It might be of some interest that the possibility that the Icelandic banks might fail in precisely the way they did was much more widely foreseen than is currently acknowledged. Available on the BIS website is a speech that I gave on 18 May 2007 before the Institut International d’Études Bancaires, entitled Financial globalisation and challenges for prudential policies and macroeconomic management, where I said: “...emergency liquidity assistance will be complicated or even impossible for central banks to deliver when internationally active banks face liquidity problems in currencies other than that of their home country. Iceland is a case in point.” 4 But this was before the breakout of the financial turmoil in August of the same year, and in company with many others, I saw this as a tail event rather than an immediate possibility, although concern was beginning to creep in. However, as the financial crisis intensified, the risks mounted, and by early 2008, both the banks themselves and the Icelandic authorities were acutely aware of it. 5 This is why the Central Bank was actively seeking to conclude FX swap agreements with major central banks and why, in May 2008, parliament authorised large-scale foreign borrowing in order to boost reserves. Both efforts were largely unsuccessful, except for the € bn swap agreement with the Nordic countries. The committee investigating the collapse will probably throw light on why that was. 3  Moody’s Global Credit Research (2009). Corporate Default and Recovery Rates, 1920–2008. 26 February 2009. 4  Gudmundsson, Már (2007).

Opening Remarks Veerathai Santiprabhob, Governor of the Bank of Thailand  ASEAN Banking Cybersecurity Conference 2019 Crystal Hall, 3rd Floor, The Athenee Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand 6 September, 2019  TBA Board of Directors, TBA members, Members of ASEAN banking community, Distinguished guests, Ladies and gentlemen, I am delighted to be here with you this morning, and I would like to thank TB-CERT for inviting me to speak at this event. Technology and the internet have undeniably become integrated into our daily lives. Customers’ behaviors continue to evolve and adapt to the technological progresses. In response, new technologies are developed to serve and accommodate customers’ ever-evolving needs. A prime example is the invention of smartphone over a decade ago, which has completely transformed our ways of lives and increased people’s connectivity to unprecedented levels. The banking industry, too, is undergoing massive digitalization, from the user-facing tools like mobile banking apps to backend infrastructure and essentially everything in between. These developments are the key drivers behind the convenience and productivity that we all enjoy today. But, inherent to any invention, these technological revolutions come with their own form of risk: cyber risks. The more “digital” banks become, the more channels for potential points of attacks from cyber criminals, who are constantly evolving to exploit new loopholes. Even when these loopholes are identified and patches are issued, delayed updates could also pose potential risk. We have repeatedly witnessed that the various—and many times severe—cyberrelated incidents often revolve around financial institutions.