for Leigh Ramsay - yet another letter to ignore!

Leigh Ramsay

Citipointe church

322 Wecker Rd

Carindale QLD 4152                                                                      3rd Dec 2012

Dear Leigh

Yet another letter for you to ignore, not respond to, pretend has not been written! 

Transparency and accountability are not top priorities for you or Citipointe church are they? The fact that Chanti has given me written permission to act as an advocate on her behalf (a copy of which I handed to you in person) means nothing to you or Citipointe. You have no regard at all for the emotional torment you put Chanti through as each month, each year, passes and she sees her daughters (despite your repeated promises to return them) not growing up with their family but in an institution in which they are indoctrinated into Citipointe church’s version of the Christian faith.

It would seem that you have every intention of doing so until the girls are eighteen years old - as Rebecca Brewer implied would be the case in her emails to me four years ago. All the promises you have made to Chanti since then (well documented in my blog) have been empty; raising in Chanti’s mind and heart the false hope that if she could just meet whatever Citipointe church’s latest criteria are, that she will have her daughters returned to her. Each and every time her hopes have been dashed when Citipointe has shifted the goal posts - the most recent example being earlier this month when the family acquired a tuk tuk with my assistance. It matters not at all to your or your church that Chanti and her family now have an income greater than 80% of Cambodians. Despite the fact that Rosa and Chita do not, in Dec 2013, require assistance from Citipointe, you still retain custody of the girls with no regard for their mother’s wishes.  As far as you are concerned, Citipointe church now ‘owns’ Rosa and Srey Mal and Chanti, by virtue of her being poor and illiterate, has no rights at all to to be a mother to her own daughters. Rosa and Chita should be living with their now and not detained in an institution run by a church that raises money presenting the girls as having been rescued from the sex trade! If you behaved in this way in Australia you would have the police at your front door quick smart! 

It is a very strange interpretation of Jesus Christ’s teachings indeed that makes it possible for you and the church to make Chanti suffer the angst of separation from her daughters. You have had it in your power, this past four years, to help the entire family and not just two members of it. 

I have often, in my correspondence with Citipointe, used the expression ‘stolen’ in relation to Citipointe’s retaining custody of Rosa and Chita against their mother’s wishes for the 15 months prior to the church entering into a secret agreement with the Ministry of Social Affairs. During this time Chanti repeatedly requested that her daughters be returned to her care. During this fifteen months Citipointe refused Chanti’s every request - despite having no legal basis (in Cambodian, Australian or International law) to hold them contrary to her mother’s clearly expressed wishes. 

The word ‘stolen’ is too mild, however, for what Citipointe has done. ‘Kidnapping’ comes closer to describing Citipointe’s actions during those 15 months. You will not sue me for for defamation for making this observation in a public forum because you know full well that I can prove the illegality of your actions in a court of law - the ‘contract’ that you got Chanti to apply her thumb print (a contract she could not read, did not understand and was not explained to her.  It contains none of the terms .and conditions you told Chanti it contained and which, until it was translated, she believed it to contain. The contract was worthless - even in a Cambodian court of law.

The removal of Chanti’s children from her care is, in my view much worse than what took place during the ‘Stolen Generation’ years of Australian history. Back then the Australian community at large adhered to a different set of values and believed, sincerely, that Aboriginal children would be better off growing up in institutions than with their materially poor parents. And there was a community wide belief that Christianity was a superior religion to that practiced by Aboriginal people.  Over the past half century, however, we have seen first hand in Australia the enormous emotional and psychological damage done to both the Aboriginal parents who had their children stolen and to the children themselves as they grew into adulthood traumatized by their experience of being forcibly removed from their families. The guilt we felt, as a nation, for having visited this pain on Aboriginal families resulted in our Prime Minister’s formal apology to the ‘Stolen Generation’ a few years ago. Now, thanks to NGO’s such as Citipointe’s ‘She’ refuge, we have exported this failed social policy to a third world country and, in the process, enabled Citipointe to make money out of presenting young girls like Rosa and Chita as victims of sex trafficking when in truth they are nothing more than the victims of poverty whose mother agreed to allow Citipointe to assist her in the short term. This abuse of the entire family’s human rights is countenanced by Chab Dai - the Christian coalition of NGOs of which Citipointe church is a member - and, it seems,. by the NGO community in Cambodian generally. 

Today the explanations and excuses of bygone decades cannot and do not apply in Australia and the laws regarding the removal of children from their families are strict and not decided by the whim of Christians seeking to win souls for Jesus Christ. The forced conversion of Chanti’s Buddhist daughters to Christianity is yet another human rights abuse perpetrated by Citipointe church - perhaps even more reprehensible than the fact that the ‘SHe’ refuge acts as a cash cow for the chruch.

That Citipointe church should be replicating the dynamic of the Stolen Generation is not only stupid, uncaring and in contravention of Christian values as I understand them but also shows a lack of sensitivity to the idea that poor mothers  in the third world love their children as much as mothers in the first world who never need to worry about how to feed their kids; that the children of poor parents love their mums, dads, brothers and sisters in the same way that we privileged members of the developed world do. To break or damage the bonds of love between children and their parents as Citipointe is in the case of Chanti’s family constitutes emotional abuse that is, in my view, amongst the worst of crimes to be committed against a child - not far behind sexual abuse.

I have ample footage in which it is abundantly clear that Chanti loves Rosa and Chita and that they love her. Yes, there have been times when Chanti has been unable to feed and clothe them adequately (though not now) but, rather than help Chanti take care of her kids (as you promised her and myself four years ago you would do) you have taken her daughters away from her and left her and the rest of the family to fend for themselves. In so doing you disgrace other Christians (NGOs included) who see their role less as winning souls for Jesus Christ (and making money in the process, in the case of Citipointe) but living out the sharing and caring aspects of Christ’s Gospel.

I have asked this question many times and many times you have declined to answer it. I am asking as Chanti’s advocate. Could you please provide both Chanti and myself with a copy of whatever contract Citipointe church has entered into with the The Ministry of Social Affairs regarding the custody of her daughters Rosa and Chita (Srey Mal)? That you should enter into a secret agreement with the Ministry of Social Affairs with no reference to Chanti at all speaks volumes of Citipointe’s contempt for Chanti’s rights as a mother.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Division 270 of the Criminal Code Act 1995

Leigh Ramsay

Citipointe church

322 Wecker Rd

Carindale QLD 4152                                                                                         2nd Nov 2012

Dear Leigh

Chanti, Chhork and the family are now the proud owners of a tuk tuk and in a position make a significant step towards self-sufficiency. I have also paid the family’s rent for the next three months and will continue to pay it until such time as both Chhork’s business (driving the tuk tuk) and Chanti’s (selling books, scarves and other odds and ends to tourists) bring in sufficient income for my aid to be no longer necessary. In the meantime I will see to it that the family has plenty of rice. They have close to 100 kilos at present. I will also see to it that Rosa and Srey Mal are able to continue with their schooling, have access to regular medical and dental care. In short, Citipointe’s financial assistance to the girls (denied to the rest of the family) is no longer required.

The ostensible reason given by Citipointe for its removal of Rosa and Srey Mal from the care of their mother four years ago (illegal in accordance with Cambodian law) was that Chanti was too poor to care for them.  havingt taken custody of the girls through deception (the sham ‘contract’ the church got Chanti to apply her thumb print to) Citipointe did absolutely nothing to help alleviate Chanti’s povery at this time, as is well documented. At no point in the past four years has Citipointe done anything tro help alleviate the family’s poverty. Again, this is well documented.

Poverty no longer exists as a reason to keep Rosa and Chita in the ‘She’ refguge and on these grounds alone Citipointe church should release therm back into their mother’s care today. The church will not do so, however, because the poverty of the family was never the real reason why Citipointe has retained custody of Rosa and Chita against the express wishes of their mother and father. Citipointe is in the business of saving souls for Jesus Christ under the guise of rescuing of girls from the sex trade. In reality Citipointe is doing nothing other than ‘rescuing’ girls from poor families, leaving the remainder of the family in poverty, indoctrinating these girls into Citipointe’s form of Christianity and conducting ‘poverty tours’ for gullible Citipointe church parishioners. 

I need not repeat here what I have written before but again invite Citipointe church, if it believes I am defaming it, to commence legal action against me. I would be delighted to meet you in court and have he matters raised in y correspondence argued in a public forum.  In the meantime, as you consult with your lawyers, you might like to visit the Australian Federal Police website - on which you will find the following:

In 2003, the Federal Government announced a whole-of-government package to address crimes committed against humanity; specifically human trafficking. As part of this package, the AFP received additional funds to strengthen its capacity to detect, investigate and provide specialist training in relation to:

1. Division 270 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 which makes it an offence to possess a slave or exercise over a slave any powers attaching to the right of ownership, engage in slave trading or enter into any commercial transaction involving a slave.

‘Slave;’ may be, in our colloquial use of it, too strong a word to describe Citipoponte’s illegal removal of Rosa and Chita from their mother’s care but there is no doubt that for the first 15 months that the church held Rosa and Chita it was exercizing a ‘right of ownership.’

1. Trafficking in Persons and Debt Bondage: Division 271 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 makes it an offence to traffic persons, whether internationally or domestically. There are also offences relating to debt bondage of persons, forced labour and the trade in human organs.

It is the ‘debt bondage’ aspect that is of interest here - Citipointe’s insistence that Chanti meet certain conditions before the church would release the girls back into her care. These conditions related to Chanti’s income and her capacity to feed and house her children. However, even when Chanti was able to prove that she had a place to live and an income Citipointe refused to release the girls. All of this is, as you know, very well documented. The techniques used by brothel owners to keep young women in debt bondage are not that different to those applied by Citipointe church. You could, of course, prove me wrong in this by releasing Rosa and Chita today.

Australia's response to human trafficking reflects our obligations as party to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime (UNTOC) since 2004 and its supplementary Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children since 2005.

The legal advice I have received to date suggests that Citippointe has indeed broken various Australian laws with its illegal (in terms of Cambodian law) removal of Rosa and Chita from their family four years ago. When I return to Australia I will explore this further with a view to having Citipointe church charged with, to use the Cambodian expression, ‘people trafficking’.

An alternative to going down this path would be for Citipointe to join with me in helping get this family back on its feet such that it no longer needs the help of either myself or any NGO. I have been suggesting this for four years now.

best wishes

James Ricketson

yet another letter for Leigh Ramsay!

Leigh Ramsay
Citipointe church
322 Wecker Rd
Carindale QLD 4152
 
31st. Oct 2012

Dear Leigh

As is your custom, you ignore my letters. On yet another trip to
Cambodia I have again made no progress at all in assisting Chanti in
her quest to get Citipointe to return Rosa and Chita (Srey Mal) to her
care.  Each day I see the tears of distress that this causes Chanti
and Chhork and, as the person whom Chanti’s calls ‘Papa’ I feel for
her and roundly condemn Citipointe church for the contemptuous and
unfeeling way it has treated Chanti  and Chhork for four years now.

As a filmmaker I keep a record of all that transpires (or fails to
transpire) in Chanti’s never-ending attempts to get Citipointe to
release Rosa and Srey Mal back into her care. You clearly have no
intention of doing so and it seems that the Ministry of Social Affairs
has as little interest as yourself in the right of a mother, no matter
how poor, to take care of her own children and not to see them brought
up by foreigners in an institution. In Australia, as you know, you
would not be allowed to get away with the way in which you treat
Chanti. Apart from any moral considerations, your illegal removal of
Rosa and Chita from the family home would see you in court on charges
of kidnapping and Citipointe church on the front pages of newspapers
exposed for fraud, having raised money from gullible members of
Citipointe church who have been led to believe that girls like Rosa
and Chita have been rescued for the sex trade. There is a word for
this, Leigh. It is ‘scam’.

As you know well, from previous correspondence, my finished film about
17 years in the life of Chanti, one part of which will deal with
Citipointe church’s removal of Chanti’s daughters from her care, will
be vetted by lawyers - both my own and those of domestic and
international broadcasters that wish to broadcast the film. It will
not be possible for legal reasons (and nor is it my intention) to
include anything in the film that is defamatory. I will merely present
the facts as they are and let members of the audience make up their
own minds as to the appropriateness or inappropriatness of
Citipointe’s activities in Cambodia in relation to the circumstances
under which Rosa and Srey Mal were removed from the care of Chanti; of
Citipointe church’s retaining custody of the girls for more than four
years contrary to the wishes of their mother.

I had hoped that Citipointe might, if only for reasons of public
relations, see the advantages of putting a lot of time, energy and
money (much less than it costs to keep Rosa and Chita  in an
institution) into formulating a family re-integration program for Rosa
and Chita and assisting the entire family over the next few years to
become self-sufficient. It is not to be. Citipointe church
has no interest at all in re-integration; no interest in the welfare
of the entire family, as has been borne out this past four years by
Citipointe’s refusal to offer support of any kind to Chanti - not even
when her children’s hair turned red from malnutrition or when Chanti
required surgery to remove a tumour from her wrist. Citipointe
church’s interests (borne out by your actions) lie in maintaining
control of Rosa and Chita; in turning them into Christians in the
Citipopinte church mold. You practice a form of Christianity, Leigh,
that is a mystery to me - one that places the need or desire on the
part of your church to save souls for Jesus Christ above meeting the
needs not just of Rosa and Chita but of the entire family. Why on
earth the government of Cambodia allows NGOs such as Citipointe’s
‘She’ refuge to replicate the insitutionalization of children along
lines practiced by the Khmer Rouge is a mystery to me!

I will now seek legal advice as to how best to proceed in this matter
- both in Cambodia and Australia. One thing is clear from the evidence
available to me - when Citipointe church took control of Rosa and
Chita against the wishes of their mother four years ago and refused to
return the girls when asked, repeatedly, by Chanti that it do so, the
church was in breach of Cambodia’s 2008 Law on Suppression of Human
Trafficking and Sexual Exploitation.

You and Citipointe’s lawyers might like to acquaint yourselves with Article 8:

Definition of Unlawful Removal

The act of unlawful removal in this law shall mean to:
1) remove a person from his/her current place of residence to a place
under the actor’s or a third person’s control by means of force,
threat, deception, abuse of power, or enticement, or
2) without legal authority or any other legal justification to do so,
take a minor or a person under general custody or curatorship or legal
custody away from the legal custody of the parents, care taker or
guardian.

You should be ashamed of yourself, Leigh. Everyone associated with
Citipointe (especially those making donations to the ‘She’ refuge)
should be ashamed that the church could be involved in activities that
are not only against the law in Cambodia and a breach of the human
rights of Chanti and her daughters but which are also contrary to all
that Citipointe profess on its website and contrary to the basic
principles of Christianity.

best wishes

letter to Ministry of Social Affairs 29th Oct 2012

Ministry of Social Affairs
# 788 Monivong Blvd
Sangkat
Boeng Trbek
Khan Chomkamon
Phnom Penh                                                                                              29th Oct 2012

To Minister of Social Affairs

                                                re Yem Chanthy’s daughters Rosa and Srey Mal

Following on from my previous letters.

I have returned to Phnom Penh to buy a tuk tuk for Yem Chanthy and her husband Chhork in order to give them an opportunity to become self-sufficient. Last week I acquired the first half of the tuk tuk - a motor bike. This week I will buy the passenger cabin that is towed by the motor bike.

Yem Chanthy’s daughters, Rosa and Chita (Srey Mal), were to have visited their family home yesterday, Sunday 28th Oct. At the last minute, with no explanation why, Citipointe church cancelled the visit, causing yet more distress for Chanthy. This occurs often - arrangements made and then changed at the whim of the church with no regard for any plans Yem Chanthy may have made involving her daughters. And it is distressing for Rosa and Chita also - to be expecting a visit with their family and then to have it cancelled at the last moment.

For four years now Citipointe church has been making promises to Yem Chanthy that it does not keep. For four years now Citipointe church has insisted that its goal has been the re-integration of Rosa and Chita into the family, yet it has never made any move to do so by formulating a re-integration programme. How long must Yem Chanthy endure this treatment from Citipioite church? As you will be aware, Citipointe church has, this past four years, done nothing to help Yem Chanthy and her husband become self-sufficient. It has provided no food when the family had none or any assistance when a member of the family was in need of medical care - as was the case with Chanthy a few months ago. Is this because it suits the church’s purposes for Yem Chanthy and her family to remain in poverty? Is it because, for as long as the family is poor, Citipointe can present the poverty of the family as a reason to maintain custody of Rosa and Srey Mal? For the amount of money it costs to keep Rosa and Srey Mal in Citipointe church’s ‘She’ refuge it could, at any point in the past four years, have provided an interest-free loan to the family to buy a tuk tuk, provided all of the family (and not just two members of it) with access to medical and dental care, bought school uniforms and generally helped the family get on its feet.

Four years ago Yem Chanthy accepted Citipointe church’s offer to help take care of her two eldest daughters whilst she was in the midst of a financial crisis and found it difficult to feed, clothe and educate them. The agreement, at the time (all well documented), was that Chanti would have regular access to her daughters and that they would be returned to her care when she was in a financial position to care for them adequately. Almost immediately upon making this agreement with Citipointe (one that I was involved in) the church severely restricted Yem Chanthy’s access to her daughters. And, when Chanthy and her husband Chhork had a home and an income and requested that Rosa and Srey Mal be returned to the family, Citipointe church refused. At the time Citipointe had no legal right to retain custody of Rosa and Srey Mal - the so called ‘contract’ it had got Chanthy to place her thumb print on being without legal status. Not only did the ‘contract’ not contain any of the terms or conditions that Citipointe had told Chanthy it contained, it was also unsigned by any member of the church and thus worthless in accordance with Cambodian law. At this time, indeed for 15 months, Citipointe had no legal right to be holding Rosa and Chita against the wishes of their mother and ignoring her many repeated requests that her daughters be returned to her. In accordance with Cambodian law, Citipointe church was, at the time, guilty of ‘people trafficking’.

Citipointe clearly has no intention of returning Yem Chanthy’s daughters to her. This is a breach of the human rights of the daughters (who wish to live with their family) and of the mother, who wishes to bring her own children up and not have them indoctrinated in the Christian faith in an institution that has been set up, according to Citipointe, to take care of young girls who have been rescued from the sex trade. Rosa and Srey Mal were never in any way involved with the sex trade. They were simply the daughters of a poor mother who had no reason to doubt the integrity of the Christians who arrived in her life and offered to help her. (I wonder how many, if any, of the girls in Citipointe church’s ‘She’ refuge have actually been rescued from the sex trade and how many of them, like Rosa and Chita, are merely the daughters of poor families who, unable to read or write, like Chanthy, have applied their thumb prints to worthless ‘contracts’ and lost custody of their daughters?

As I have made clear, I am prepared to guarantee that Rosa and Chita (along with Yem Chanthy’s other children) will be well fed, clothed, educated and have access to medical and dental care. If Citipointe church is genuine in its desire, as outlined on its website, to help families such as Yem Chanthy’s, it will make a contribution to their care whilst living with  their parents and siblings. I am, as I have said many times, prepared to work with Citipointe church to help Chanthy’s family become self-sufficient.

Citipointe church has told Yem Chanthy that Rosa and Chita will come to visit the family on Friday afternoon. I trust that this is not another promise made by the church that it will break at the last minute.

I ask the Minister to please give this matter urgent attention as Yem Chanthy’s requests that her daughters be returned to her, made many times this past four years, have been (and continue to be) ignored by Citipointe church.

best wishes

James Ricketson

Time to release these 'stolen' children to the care of their family

Leigh Ramsay

Citipointe church

322 Wecker Rd

Carindale QLD 4152                                                                                         27th Oct 2012

Dear Leigh

I have just returned from Chanti's home. She told me that a representative from Citipointe church arrived at her home this morning to tell her that Rosa and Chita (Srey Mal) will not be coming to visit the family tomorrow, as Chanti had been promised by the church. Why does Citipointe continue to make promises to Chanti that it fails to fulfil? Chanti tells me that she thinks that Rosa and Srey Mal will now visit the family next weekend but she is not sure. She is never sure.

Could you please let me now why Citipointe decided to cancel Rosa and Chit's visit Sunday 28th Oct? Could you also please let me (and hence Chanti) know whether Rosa and Chit will be visiting their family next weekend? If so, on what day and for how long?Chanti's never knowing, never being sure, just when and for how long she will see her daughters causes her great distress, as you know all too well. And yet, even after four years, you act as though Rosa and Srey Mal were daughters of Citipointe and that the church is doing Chanti a huge favour allowing them to visit her from time to time!

Up until about six weeks ago I was able to communicate with Chanti through a friend who speaks good English and who uses the internet regularly. This line of communication has not been available to me recently, however, and I was unaware that Chanti and Chhork no longer had access to the tuk tuk they were renting and hence to the income earned from Chhork's driving of it. I did not know that the family had run out of rice a few weeks ago. If I had, I would have rectified the problem immediately. I now have a new contact who speaks good English, who lives just a few doors down from Chanti and who has internet so communicating will not be a problem from here on in.

What happened when Chanti and Chhork ran out of rice is worthy of mention. Firstly, as far as Chanti tells it, Citipointe gave her no assistance at all, as has been the case this past four years. This is backed up by Chanti's neighbours - who stepped in to provide food for the family. They insist that they have never seen Citipointe providing any assistance to Chanti at all - despite the promises you made to Chanti (and to me personally) four years ago. Not only has Citipointe not kept any of the promises it made to Chanti (and which it advertises on its website) but it has engaged in what I consider to be human rights abuses of both Chanti and her daughters.

I do not, for the life of me, understand how Citipointe can feed, clothe and educate two members of a family and allow the rest of the family to go without food! It is a very odd form of Christianity you practice.

There will no longer be a problem with food as I will guarantee, regardless of the income that Chhork earns with his new tuk tuk, that the family is well fed. I will also see to it that whatever money is required to continue on with Rosa and Chita's education will be available to the family. I would like to think that Citipointe would continue to help Rosa and Chit when they are living with their family again but I suspect that Citipointe's help of these two young girls is contingent on Citipointe having complete control of their lives and indoctrinating them into Citipointe's form of Christianity. I would be delighted to be proven wrong in this.

I would also be delighted to be proven wrong in my presumption, based on experience, that you will not respond in any way to this letter. 

The opportunity for Citipointe to implement a program to reintegrate Rosa and Srey Mal back into their family has passed. The church has never been serious about re-integration and now that I am in a position to take care of the entire family has no excuse not to return Rosa and Chita to their  parent's care immediately.

best wishes

James Ricketson

letter # 14 to Leigh Ramsay 26th Oct 2012

Leigh Ramsay

Citipointe church

322 Wecker Rd

Carindale QLD 4152                                                                                         26th Oct 2012

Dear Leigh

As you know, Chanti and her husband Chhork have yet again made a formal request that Rosa and Chita (Srey Mal) be returned to their family. I hope that you do not ignore this request as you have ignored all previous requests this past four years.

The translation of the following document may be a little imprecise but its meaning is clear: Chanti and Chhork want Rosa and Chita (Srey Mal) to leave the ‘She’ Refuge and return to live with their family. They have been requesting this for a long time and you have promised, many times, that Citipointe would return the girls to Chanti’s care ‘soon’. Your promises have proved to be empty and, as the months and years pass, it seems clear to me that the church has no intention of relinquishing control of Chanti’s daughters. 

This time the request is being made via the Commune Chief who has visited Chanti and Chhork’s home and determined that they are capable of taking care of Rosa and Chita.

We, Phnun Chhork, male, aged 28; and the wife, YEM CHANTI, aged 27, currently residing at Rented House...(address)

Respectfully submit to

Director of Phnom Penh Municipal Department of Social Affairs, Veteran and Youth Rehabilitation

Subject: Request for intervention in the case of two children in Citipointe Organization

1 PHUN ROSA Sex: Female Age 10

2 PHUN CHITA Sex: Female Age 8

WIth regard to the above subject, because presently we can afford to raise our children, we would like them to live together again with our family.

Therefore, the director of Phnom Penh Municipal Department of Social Affairs please intervene in taking the two children from the organization at your favourable decision.

I wish you good health and success

Guardians

Father         Mother

(Thumb Print) (Thumb Print)

Russei Keo, 24th Oct 2012

(signed and stamped) Moul Vireak

I have, today, bought Chanti’s family the first half of a tuk tuk - the motor cycle component. On Monday Chanti and Chhork will take possession of the other half - the cabin in which passengers sit. I will be making a down-payment on this but it will be up to Chanti and Chhork pay off the remainder over for the next 10 months. If Citipointe would like to make a financial contribution to the acquisition of the tuk tuk, a vital step towards making the family self-sufficient (one of Citipointe’s professed goals), it would be much appreciated by Chanti and myself. The same applies for when Rosa and Chita are returned to the care of Chanti and Chhork, as I trust they will be shortly. Even with the tuk tuk and what Chanti can earn selling books, survival for the family will be a constant struggle - as it is for all poor Cambodians. I will be helping out to the best of my financial ability. I trust that Citipointe will also continue to provide some support for Rosa and Chita whilst living in their family home so that they may continue with their schooling and have regular access to medical and dental care.

best wishes

James Ricketson