The finance minister lambasted the office of the CAG for producing detailed audit reports on what he termed insignificant issues that have the effect of harming the country's image. It is unclear to us what the minister means by "insignificant issues" and on what basis he deems an issue to be significant or not. Nor can we sympathise with the government's now predictable lament that the image of the country is being harmed when wrong-doing is brought to light.

It seems to us that the fact that CAG is issuing audit reports is a matter for congratulation and not for condemnation. It may be true that CAG needs to focus more on audit reports that address "significant issues," whatever the finance minister means by that, but we feel that such a focus should be in addition to its current output, not in place of it.

Furthermore, while there is no doubt that CAG could do a better job, it must also be admitted that many of the roadblocks to performing its duties do not come from within the agency, but have to do with impediments from outside.

For instance, one of the main problems facing CAG is that its hands are often tied due to political considerations which keep it from pursuing targets who enjoy protection from influential quarters. If we want CAG to do a better job, the first thing to do is to remove the constraints under which it must operate, and give it the authority and power to go after big-ticket targets, regardless of political affiliation. Another obstacle is that too often there is no follow up made on CAG reports.

Certainly, there is much room for improvement in the office of the CAG, but what it needs to fix things is a specific blueprint for what to do and the authority to accomplish this, rather than unspecified criticism that it is harming the country's image.