Ramadhin rebuts IS4H team: “My questions were directed at the minister. I expect political accountability, not a rebuke from a technical team whose public representation is unclear.”
I was surprised to learn of the press release published on 7 November 2026 via the official Facebook page of the Ministerie van Volksgezondheid, Welzijn en Arbeid (Ministry of Health, Welfare and Labour). In it, the IS4H team seeks to refute my criticism of the digitalisation of healthcare under the title “Measurable results versus political talk”. Furthermore, I am instructed to immediately retract my statements.
What particularly surprises me is that my earlier questions were expressly directed at Minister André Misiekaba, as the politically responsible minister, and not at the IS4H team.
Instead of answers from the minister, there is a politically charged response from a technical team of which it is not even clear to me who currently forms part of it, who is in charge and who speaks on behalf of the team.
My response is clear: I retract demonstrable factual inaccuracies, not political inconveniences. And my right to freedom of expression is not subject to the supervision of Minister Misiekaba or his IS4H team.
I welcome every step forward in the digitalisation of our healthcare. But recognising progress does not mean that existing projects may be presented as new achievements or that critical questions can be dismissed as political talk.
Digitalisation did not begin in July 2025
The IS4H team presents results that largely build on policies, investments and technical developments from the 2020–2025 period.
During that period, work was carried out on the national digital health agenda, electronic patient records, the digitalisation of the RGD, the national exchange platform, the digital death certificate and support for private general practitioners.
The choice for open-source solutions, including GNU Health, also dates from that period. Preparations, pilot projects and the procurement of hardware had already begun.
The current ministry therefore did not encounter a digital no man’s land, but took over a programme whose key components had already been developed, financed or were being implemented.
It is positive that the current team is building on this.
But continuation is not the same as origin. And presenting results without acknowledging their history does not do justice to the facts.
Installations and awards do not yet constitute integrated healthcare
The IS4H team refers to the installation of GNU Health in 22 RGD clinics, the national Health Information Exchange Platform (HIEP), three international awards and a positive IDB report.
These are developments that deserve appreciation. But the main question remains: what does the patient notice of this?
How many of the 22 RGD clinics actually use GNU Health in daily patient care? How many healthcare institutions are fully connected to the national exchange platform? Which medical data are exchanged securely? And why is the previously developed Patient Portal currently not accessible to patients?
The team itself acknowledges that further technical adjustments are needed to enable GNU Health to communicate fully with the exchange platform.
This makes my criticism regarding actual interoperability entirely justified.
The digital death certificate was also launched and operational by the end of 2024. The fact that further user acceptance was needed does not mean that the system was not functioning technically.
The same applies to HEARTS. During a press conference on 9 May 2025, it was demonstrated live that clinical data could be transferred automatically from an electronic patient record to the HEARTS application. This achieved a concrete technical link that could help prevent duplicate registration.
What has happened to that development since then?
Digitalisation is not assessed by the number of installations or demonstrations, but by the extent to which systems actually function and improve patient care.
International recognition does not rewrite history
I congratulate the IS4H team on the three international recognitions during the Connectathon in Panama in July 2026.
But Suriname had also previously participated successfully in international Connectathons. Moreover, the IDB had already described the Surinamese approach to digital healthcare under the previous policy.
The positive IDB assessment of October 2026 is also welcome. It confirms progress, but does not prove that the programmes concerned only originated under the current government.
An international award demonstrates technical capacity. A positive progress report confirms milestones achieved. Neither on its own proves that a fully integrated national health information system is now functioning.
Therefore, my central question to Minister Misiekaba remains:
Which new digital health initiatives has the current government itself developed, financed and made operational since July 2025, separate from the projects it took over?
That is a legitimate policy question that deserves a substantive answer.
Allegations of conflicts of interest require evidence
I find the suggestions regarding possible conflicts of interest in the digitalisation of private general practitioners particularly concerning.
Under the previous policy, agreements were concluded with EPD suppliers within the available financial scope. At the same time, work was being done on structural financing options and agreements on future rates.
The suppliers were independently assessed according to the procedure applied at the time. The business involvement of the consultant concerned was known in advance to the ministry and the IDB. According to the division of responsibilities at the time, he was not involved in certification decisions or contract negotiations.
If the current ministry believes that there was nevertheless an improper conflict of interest, I expect concrete facts and investigation findings.
A ministry should not suggest serious suspicions without proper substantiation. Those who accuse must provide evidence. And if there may have been a criminal offence, what has the current policy done about it?
Retraction is not an instrument for silencing criticism
The most remarkable part of the press release remains the demand that I immediately retract my statements.
What exactly must I retract?
Which specific statement of mine is demonstrably factually incorrect? And which documents or independent findings demonstrate this?
A list of awards, installations and positive reports does not automatically refute my criticism regarding policy continuity, implementation and interoperability.
I am naturally prepared to correct a demonstrable factual inaccuracy. That is part of intellectual honesty and administrative responsibility.
But a difference of opinion is not a factual inaccuracy. And political criticism is not an offence for which a former minister must withdraw his words by order.
A ministry may counter criticism, but it cannot establish the truth by press release.
Minister Misiekaba: who exactly speaks here on behalf of the IS4H team?
My original questions were directed at Minister Misiekaba. He bears the political responsibility for the policy pursued, the expenditure of public funds and the progress of national health programmes.
Nevertheless, a technical team chooses to use an official government channel to characterise my criticism as political talk and demand a retraction.
This raises a fundamental question: who exactly speaks here on behalf of the IS4H team?
As far as I know, it has not been publicly made clear who currently forms part of this team, who is in charge and who is responsible for this official response.
In the interests of transparency, open government and professional government communication, it would be appropriate for the leadership of the IS4H team to provide clarity on this.
Anyone who publicly rebukes a former minister on behalf of a government institution and demands a retraction should also make clear from which position, responsibility and authority this is done.
This is not a personal matter, but a matter of public accountability.
I appreciate the experts who have worked for years on the digitalisation of our healthcare and those who are continuing that work today.
Precisely for that reason, I find it inappropriate for technical staff to become involved in a political confrontation that should be conducted by the responsible minister.
A ministry is not a political campaign office.
Minister Misiekaba cannot have his political responsibility replaced by a collective response from a technical team whose public representation is unclear.
My advice to the minister is simple: let technical staff do their work and conduct the political debate himself.
A technical team should not become a political shield for a minister who prefers to challenge critical questions rather than answer them.
In conclusion: let the facts speak
The digitalisation of healthcare is too important to be reduced to a political contest over who deserves the most recognition.
I am proud of the foundations laid during my ministerial period together with experts and international partners. I recognise the efforts of those building on them.
But recognition must be mutual.
Society has the right to clarity about what is actually functioning, what still needs to be realised and what new results the current policy has produced.
My questions therefore remain directed at Minister Misiekaba. I expect substantive answers and political accountability from him. From the leadership of the IS4H team, I expect transparency about who speaks on behalf of the team.
If my factual account is incorrect, I would welcome a documented rebuttal.
Not with political characterisations, insinuations or demands for retraction.
But with verifiable facts.
Those who truly have confidence in their results do not need to rewrite history, use technical staff as a political shield or attack the messenger.
I retract factual inaccuracies, not political inconveniences. And I do not need Minister Misiekaba’s permission for my right to offer criticism.
Drs. Amar N. Ramadhin
