of member states must be overturned, if the organisation had any hope of a future.

It was stirring stuff.

One of the spokesmen for the Burma diaspora, Debbie Stothard, even threw the arguments of the Asean old guard back against them.

Ms Stothard insisted that, like them, she was against interference in member countries. It is just that the interference she and her colleagues were railing against was the way in which Asean governments helped sustain Burma's military junta through trade ties.

"Asean shouldn't be interfering by providing the means and legitimacy to allow the continued oppression in Burma," she said. "Asean governments are afraid of the junta . . . we [non-governmental officials] are busy smuggling out information from the legitimate government [Aung San Suu Kyi's decimated National League for Democracy], to its Asean neighbours."

Ms Stothard, a Malaysian, says she was recently deported from Thailand because of her contact with the Burmese opposition underground, and is now classified as a security risk.

When she tackled Asean secretary-general Rodolfo Severino on what wage and labour conditions would apply to planned Asean infrastructure projects in Burma, Mr Severino was forced to admit that it was not yet clear.

The suave former foreign affairs minister of Indonesia, Ali Alatas, listened to much rhetoric about Asean's failure to support East Timor, after it was invaded by Indonesia in 1975, an action which he spent years of his life defending. He responded that Asean was now talking about "enhanced interaction" instead of "non-interference".

"Let's not dramatise or romanticise," he said. "Civil society [groups] should help Asean governments to enhance our interaction, rather than be cynical or sarcastic about it.

"I continue to be a bit dismayed to see Burma put together with East Timor," he said. "On the point of human rights, this is correct, but . . . East Timor is a different problem. The essence of East Timor is unfinished decolonisation and from the beginning had to be debated in the United Nations. In all this, Asean couldn't be blamed."

There were stark disagreements on such obvious political lines, but even more interesting were divergences within, such as on the role of media.

Most speakers spouted the line most popular in the developing world's progressive circles, namely, that media should be a tool in the struggle, it should side with "the people", it should be developmental journalism.

In short, the non-governmental officials want the media to take sides, and disputes the very concept of neutrality.

But Malaysia's Rehman Rashid, who runs the AgendaMalaysia Web site, along with Indonesia's Bambang Harymurti who edits the Tempo news weekly, spoke against the tide.

"Let's not be too precious. There's not much to agonise about," Mr Rashid said. "Let's get back to the basic principles of journalism: the what, where, when, why and how. This idea of developmental journalism was wrong-headed from the start, based on the idea that we were victims of others' misperceptions so we have to send messages of who we were.

"It's good-news journalism but did not touch the truth. We are mirrors and windows, we're here to record what happens, it is all we are mandated to do," Mr Rashid said.

Mr Harymurti also put a witty stop to the NGO world's predilection for bemoaning globalisation.

In response to one questioner from Indonesia, he said Indonesians had the least to worry about as they had long been the most global of people - absorbing Buddhism wholesale when it first came, then Hinduism, then Islam.

Comments came from participants on subjects ranging from the oppression of Muslims in Mindanao, to the use of genocide by governments and the descent into "neo-tribalism" in Indonesia. Again in the human rights discussion, it was the Asean states' insistence on avoiding political interventions which had to go.

"Years ago, when we assembled around the point of a Regional Human Rights Mechanism . . . we felt we had found something to say, that we had Asean by the balls so to speak," said Indonesia's Attorney-General Marzuki Darusman. He was previously the head of Indonesia's National Human Rights Commission and was part of the working group trying to set up a regional rights body.

"For the future we should now look at the situation in terms of realities," he said. "Asean societies are becoming more open, more individualistic. There is a need and demand for rights to be protected and this is going to get stronger. The key is to persevere."

From Cambodia, Dr Khek Galabru argued for a regional rights body so it could help support efforts such as her own to form an independent rights commission in the face of government opposition.

Such a body is also necessary precisely because many rights issues are by their nature cross-border, such as the international traffic in women, the dumping of toxic goods, and the regional security threat posed by Burma's military junta.

"The non-interference principle of Asean is the biggest hindrance to the Regional Human Rights Mechanism," said Sriprapha Petchmesri, of Thailand. And Asean member states have little to agree on and no shared political culture, she said.

Dr Kanwaljit Kaur Gurnam Singh Soin of Singapore, announced that "even Singapore" now has a working group aimed at contributing to a regional rights mechanism. Copies were available of Singaporean James Gomez's book, Self-Censorship: Singapore's Shame.

His colleagues from the fledgling "Think Centre" Internet forum were also available for the discussion of challenging ideas.

But douses of cold water fell occasionally to bring a sharp sense of reality. Although the Burma discussion ran well over time late on Saturday night, at least one delegation was appalled by it.

"If we use this forum against a third country, then it is not good," said Chaleune Warinthrasak, director general of the Lao Institute of Foreign Affairs, in a firm critique of the Burma debate.

"We can get together here from all walks of life and if we use this forum correctly this can help develop the Asean vision. But if it is to attack others, then I won't allow it."

Though his country sees no need for NGOs as it has mass organisations representing sectors such as women and labour, he enjoyed many workshops.

"I liked very much the media session, when Bambang Harymurti said we don't trust each other in the region, but take everything from outside and the West."

Vaudine England the Post's Jakarta correspondent.