¶¶Òõ¾«Æ·

EVERY ministry, directorate, department, division, district and upazila administration office in Bangladesh now operates its own website. These websites were developed under the Access to Information programme of the former prime minister’s office, in collaboration with the Aspire to Innovation initiative of the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology. The intention behind this digital infrastructure was commendable: to make government services easily accessible to citizens and to bring transparency through the digital dissemination of information. But years into this project, it is necessary to pause and reflect — how much of that original promise has actually been realised?

While it was commendable to take steps towards digitisation, a closer look at these websites raises some critical questions about their usefulness to the public. The websites follow a uniform structure, with little variation between ministries or offices. A visit to the Ministry of Health’s website offers a telling example. The design is visually polished, with a header featuring the ministry’s name and a slideshow of images depicting various official activities. A menu bar sits prominently at the top, including sections such as ‘relating to ours’, ‘departments’, ‘development partners’, ‘publications’, ‘communication’ and ‘comments’. The top corner of the website displays the names and photographs of the minister, Special assistant and secretary, lending the site an air of formality, but doing little in terms of practical service provision.

Each menu leads to submenus with further categories such as the ministry’s mission and vision, a list of past ministers and secretaries, organograms, business allocation and success stories. News items and notices are tucked under these subcategories. Below the main menu, the homepage is segmented into multiple boxes — 16 in total — each containing a range of documents and links. These boxes cover topics like citizen charters, publications, performance agreements, integrity strategies, grievance redress, smart Bangladesh initiatives, development planning and more.

Yet, for all its structure and content, the website is alarmingly sparse when it comes to practical health information. Most of the sections are designed to showcase administrative processes, project documentation or internal reporting. Only a handful of categories are directly related to service delivery — namely, the citizen charter, easing of services, internal e-services and grievance redress management. These are, presumably, meant to guide citizens in accessing healthcare services. But even these sections fall short of their stated purpose.

Take the citizen charter, for instance. It outlines a noble vision — affordable and standardised healthcare for all — and a mission to ensure better health outcomes by improving access. Sixteen service commitments are listed under this charter, but only one item directly relates to public service delivery. This single point promises free medical treatment for freedom fighters and distressed patients. However, the website does not explain where or how this service can be accessed. There is no indication whether it is available nationwide or restricted to specific facilities. The promise, though well-meaning, is left hanging without any guidance for those it claims to serve.

Another section details the approval process for foreign doctors entering Bangladesh and the construction of healthcare facilities by statutory or joint-venture bodies. These processes, however, concern institutional affairs more than citizen welfare. The information most crucial to the public — such as which hospitals provide which services, bed and ICU availability, ambulance support, or options for the poor — is glaringly absent.

Even the grievance redress mechanism, which could serve as a critical feedback tool, is designed with inefficiency baked into it. The stated timeline for resolving complaints stretches up to three months. Contact options are limited to email and landline numbers — both of which are increasingly unreliable in the current context. How many citizens can expect a timely response via email? Do landline calls to government offices still connect to a human voice? In a country striving towards a smart Bangladesh, such outdated methods are deeply out of touch with the reality of citizens’ needs. It is unreasonable to expect a critically ill patient to wait three months for a complaint to be addressed. Even the option to appeal against a grievance decision lacks real utility and the absence of mobile numbers for grievance officers further illustrates the disconnect between intent and implementation.

All of this becomes even more stark when compared with examples from other countries. The website of Singapore’s Ministry of Health presents a striking contrast. Its structure is straightforward and citizen-focused. The top menu is divided into clear categories: staying healthy, seeking healthcare, ageing well, managing expenses and accessing resources. Each section is packed with relevant, actionable information. There are guides on healthy living, medical services, disease management, community care for the elderly, palliative care and financial schemes to make healthcare affordable. Users can find fee benchmarks, hospital billing information, subsidy schemes and access online services. Notably, the website contains nothing about the minister, secretary, or administrative structure. It is not that such information is unimportant — it simply does not belong on the frontlines of public service delivery.

The contrast highlights a fundamental difference in priorities. In Singapore, the health ministry’s website is dedicated to helping people live healthier lives and navigate the healthcare system. In Bangladesh, it often feels as though the primary purpose of such websites is to showcase the organisational hierarchy and bureaucratic achievements.

This is not just an issue for the health ministry. The same structural shortcomings can be found across many other government websites. They are designed to fit a standard mould, regardless of the type of service each ministry is meant to provide. This uniformity fails to reflect the diversity of public needs. It is time to abandon the one-size-fits-all model and begin designing digital services according to the nature of each ministry’s responsibilities.

Redesigning government websites is not merely a technical task — it is a political one. It requires the government to consult not only its IT departments but also the people who use these services every day. This must include service-seeking citizens, front-line staff, local representatives, NGOs and other stakeholders. What people need is not just information, but accessible and practical pathways to receiving service.

Websites should focus on the real questions people ask: how can I access a service, where can I go, who do I contact and how long will it take? The identities of ministers and secretaries are not essential to this process. Instead, clear contact details for service-providing officers and direct communication channels must be prioritised. Responsive helplines, mobile accessibility and real-time updates can go a long way in making government websites more useful to the public.

A government’s digital platform should reflect its commitment to serving its people — not to displaying bureaucracy. They must become instruments of service, not showcases of administration. It is not too late to shift direction. But it will require political will, practical planning and a genuine commitment to listening to those who matter most — the people these websites were meant to serve in the first place.

Ìý

Krishna Kanta Biswas is an additional secretary (rtd) and former additional project director of metro rail project MRT Line-6.