Weak design of crisis management frameworks may also lead to ex ante excessive risk-taking in the private sector (e.g., “too-big-to-fail” behaviours) and, in cross-border crises, to a lack of trust and free-riding behaviours by crisis management authorities, amplifying the initial shock. Since the 1970s, the frequency of financial instability episodes has increased globally. This prolonged trend appears to coincide with the gradual undoing of the post-war financial and regulatory structures. The shift towards less stringent financial regulation, combined with 1/5  BIS central bankers' speeches  breakthroughs in financial innovation, has profoundly altered the incentive structures underpinning the financial industry. This is likely to have been a primary cause of the episodes of financial instability that punctuated the global economic history of the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s and reached a climax with the global financial crisis.1 To prevent the emergence of such bad outcomes, a sound, system-wide approach to financial regulation is of the essence. But what is the role of monetary policy? Can monetary policy be conducted in a way that reduces the likelihood of financial instability? The long-running debate on these issues within academic and policy-making circles can be broadly broken down into three different viewpoints.2 The first is the “pre-crisis consensus” view, which argues that monetary policy should maintain a relatively narrow mandate of price stability, leaving financial stability to prudential authorities. Under this view, the monetary authority should only take financial stability concerns into account in so far as they affect the outlook for price stability and economic activity.

In addition, sufficient digital infrastructure should be put in place as it will considerably strengthen other modes of connectivity. The internet and mobile communication connectivity will radically change the ways in which businesses operate and people interact, as they drive productivity and efficiency of all sectors. It will also facilitate financial, transport and logistics services, as well as open door to knowledge sharing for people across the subregion. While digital technology is rapidly improving in some GMS countries, there remains large “digital divide” both within and between countries that should be narrowed. BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  The second aspect is trade and investment connectivity. Intra-regional trade and investment activities have continued to flourish, mainly thanks to complementarities among GMS economies. Many GMS countries have varied and abundant natural resources, young population and low labor costs, while the others can offer technological know-how and financing. With varying industry specializations, the diversity among GMS members has contributed to stronger regional supply chain network, and in the future should magnify national strengths towards a higher competiveness of the whole subregion. Amid thriving trade and investment, Thailand is well-positioned to serve the whole subregion, owing to our established legal framework, financing facility, infrastructure, logistics and IT capability. This can be seen by prospering business activities along the Thai border with other GMS countries. Last year, Thailand’s 25 border customs checkpoints with Myanmar, Laos and Cambodia registered impressive trade flows of more than 500 billion baht.