Such a competitive and pro-enterprise environment will bring out the areas in which we have a competitive advantage. We cannot predict in advance which activities will take off. But when some activities succeed we can promote and encourage their development, always pushing in the direction of market forces, and not against them. Conclusion MAS has built a reputation for credibility, prudence and competence over the last 30 years. But major challenges lie ahead. We have to manage exchange rate policy in an increasingly volatile market, build a sound and responsive regulatory environment that allows the financial industry to thrive, and promote Singapore as a financial centre even in the midst of adverse external conditions. It is always easy to shelter from change, to reject anything new and to adopt a risk adverse approach. But if the sole objective of a captain is to protect his ship, then his vessel would never leave port. Over the last few years, we have altered our course – opening up to, rather than sheltering from, the winds of change. 6  BIS Review 67/2001  To navigate in this dynamic environment, MAS will have to continue to strengthen its own capabilities. The pace of change is intense, and the demands on MAS’ resources, expertise and judgement will only grow. We must broaden our contacts and consultation with market participants and fellow central bankers and regulators. This is the way to keep abreast of the latest developments in the financial industry, and evolving best practices in central banking and financial supervision.
We must groom a corps of competent and committed economists, supervisors, and investment managers within MAS. But this will not be sufficient. We also have to reinforce our team with talent from industry and abroad. We already have foreign and mid-career professionals among our ranks, but we must attract more such persons. Only by building a truly world-class MAS team, will we succeed in our mission – to promote macro-economic stability, and a sound and progressive financial centre. BIS Review 67/2001  7