This is a patently bizarre argument.
If it is indeed true that because of budget reasons,
MAS cannot hire additional staff who are needed to meet the rapid development of emerging risks, then the right answer would be for
MAS to inform its paymaster that it will henceforth limit its engagement on these emerging risks. This is not to say that
MAS will completely be oblivious to these risks, but rather, we will not undertake any work that is beyond necessary.
Instead,
MAS has gone the other way round. Despite being without sufficient resources, it has adopted an aggressive "I-must-be-the-hero" attitude and volunteered way beyond its capabilities. How can this be right? I suppose part of the problem stems from cultural issues where we are too inhibited to say no. Management has very fancy ideas and sometimes loses sight of our mandate. Or perhaps they interpret our mandate so loosely that everything that occurs on earth is something we should look into.
It is also puzzling that you consider
MAS a "revenue-generating agency". Tell me which other Central Bank in the world is considered a "revenue-generating agency" by its government. This classification in and of itself is ridiculous when applied to a Central Bank. The mandate of the Central Bank is clear, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the "revenue" it generates. You simply can't measure how much "revenue" we have generated through our efforts to maintain non-inflationary growth and macroprudential stability.
In fact, if we are indeed penalized by MOF (or whoever else) because we are hiring the staff that we need to safeguard our mandate, then the real question is whether we need to be more independent in this area.