First, financial inclusion is an international agenda that has captured the attention of many governments which has national importance The 2.5 billion unbanked and underserved remains a global challenge. A significant portion of them are from countries with predominantly Muslim population, thus there is an urgency to address imbalances among the “ummah”. For comparison, 2.5 billion people is equal to the population of China and India combined or is equal to 8 times the population of USA. Financial inclusion can only be achieved with the collective effort of all countries. Peer-topeer learning and sharing of best practices can help countries leapfrog the trial and error stages in designing and implementing financial inclusion policy, without having to reinvent the wheel. For example, when we introduced microfinancing, we made a tour to Indonesia to learn about how Indonesia actually implemented microfinancing. With that knowledge, we implemented microfinancing in Malaysia and it has been very successful. When we wanted to introduce agent branch banking, we went to Mexico and Brazil to learn on how they actually use agent branch banking as effective means to expand financial services. We learnt and implemented some of the measures on financial inclusion. We avoid unnecessary mistakes and reduce cost in implementing of those policies.
In this case, we need to conduct a bit more research before we implement any macroprudential policies. The caps on financing tenure, together with requirements to comply with responsible financing practices (including adoption of prudent debt service ratio (DSR) threshold and  BIS central bankers’ speeches  1  definition of income and debt obligations for computation of DSR), were not limited only to banks. The caps were also imposed on non-regulated entities in order to avoid regulatory arbitrage or shifting of risks to these non-bank lenders. Third, preserving appropriate discretion for authorities to act is important, with respect to the timing, mix and calibration of measures. We do not adopt a rule-based approach to the implementation of macroprudential measures. The reason is that, it can avoid a “self-fulfilling prophecy” if the formula for determining the timing, quantum and criteria for the deployment of macroprudential policies are made public or applied in mechanistic way – unintended consequences could arise or systemic risk could suddenly build up right before the effective date as economic agents try to “beat the clock” by getting ahead of the implementation. This approach provides us with greater flexibility to use an optimal mix of macroprudential and other measures under varying circumstances – this is different from the UK where legal constraints limit the choice of macroprudential instruments that can be used, or compared to Turkey which uses quantitative triggers for the new reserve requirement framework.