In the spirit of building trust and agility during normal times, we have worked hard to strengthen coordination arrangements with our regional counterparts and key domestic authorities. To name a few, this has included the development of crisis management protocols that are outlined in the Strategic Alliance Agreement with PIDM, the Operational Framework for Financial Crisis Management and Resolution with the Securities Commission, and the Executives’ Meeting of Asia-Pacific Central Banks (EMEAP) Crisis Management and Resolution Framework involving 11 jurisdictions. Numerous refinements have been introduced, and several crisis simulations were conducted. All in response to anticipated changes in the financial and regulatory landscape, and to continuously elevate our level of operational preparedness. We remain committed to building strong relationships based on mutual trust that will serve us well through the uncertainties that invariably accompany any crises. And we continue to work on ensuring that these arrangements are credible when disaster strikes. For us, it is as important to encourage open and honest communications with our counterparts, as it is to have formal arrangements for information exchange. We cooperate with each other in conducting joint surveillance and capacity building initiatives. Through these collaborations, we gradually build respect, trust and goodwill, the kind that no framework can hope to manufacture. Let me now conclude. In no trivial part due to my mentors, predecessors and colleagues, past crises that affected Malaysia were well-managed, leading to speedy recovery with minimal losses to taxpayers, and the equally important structural transformations that followed. Clear statutory remits. Independent policy making.

We can certainly expect that data quality and analytical frameworks will continue to improve over time. But our understanding of future crisis dynamics will never be perfect. Far from it. This means that we must be prepared to change course when required and acknowledge errors in judgment sooner rather than later, even if it means re-evaluating wellreasoned positions. This brings me to my second point on agility. Financial crises are inflection points of a cycle which materialise in the least predictable manner. This demands a high degree of agility of policymakers and the financial system to adapt to the new operating reality. Such agility is derived from crisis management frameworks that are well-anchored in clearly defined strategic outcomes and accountability structures, but also flexible enough to respond to a range of conditions. And critically, it requires investing in resources with deep experience and knowledge. Going back to the 1996 Everest expedition, Hall and his team had made every reasonable effort to incorporate comprehensive risk management and contingency planning into the preclimb plan. As things turned south, it became clear that the team was unable to respond quickly to the dynamic situation. Outdated and inefficient radio systems led to a communication breakdown of vital information. Physiological, psychological and technical readiness of some of the climbers was also in question. Their inability to respond fluidly to changing conditions created an overdependence on key resource persons. Combined with lack of experience to deal with a series of new challenges, leaders were incapacitated and team dynamics disintegrated quickly.