You mean the R94/R95?  That was when most manufacture sell their car with less strength steel for ASEAN market.  Because there is no body regulate or conduct any assessment for frontal impact.

Even though the R94/R95 was gazetted, many automakers are not ready.  Not sure if it is still apply or not but it think it is.  We still can see 3 star rating car sell here. R94/R95 at least  4 star AOP point.

Asean NCAP will encourage automakers start to make their cars complied with those. Consumers start comparing these result.

Automakers only put what's needed just to score the rating.  Since Asean NCAP only test frontal, then they only improved on that.  Other things consider 'untested' or 'unrated'.

Asean NCAP to get 4 star, need to have at least 11 points AOP score. Even though no ESP or ABS, still can get that score.
5 star rating must have at least 14 AOP, and ESP is a must. If the care scored 16 in AOP, still 4 star if no ESP. ASEAN NCAP will further improve. They are very new.  They do not do side impact test by they provide passed/failed based on the automakers own crash data.

We follow ASEAN NCAP because that's the origin of the car (factory) and the required homologation.  Car made in EU will not score the same in AU. Example, In india Polo can score 0 star in GNCAP, despite full score for Euro NCAP.

The passo/boon have better jncap rating compare the the pre-fl myvi. 

This how automakers cut corners. Not only steel, but safety equipment level too.

Korean cars used to be quite crappy. Not very reliable, not very good, poor resale value. The cars have improved a lot, but people change very slowly. They thing what was true 15 years ago still is true. That means resale value is a bit low. The cars themselves aren't bad. What also matters is the time of launch... i.e. a car that was launched 8 years ago, but is brand new, isn't as good as one that was launched 2 years ago and is 2 years old. (Though in terms of reliability and smaller problems the car from 8 years ago had more time to get those small problems fixed... that's why people say don't buy first batch).
It's hard to tell. There are different reasons for different ratings in different tests.

They may simply rate it differently, i.e. EuroNCAP stays within the class of cars. A A segment car has to withstand only an impact vs an A segment car in the test. If it were to crash into a big SUV things would look differently. ASEAN NCAP seems to put A and B segment cars in the same category...

They may have safety features missing, i.e. the Indian Polo came with 0 airbags. Even though the chassis, the steel etc. is the same as the European version with 6 airbags, it got 0 vs 5 stars. Without an airbag it didn't matter how strong the car itself is, you're going to hit the steering wheel and dashboard with full force, and that kills you. The Indian Polo was upgraded to 2 airbags (similar to how the Saga was upgraded from 1 to 2 when the crash test results came out), and now it is a safe car for frontal collisions.

They may have used fewer or less hot welding points, thinner/softer materials and miss elements to improve structural rigidity.

You might be able to compare the photos/videos of EuroNCAP crash tests vs those of ASEAN NCAP tests, to see if the structure is similar. And then use the EuroNCAP/ANCAP tests, if the safety spec is the same.

People say legislature is required for cars to be safe. I'd say Europe has one of the highest standard of safety for their cars. But it's not all due to legislature. For example, I have seen a base spec Mercedes Benz that comes with 1 airbag. 1 (!!!). That's not common, but it shows that car makers aren't forced by law to include many airbags (day time running lights are required by law though, as will be emergency city brakes AFAIK, and stability control?). The reason why 6 airbags are common is that customers demand that. Whereever possible, car makers do try to cut costs, even by leaving out safety/making it optional. Several cars, many perhaps don't come with side airbags for the rear passengers these days. They are optional (though not very expensive, say RM 800-1200 usually?).

Generally speaking without airbags a crash will be much more damaging than with, in the direction you are going. So say you are ALWAYS traveling alone, then for a frontal crash having only 1 airbag makes no difference. However for the passenger it's quite bad... I'd move the passenger seat as far back as possible if I don't have an airbag there.

For side impacts, the side and curtain airbags are crucial. Say you are driving through a junction, the traffic light says green. Someone coming from the side ignores his red light and drives into you. Not your fault, but he is well protected by his driver airbag, you, unless you have side and curtain airbags, aren't. Your head and body will be smashed into the windscreen or B pillar, which already will be pushed in thanks to the other car. Driver and passenger airbags are completely useless in this case (and vice versa).

What is needed is that ASEAN NCAP starts testing and rating side impacts as soon as possible, no punches held back. The results have to be shocking. If THAT happens and has an impact on buyers, we'll soon see many cars be equipped with 4 or 6 airbags as standard. Like how the Saga was immediately upgraded thanks to a very bad crash test result. For some cars of course that won't be possible easily (I'm thinking Vios), but that was Toyota's own mistake. Cars that are offered elsewhere with 6 airbags can be upgraded.
Unfortunately, ASEAN NCAP holds back on such damning results because that would hurt car makers. They are more concerned with the well being of Toyota than that of you guys.

@UbuntuClient: Those are long term endurance tests, not safety tests. Nothing to do with the subject of this thread.

And yes, car makers do those tests.