State-of-the-art NK-DSGE approaches introduced rigour and strong microeconomic foundations into macroeconomic thinking. They became an important tool for simulating the effects of monetary policy and other macroeconomic shocks. But nothing is for free. The positive features of this framework came at the cost of what is described as a high degree of model stylisation. Put simply, these models, especially at their beginnings, were very narrow in terms of the specification of the economy and its behaviour, and omitted a number of important linkages and processes. Despite much progress in the academic literature over the last 10 years, the variants used by central banks remain suitable mainly for analysing small deviations of macroeconomic variables from their long-term trends. They represent a highly imperfect description of the economy and are not able to cope with shocks or structural changes that deflect it from these trends for lengthy periods. The macroeconomic instability we have seen over the last 20 years is essentially inconceivable in these models. Despite these limitations, NK-DSGE models have for quite some time been strongly dominant in academic macroeconomics and been the main tool used for analysis and forecasting in some central banks. In a scientific discipline in which scholars have always held different views and argued heatedly among themselves, such a situation was by definition strange. It is good that after the GFC, the fundamental debate on different approaches to macroeconomic modelling was revived and the seemingly irreconcilable camps were able to reach some common conclusions.

The folklore sometimes exaggerated this, so much that some observers attributed every decision of the SES to the mysterious ways of the MAS. But the hidden hand of the regulator was not ideal for developing a mature and dynamic capital market. Now that the SGX has been demutualised and listed, a new set of potential conflicts arises. While profits were never irrelevant to the SES, they are the primary motive for shareholders of the listed SGX. Share values and dividends also give greater transparency to the business performance and prospects of the SGX, providing the management with greater incentive to raise operational efficiency, and seek competitive advantage. This is as it should be, and is indeed a principle benefit of demutualising and listing the SGX. There will however be concern from time to time as to whether the greater drive for commercial success will reduce the commitment and resources deployed by the exchange to fulfill its responsibility to regulate in the public interest. The MAS believes that the interests of the SGX are more aligned than divergent with public interest as represented by users of the exchange. A fair, transparent and efficiently-regulated market is indispensable to the vibrancy and sustained business success of the SGX. Serious investors will not trade on an exchange that does not have internationally acceptable rules of listing, trading and settlement, or does not enforce the rules fairly and effectively. The examples of exchanges that have failed to meet such standards and suffered the consequences of investor shunning their markets are well-known.