As a result, euro area countries cannot afford to implement a sovereign default without suffering as a consequence of such a default a major breakdown of their financial, economic and social structure. There is no post-war example of a government in an industrialised economy restructuring its debt. For a euro area sovereign to seek to restructure its debt would be a huge leap into the unknown. This aspect is frequently omitted by financial analysts in their  10  The classic reference is Fischer. I (1933). “The debt-deflation theory of Great Depressions”, Econometrica 1(4), pp. 337–357. BIS central bankers’ speeches  5  newsletters or by commentators or academics in their short op-eds. And this is the reason why they do not get the point right when they state that default and restructuring is unavoidable in the euro area. The fourth difference is that, given the much greater depth and intensity of financial and economic integration in Europe, the strength of contagion across financial institutions and markets is potentially more significant within the euro area today than was the case in Asia in the 1990s. That is not to say that there was no contagion in the 1990s. But the cross-border exposures within the euro area are an order of magnitude greater than was the case for such intra-regional cross-holdings in Asian EMEs. This means that the potential for spillovers and a systemic area-wide crisis is much higher and has to be factored into the policy responses.

The upcoming debut sovereign issuances from established financial centres and emerging markets and the increasing diversity of the composition of sukuk investors across continents, in addition to the growing trend for multi-currency sukuk issuances, cumulatively contribute towards strengthening the dynamism of the sukuk as a global product for fund raising and investment activities in the international financial markets. Malaysia, has witnessed an increasing trend of issuances of foreign currency denominated sukuk in our domestic sukuk market, reinforced by an increasingly wider investor base as reflected by the increased and more diversified foreign investor participation in such issuances. In parallel with this rapid growth of cross-border financial flows has been the increased attention to the development of the international financial architecture relating to financial stability in the Islamic financial system. With the important two international institutions already well established, that is, the accounting standards setting organisation, AAOIFI, and the prudential standard setting body, the IFSB, concerted global efforts have been directed towards the progressive implementation of the recommendations in the eight building blocks identified in the Islamic Finance and Global Financial Stability Report 2010. In particular, the efforts have been focused on the adoption and operationalisation of the prudential standards and the development of the potential for effective liquidity management as part of the efforts to safeguard financial stability. It is encouraging that there has been a higher adoption of the prudential standards issued by the IFSB, with implementation by 13 regulatory and supervisory authorities worldwide with indications that there are more in the pipeline.