Yet we have been, somehow, controlling, or we claimed to have been controlling, the monetary base ever since the linked exchange rate system was established in October 1983. 16. Even assuming that the definition of the monetary base is well understood, there is then the important question of how it should be controlled. Herein lies one of the most interesting subjects in monetary management and that is the choice between discretionary control with people making decisions, and automatic rule-based control with no discretionary decisions involved. Associated with this are considerations concerning, and possibly another choice between, flexibility in management and the credibility of the monetary system. Even the most professionally competent central banker can be wrong. A system that involves discretionary decisions is therefore subject to human errors of judgement that may undermine the credibility of the system, and some would go as far as to argue that this would eventually lead to failure of the system. On the other hand, an entirely rule-based system without any discretion is inflexible and may not serve the best interest of the community, even though short-term interests may sometimes be involved - witness the many calls for lowering interest rates even when the exchange rate is under pressure. 17. Another related conceptual issue that needs to be put across clearly is that the classical currency board system, as structured in the old colonial era, whilst still theoretically sound, has long become impracticable in coping with the complexities of modern finance.
Our critics have told us that we should not have squeezed so hard on interest rates last October and that we should not have increased the cost of borrowing for business and for those who have to service their home mortgages. We should have introduced our measures to strengthen our monetary and financial systems earlier. We should not have departed from our free market policy and intervened in the stock and futures markets. That there was a lack of a “sense of crisis” in how we handled the situation. These are the more significant criticisms. 4. I can fully understand the sentiment behind these criticisms. The people of Hong Kong have been suffering the worst conditions we have had to face for many years. Even the most patient and understanding community will have grievances when the value of the assets they hold has been halved while they have to pay significantly higher interest costs for their liabilities. Furthermore, income has not been growing, and, for some, it has been shrinking. And, worse still, the probability that they may lose their jobs has doubled in the past year. 5. So, whatever the cause of this difficult situation, whether or not it arose from events outside the control of the authorities, it is considered, and rightly so, the responsibility of a caring government to do what it can to relieve these grievances. Refusal or reluctance to do so, even for very sound reasons in the larger long-term public interest, is not looked upon kindly.