A deep schism is emerging within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) over how to handle Myanmar’s ongoing crisis since the 2021 military coup.
As prominent human rights organizations issue scathing rebukes demanding the total isolation of the military regime following its “sham” elections, Malaysia is breaking ranks to actively restore diplomatic ties with the regime in Naypyidaw.
The conflicting developments follow the 48th ASEAN Summit in Cebu, Philippines, on May 8, where member states struggled to reach a consensus on the status of Myanmar’s new pro-military administration following the controversial inauguration of regime leader Min Aung Hlaing as president on April 10.
Malaysia signals a diplomatic thaw
After nearly five years of diplomatic isolation following the 2021 coup in Myanmar, signs of a thaw are accelerating. On May 19, Malaysian Foreign Minister Mohamad Hasan visited Naypyidaw to meet with the regime’s Foreign Minister Tin Maung Swe.
Regime media reported that the ministers “cordially discussed matters relating to the enhancement of relations” both bilaterally and within the context of ASEAN. The visit signals a significant political shift.
Since 2021, ASEAN has largely refused to recognize Min Aung Hlaing’s regime, but Malaysia’s engagement suggests a recalibration is underway.
“[Hasan]’s visit shows Malaysia has now recognised the election outcome, and it is a good move,” Thai journalist Kavi Chongkittavorn told Malaysian state media, adding that a recalibrated engagement is necessary and could pave the way for Myanmar’s full return to ASEAN high-level summits and meetings.
Min Aung Hlaing and his senior regime officials have been barred from ASEAN since April 2021 when he agreed to the bloc’s peace plan, called the Five Point Consensus, but refused to implement it upon his return to Myanmar.
Proponents of re-engagement argue it is vital for addressing the severe humanitarian crisis inside Myanmar, which was devastated by a 7.7 magnitude earthquake on March 28, 2025.
The U.N. estimates that the ongoing civil war and natural disasters have displaced over 3.7 million people in Myanmar with the majority being forced from their homes since the 2021 coup.
Rights groups slam ‘catastrophic failure
The push for Myanmar’s re-engagement at ASEAN has been fiercely condemned by civil society groups.
In a joint statement released on May 19, the Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), ALTSEAN-Burma, and Progressive Voice lambasted ASEAN’s approach as a “catastrophic failure.”
The rights groups categorically rejected the phased elections orchestrated between December 2025 and Jan. 25, labeling them a “sham” built on disinformation, intimidation, and ongoing aerial attacks.
They argue that by treating the regime in Naypyidaw as a legitimate representatives of the Myanmar people—and now recognizing the regime’s election results—ASEAN states are implicitly validating an illegal coup led by Min Aung Hlaing, who ousted Aung San Suu Kyi’s democratically-elected National League for Democracy (NLD) government.
The three organizations warned against being deceived by superficial concessions, such as the regime’s recent New Year amnesty of 292 political prisoners, which they characterized as a “carefully choreographed gesture” to manufacture a false appearance of progress for foreign governments.
A clash of frameworks
The competing narratives highlight a fundamental clash in how to resolve the crisis. While nations like Malaysia are leaning toward pragmatic engagement to deliver aid and force reconciliation, rights groups are demanding ASEAN abandon its previous “Five-Point Consensus” entirely.
Instead, the civil society groups are pushing for “Five Counter Points,” which demand an immediate end to airstrikes, the severance of all U.N. and ASEAN ties with the regime, and exclusive engagement with the National Unity Government (NUG) and ethnic resistance organizations.
Both sides are deeply divided on humanitarian relief. While regional and international actors cite the need to work with Naypyidaw to deliver aid, rights groups categorically reject channeling assistance through military-controlled mechanisms.
Instead, they propose that aid be delivered cross-border and managed directly by frontline local responders, warning that the regime has consistently weaponized humanitarian support.
With Malaysia taking concrete steps toward Myanmar’s new pro-military Min Aung Hlaing administration, it remains to be seen how the rest of ASEAN will navigate the mounting pressure from both regional diplomats and human rights advocates.
Bernama/PV
