The Straits Times (Singapore) on May 26 quoted Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew as saying that it would be difficult for Asia to be one community like the European Union because the countries of Asia are not as 'comfortable' with one another as are the nations of Europe.

'To have one currency, a borderless community, I don't see that. Not yet. Maybe after 50, 70, 80 years, we can look at the matter again,' he was quoted as telling a largely business audience in Tokyo.

True enough; which is why it is quite unfair to criticise East Asia, or the smaller, more compact region of South-east Asia, for not achieving the degree of union or community that the EU has attained.

On the other hand, it would be wrong to conclude from the dissimilarity between East Asia - or ASEAN - and the EU that East Asia or ASEAN has nothing to learn from the European experience.

For East Asia and ASEAN can learn much from the EU in three areas: the imperative of regional economic integration, the feasibility of the integration process and the EU example in specific sectors.

It is generally recognised that East Asia - especially South-east Asia - can sustain high economic growth rates if its economy is integrated as a region, so that it provides one production platform and an efficient supply chain. An integrated economy would give East Asia and South-east Asia more weight in international trade negotiations, largely in the World Trade Organisation, and in global financial discussions, as in the International Monetary Fund.

The European experience has given proof of this. Although a number of European economies are sputtering at the moment, it should not be forgotten that, from the start of European integration in 1958 to around 2000, the member-states of the EU achieved rapid economic growth and gained considerable economic strength.

At the same time, the process and achievement of integration have enabled Europe to transcend and relegate to the past the conflicts that had devastated the continent so many times in history. They have allowed the EU to absorb peacefully the Central and Eastern European states from which Western Europe had been estranged for decades.

To be sure, European integration was driven by the chastening experience of war and the necessity of Franco-German reconciliation. It was built upon Europe's traditions, the strong interdependence of the European economies and a common culture rooted in Christianity. It was tailor-made to the challenges that Europe faced in the second half of the 20th century and constituted a model suitable to Europe's needs and the European way of tackling political and economic challenges.

Nevertheless, many elements, principles and mechanisms that the Europeans marshalled with such great success can be mobilised to promote integration in other parts of the world, including Asia.

The European model is a combination of ambitious goals and a step-by-step approach. When the process of integration was launched, the goals were clear - a common market, a common agricultural policy and a common external trade policy.

In 1958, these were ambitious goals, so ambitious that few believed they were realistic.

However, the treaties that set these goals provided for a step-by-step process, including a timetable. Since then, the Europeans have used this model again and again. First, they agree on an ambitious goal, and then they implement it, in a laborious and often tedious process, but never questioning the goal itself.

Today, 12 EU countries are members of a monetary union, having replaced their own currencies with a single European currency, the euro. The euro was adopted as the single currency in 2002, but the EU's leaders had approved it as far back as 1969. It took almost one-third of a century for the euro to go from idea and ambition to reality and use.

One important lesson that can be learned from the European experience is that the process and achievement of closer integration can cultivate in the member-states the mutual trust that is essential for lasting peace and stability.

Another is that one country cannot hope alone to deal with many challenges in today's globalised world, such as transnational crime, international terrorism, environmental degradation and communicable diseases. Nation-states can defend and promote their political and economic interests much more effectively together than separately.

A third lesson is that the Europeans have always ensured that they pursue regional integration in a win-win manner, that all EU members feel that they are better off inside than outside. The union has to serve as some kind of problem grinder for the member-states, never rejecting an individual member presenting problems, but trying to make that member comfortable by working out solutions.

These are lessons that transcend cultural and historical similarities or differences; they are applicable to all regions.

In the same way, there are lessons to be learned from the EU experience in terms of specific measures for integration, be they in the realm of customs procedures, product standards, environmental protection, public health, transport and communications policy, energy or the prevention of anti-competitive behavior. These are measures that work and should not be rejected out of hand just because they are practised in another part of the world.

Europe and East Asia are different and always will be, but this does not mean that East Asia, or at least ASEAN, is not driven by similar political and economic imperatives of regional economic integration as Europe was, or that the EU process cannot be replicated to some significant extent in East Asia.