Early in January, the US-based Heritage Foundation released a report on South Africa, which identified unemployment, "estimated to be as high as 40 percent", as a weakness of our country.
As statistician-general, I pointed out that the foundation was not using the internationally accepted and official definition for reporting unemployment, but an expanded definition, and that this rendered its finding on the labour market questionable.
In much the same way, I queried the use of statistics in a UN report, which failed to use the internationally accepted basis for comparing unemployment across different countries.
This same report was also criticised for using life expectancy figures that differed from the official estimates, without providing reasons for this choice.
Some of this can be seen as part of the ordinary contestation over statistics and their use.
The link between statistics and the promotion of interests will always be strong, and this is reflected in an increasing mobilisation of statistical data to support and strengthen particular interests.
What was more surprising was the nature of some of the criticism levelled at Statistics SA for raising these concerns.
In a letter to a newspaper, an MP suggested that the critique of inconsistent use of unemployment rates and definitions was an attempt to "play down our jobs crisis".
Another MP suggested that, as statistician-general, I should focus my attention exclusively on Stats SA, rather than on the way other agencies use statistics on South Africa.
It bears repeating that Stats SA measures and reports on unemployment according to two definitions.
In the official (or narrow) definition, the unemployed are those people in the economically active population who did not work during the seven days prior to the interview, want to work and are available to start work within two weeks of the interview, and have taken active steps to look for work or to start some form of self-employment in the four weeks prior to the interview.
In the expanded definition, the third criterion (some sort of work seeking activity) is dropped. The expanded definition therefore includes, as unemployed, those who might be termed "discouraged job seekers".
The difference in measurement, depending on which definition is used, can be substantial. For example, Stats SA reported that in March last year, 27.8 percent of the economically active population was unemployed on the official definition.
Using the expanded definition, this rose to 41.2 percent.
The International Labour Organisation uses the official definition of unemployment as its basis for comparison of labour market statistics between countries.
That is why Stats SA collects data on unemployment using this definition.
However, Stats SA also collects and reports on data using the expanded definition, to ensure that an indicator that includes "discouraged" job seekers is also available.
There is nothing inherently problematic in using the expanded definition of unemployment as part of a country profile or assessment, as long as the same definition is used in all other country comparisons.
However, international practice is to make use of the official definition, and adherence to that is the basis of comparison between countries.
Equally, using non-official in place of official statistics can be acceptable, as long as there is a credible methodological basis to this, and that this is set out in a transparent manner.
However, the international world of statistics is not simply a market place in which "consumers" can arbitrarily pick and choose those statistics that support prejudged positions, and reject official statistics just because they do not support the argument advanced.
Part of the job of South Africa's statistician-general is to represent Stats SA internationally with regard to statistical matters; fulfil the country's international reporting obligations; and advance the consistency and comparability of official statistics.
This is not a matter of choice or whim, as implied by the suggestion that I should ignore the way statistics on South Africa are used in other institutions and in other countries. It is an obligation in terms of section 2 of the Statistics Act of 1999.
In today's global information order, statistics are accepted as providing an almost definitive profile of a country. When these statistics are not correct, they mislead.
When they are erratic, they misinform. When they contain mistakes and are not corrected, they create an environment of doubt and mistrust.
That is why the statistician-general is obliged to engage with statistical practices that mislead, rather than inform.