proper context. a new wisdom from financial globalization, however, is emerging. as professor rodrik will probably agree, reaping the benefits from globalization is by no means automatic. globalization, financial or trade liberalization, all need supporting institutions for their gains to materialize. furthermore, past experiences according to professor michael bordo of rutgers university, also indicate that although the globalization winners appear to outnumber losers in an increasingly integrated world, it is still possible that the losers ( even temporary ones ) can create a backlash that will once again cause a retreat in the globalization process. ladies and gentlemen, it is obvious that a global financial crisis will need a global solution. this symposium on financial globalization is thus very timely and come at a time when policy makers and market participants are in dire need of a better solution. and this year, we are honored to have with us many distinguished speakers from well - regarded institutions to discuss this important topic. we have professor dani rodrik of harvard university as our keynote speaker on the topic of “ the disappointments of financial globalization ”, followed by five leading international researchers, namely dr. claes berg, sveriges riksbank ; professor raghuram rajan, university of chicago ; professor jose antonio ocampo, columbia university ; dr. arvind subramanian, the peterson institute for international economics ; and dr. robert mccauley, bank for international settlements who will be presenting their in - depth studies over the next two days on broad range of issues, a part of which i have barely begun to touch upon. this symposium will also be rounded up by a panel discussion on “ financial globalization in emerging market economies ” which should provide an interesting discussion on the implication of financial globalization and the current financial crisis from an emerging market perspective. ladies and gentlemen, i would like to conclude by saying that the recent developments in financial markets around the world will stimulate considerable review and analysis in the months and years to come. across the globe, legislatures, regulators, financial supervisors are already hard at work trying to distill the lessons to be drawn from this experience and their implications for future policies. for the private sector, banks, credit - rating agencies, and the investment community are also trying their best in coping and adapting to these developments. for central banks, the implementation of monetary policy will certainly become a more challenging task as a result of the current financial turmoil. a lasting stabilization of the financial system obviously requires a holistic policy approach which successfully

recognized that a weak financial system undermines the efficacy of monetary policy measures and can overburden the monetary authorities. for this reason, it may be desirable for prudential policy frameworks to be strengthened, thereby addressing the build - up and unwinding of the imbalances more effectively. in this context, the bank of thailand has also monitored seven areas of financial imbalances, including those in the financial market, real estate, household and corporate sectors on a regular basis. going forward to a time when all this global financial crisis is resolved, it may also be appropriate to revisit and rethink the standard financial regulatory framework, particularly in emerging and even in a more developed part of the world. given the magnitude of market adjustment, volatility and contagion across markets, risk diversification is easier said than done. this is especially true as markets and institutions seem to correlate highly in a crisis situation as risk - aversion intensified. the current financial climate, therefore, highlights the importance of supervisory coordination. this coordination should include both domestic and cross - border dimensions and encompass key regulators and central banks. this is for the benefit of information sharing and elimination of regulatory arbitrage, which has been one of the fundamental causes of this crisis. given increasing financial integration, and growing complexity of financial instrument, market, counterparty links, and changing demarcation line between different financial institutions and financial players, we have witnessed emergence of the new channels and process of spread of systemic risk, through broader groups of players – banks, investment banks, insurance companies, and non - banks – all of whom are regulated under different framework, or not even regulated. because of this, there is a pressing need to rethink the regulatory framework in order to be in keeping with this new paradigm. ladies and gentlemen, it has been said that this crisis will soon lead to major changes in the geopolitical world order. these changes are speculated to lead to a marked decline in u. s. influence throughout the world and as a result the much talk about subject of the “ new world order ”. in our view, however, it might be more fruitful to discuss about the new global framework as a check on global imbalances rather than a new world order. this is because the ultimate winners or losers from globalization are yet to be decided. a long historical perspective is, therefore, needed in order to put the net social cost and benefit of globalization into a