encik abdul rasheed ghaffour : asean - advancing its potential, hurdles and the way forward closing remarks by mr encik abdul rasheed ghaffour, deputy governor of the central bank of malaysia ( bank negara malaysia ), at the conference, kuala lumpur, 4 august 2017. * * * thank you for having me here today to deliver the closing remarks for the asean @ 50 conference. i am also honoured that you have chosen sasana kijang to be your meeting point for this conference. i ’ m sure that all of you have greatly benefited from the two thought - provoking panel discussions earlier, that drilled down the measures required for asean to achieve its economic promise. asean proudly welcomes its golden jubilee next week. this momentous occasion not only celebrates our achievements thus far, but also marks the gravity of the work ahead of us. we will continue to galvanise all sectors of society – public, private and civil – to ensure asean ’ s achievements are not just reflected on paper, but more importantly, can be seen, felt and heard. asean stands out as a dynamic region – with diverse strengths that continues to benefit its growing population of 625 million people. in 2015, asean contributed to more than 7 percent of world exports. our strong trade performance has contributed to increased employment by about 70 million over the past 17 years – enabling better livelihoods of households. millions have been lifted out of poverty with the significant rise of asean ’ s gdp per capita, from usd1, 054 in 1996 to usd4, 000 in 2016. our economy is the seventh - largest in the world and the region ’ s growth continues to surpass that of advanced economies. such progress has enabled and nurtured our own regional champions, many of which have moved ahead to do even more for the asean people. indeed, ensuring that the gains from asean ’ s development are equitably shared by all is no small feat. it requires more than just government action. it entails close, continuous and committed partnerships with the private sector. advancing the asean potential ( a ) significance of private sector public - private partnership is part of the asean dna. policymakers acknowledge the private sector ’ s significant role in driving shared prosperity among asean. this is evident in the way financial institutions ; airline companies ; telecommunication ; retail ; and other private players have been expanding their businesses beyond domestic boundaries, creating greater employment opportunities and improving living standards in the region. in the aviation

establish a harmonised, risk - orientated and proportionate supervisory approach. at the same time, it contributes to the single market by levelling the supervisory playing field for all banks, while acknowledging the boundaries of national law. nevertheless, banking supervision is just one side of the coin ; the other is banking regulation. a truly single supervisor requires a truly unified regulatory framework. banking supervision can only be as harmonised as the rules and regulations that govern it. and against that backdrop, the regulatory playing field in europe is not as level as it should be. out of kilter – supervisory and regulatory harmonisation in europe now you may ask : “ hasn ’ t much been done already to harmonise the regulatory framework? ” and the answer, most certainly, is “ yes ”. much has indeed been done to harmonise regulation, both in europe and worldwide. just think of basel iii and the single european bis central bankers ’ speeches rulebook. particularly in europe, the european commission and the european banking authority ( eba ) have also contributed to a harmonised regulatory framework by adopting regulatory technical standards and by issuing guidelines and opinions. however, these attempts have not been sufficient to fully erase national differences. take the capital requirements directive ( crd iv ) for example. as this is a directive, member states are free to choose the form and method of implementation. consequently, not all member states opted for a word - for - word transposition of the relevant norms. several provisions of crd iv have been transposed differently across the euro area. this is certainly not a problem in itself as long as the differences are rooted in country - specific risks. but then there are many unjustified differences. let me give you an example : as you know, members of banks ’ management bodies have to fulfil “ fit and proper ” requirements. and here, we see very diverse rules across europe. in some countries, for instance, the supervisor assesses not only appointments of members of management bodies, but also appointments of “ key function holders ”. as regards the fit and proper assessment itself, there are further differences : some national authorities make use of questionnaires to be answered by the candidates, others do not. some national authorities conduct face - to - face interviews with new members of the board, others do not. in some countries, there are timelines for conducting the fit and proper assessment with specific, rather short deadlines, whereas in others there are no such timelines. even the