How credible is Mr Anand Goolsarran?

THE credibility of a public figure should always be weighed when considering a stated position. There are a number of elements that lends to a person’s credibility such as integrity, competence and trust worthiness. The bias of the public figure lends to or detracts from that credibility. Columnists, like public figures, depend on their credibility to inform readers that they are an authority on a respective issue; otherwise, no one would take them seriously and read their columns.Anand Goolsarran is one such columnist whose readership looks to his credibility to inform them about issues pertaining to public accounting and related matters. As a long serving official of the Auditor General’s Office Mr. Goolsarran started his career as an auditor, moved up the career ladder and subsequently became the Auditor General, a position no doubt that afforded him great insight into the inner workings of Government. The Auditor General’s Office carries a great deal of reverence as a professional agency tasked with oversight to government’s spending. Therefore, whenever Mr. Goolsarran speaks on matters pertaining to accounting and auditing there is a great deal of credibility he exhorts. But this credibility of the individual maybe overshadowed by that of the Auditor General’s office in and of itself. I note the many cases where Mr. Goolsarran has addressed issues concerning Government and parliament in his column “Accountability Watch” from the “The 2011 Auditor General’s Report: Ministry of Finance, to “Second revisit of the NICIL controversy ”  to “the Public Service I knew”  and “Approaches to decision making”. Most recently Mr. Goolsarran addressed the matter of “The proposed five per cent increase for public servants”.  In that column he sought to explore why government should be able to give the public servants an above 5% salary increase. What I found particularly concerning is that as a former Auditor General, he made no attempt to clarify the inner workings of the Revision of Wages and Salaries that is being misrepresented in some sections of the media. Instead he proceeded to dissect the line item to falsely demonstrate that government can afford to pay a higher than 5% salary increase. Mr. Goolsarran’s decision to do so rather than accurately inform the public is reason to place his credibility under the microscope which is what I shall endeavor to do via this forum. Mr. Goolsarran is a known close friend to Mr. Kemraj Ramjattan. Ramjattan has been a long standing critic of the current administration since he deflected from the PPP in 2004 having discovered he was not going to be the party’s presidential candidate. Biter with the PPP Ramjattan has now made it his all consuming goal to paint the current administration in a dark and sinister shade. Most recently he has been spewing misinformation regarding the Revision of Wages and Salaries with the sole aim to discredit not just the current administration, but specifically the Minister of Finance, a technocrat. Like Mr. Ramjattan, Mr. Goolsarran has been a long standing critic of the current PPP administration having served for a number of years under the PNC regime. While he served as the Auditor General under the know dictator Desmond Hoyte, he remained silent to the fact that audits for government were severely lacking up until the PPP took office. Having served in an auditing capacity Mr. Goolsarran is well aware of the process and uses of the Revision of Wages and Salaries line in the National Budget. Rather than use his expertize as an auditor and accountant to correct the misinformation spewed by his friend, he chose to ignore the inaccuracies and use his column instead to fuel the inaccuracies. A casual peruse of his columns presents a fair overview of his political lineage and bias. Rather than use his column to clarify, educate and inform the public, Mr. Goolsarran cheery picks at issues that will support his friend’s political agenda. This kind of unprofessionalism lends to his lack of credibility which will be further examined in my following letter. Richard Paul